Dan Boyle
Question:60 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Defence if the Armed Forces will be participating in the EU’s new battle groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28810/04]
Other Questions.
Overseas Missions.
Ciarán Cuffe
Question:97 Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for Defence if he will report on the Defence Forces September 2004 submission in favour of participation in the EU’s new battle groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28811/04]
Pat Breen
Question:105 Mr. P. Breen asked the Minister for Defence if Ireland will participate in EU-led groups that can intervene in a rapid manner to prevent the loss of life; the circumstances under which such participation might take place; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28764/04]
Thomas P. Broughan
Question:109 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Defence the position with regard to Irish participation in proposed EU battle groups under a United Nations mandate; if Irish participation in the battle groups will be subject to the triple lock procedure; if he has plans to bring a proposal to the Cabinet on this issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28821/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 60, 97, 105 and 109 together.
At a European Council meeting in Helsinki in 1999, member states set as a headline goal that, co-operating voluntarily, they would be able to deploy rapidly and sustain forces capable of the full range of Petersberg Tasks, as set out in the Amsterdam treaty, by 2003. Such tasks include being able to provide rapid response elements, which are available and deployable at very high readiness. The EU's ambition of being able to respond rapidly to emerging crises has been and continues to be a key objective of the development of the European Security and Defence Policy. The value of this effort was illustrated last year when the EU engaged in its first autonomous military operation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The operation, which was undertaken rapidly at the request of the UN Secretary General, successfully contributed to the stabilisation of the security environment and the improvement of humanitarian conditions in that region.
As Deputies are aware, the UN Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan, recently visited Dublin. He outlined clearly his belief that regional organisations such as the EU can contribute to the UN's crisis management requirements. At a meeting of the Forum on Europe on 14 October last, Mr. Annan specifically welcomed the development of EU capabilities in the context of European Security and Defence Policy. He stressed the importance of strengthened EU capacities, particularly rapid deployment capabilities, to the UN. He paid tribute to Ireland's contribution to the UN over the years at a meeting in McKee Barracks on 15 October. He highlighted the key role played by Ireland during its Presidency of the European Union in promoting co-operation between the EU and the UN in respect of crisis management. He referred in particular to the possible use of EU rapid response elements to support UN peacekeeping operations.
Given its long tradition of participation in UN peacekeeping operations, Ireland can make a positive contribution to EU rapid response elements. At yesterday's Cabinet meeting, the Government agreed that I should advise my EU counterparts in Brussels next Monday of Ireland's preparedness to enter into consultations with its partners with a view to participating in such elements. The ongoing detailed analysis of the implications of an Irish contribution to a rapid response element will continue over the coming months. The analysis will cover various policy considerations. I intend to submit proposals on the level of such participation to the Government after the necessary analysis has been completed. I emphasise that any Irish participation in rapid response elements will remain subject to the usual requirements — a Government decision, the approval of the Dáil and UN authorisation.
It seems clear from the Minister's response that the Government is committed to EU battle groups. He should come out and say it clearly. Does the Minister agree the Government has done more than any other previous Administration to undo and dismantle Irish neutrality? We see examples of that in Shannon Airport almost every day. The apparent decision to participate in battle groups is another step in that direction, as is the new EU constitution. What is Ireland's role in the new European arms agency? Will the battle groups be part of the structured co-operation which forms part of the new European constitution? That important question also needs to be answered. Does the Minister accept that a common defence, as defined in the new EU constitution, is on the way? It is no longer merely possible that we will be involved in a common defence, as the EU constitution states explicitly that we will be part of a common defence. Do these developments not demonstrate that the Government's commitment to neutrality is about as plausible as its commitment to socialism?
I do not really know what Deputy Gormley is committed to, on any front.
I am committed to Irish neutrality.
He is obviously committed to not listening.
I listened to the Minister.
If he listened carefully to my reply, he would have heard me make clear that I will talk to my European counterparts about the matter on Monday. When I have received answers to the various questions I want to ask——
The Minister is very predictable.
There is no group as autocratic in this country as liberals. They do not want to hear anybody else's point of view.
I am listening.
I ask the Deputy to keep listening. I will ask the various questions compiled by the Department, the responses to which we are still evaluating. When I have received the answers to the questions, I will discuss the matter at Cabinet level. I will not make the decision on Ireland's participation in the battle groups. I have views on the matter, but the decision will be taken by the Cabinet.
I reject Deputy Gormley's spurious contention that the Government is undermining neutrality. The Government's definition of neutrality, which has been upheld by the courts, involves non-participation in military alliances. That has been the policy of this country for the last 50 years and it continues to be its policy. Ireland is not involved in any military alliance and it will not be involved in such an alliance. It is not involved in any mutual defence pact and it will not be involved in such a pact. Ireland has not taken any action in respect of Iraq or anywhere else that was not taken by successive Irish Governments over the last 50 years. It is clear that is the reality.
I remind Deputy Gormley that those with certain beliefs are entitled to have them. I allow them to voice their opinions and I wish they would let me voice my opinion, rather than trying to shout me down. As far as I am concerned, such people are entitled to their opinions. I do not send people around in the middle of the night to damage such people's property. My property was damaged on a number of occasions by people who, according to the Garda in Limerick, are associated with Deputy Gormley's party.
Come on.
My property has been damaged simply because I happen to hold a different opinion.
That is outrageous.
We live in a democracy. God help us if the Green Party, with its present autocratic attitude, is ever in charge.
It is outrageous.
Deputy Gormley has asked for various——
It is outrageous.
It is a matter of fact. If Deputy Gormley does not believe me, I will send him the evidence of the Garda in Limerick.
Charge them.
Do something.
I will. Deputy Gormley and some of his colleagues in the mid-west who shout the loudest have been asking for a debate on neutrality. I have no difficulty with having such a debate at any time, in any place. I suggest the putative coalition partners in the next Government should have a debate among themselves first, so they can come to me with a common voice.
Fine Gael definitely has a very clear view on this. Following the difficulties the UN encountered in the Balkans during the mid 1990s and the analysis carried out for the Brahimi report published in 2000, the UN realised that its traditional concept regarding preparing personnel and getting them out into the field of operation for peacekeeping no longer worked. Essentially it is trying to subcontract peacekeeping missions to various groupings or regional forces such as the African Union or the EU. It would be more beneficial to our Defence Forces and peacekeeping across the globe if the UN had forces on which it could call at short notice who had trained together and were properly equipped.
I agree with Deputy Timmins on the reason for greater regional emphasis, for example, the EU coming on board regarding Bosnia and the African support group coming on board from local countries regarding the situation in Sudan. In the changed conditions of the modern world, the UN must rely on having forces organised regionally. Kofi Annan explained during his recent visit to Ireland how that came about.
However, he also explained that the United Nations have no ambition to be in charge of a standing army. He wants the traditional situation to continue, but certain things have to change. For example, the earliest way that the United Nations had to put people in the field was to request various countries to deploy troops. That operation, from the time that the request went out until the troops could be deployed, took about four months. We know that, given the conditions of modern warfare with all the new types of weaponry available, such as gas and chemical weapons, sometimes hundreds of thousands of people are dead by the time those troops go into the field.
That is why the need for a more rapid response has arisen and peacekeeping has become regionalised in certain situations. We have no difficulty getting involved in any peacekeeping or even peacemaking mission, let alone humanitarian crisis management, regardless of whether it is organised at an EU or UN level, provided that it is a mission established and approved unanimously by the Security Council of the United Nations. That continues to be and will remain our position.
On Question No. 60, I have another brief linked supplementary question.
On 24 October it was stated — and not refuted by the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea — that Kofi Annan had made a request to him. The Minister confirmed yesterday that when he met Mr. Annan during his recent visit to Ireland the Secretary General had asked him to consider Irish troops being sent to Iraq under a UN mandate. Was such a request, made by Mr. Annan, and what was the Minister for Defence's reply?
As I have already informed the House, Kofi Annan and I discussed the situation generally. He told me that at some time in the future the situation might stabilise to the extent that the UN might decide to send in a peacekeeping force. In that event, it might request our participation. That is what I told the House and the media when the story was published. How the media wish to interpret what I tell them is a matter for them. However, I am stating the factual position.
According to the latest edition of The Sunday Business Post, the Minister received a briefing document from his officials on key developments in Europe regarding European security and defence policy, including the European Defence Agency, the Helsinki headline goal and the new battle groups. The briefing document states that each development poses a set of policy, financial and operational challenges for Ireland.
Yet in answer to a question from me to both the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Smith, on 11 May and himself on 12 October 2004 regarding the financial implications, both Ministers for Defence stated that there would be no resulting increase in defence spending. However, both also confirmed that the Department had not undertaken a comparative cost analysis before making such commitments. How can the Ministers give an answer in the House that contradicts the internal briefing document from their own advisers?
I am aware of the briefing document to which the Deputy refers. I have discussed it with senior officials in my Department. I asked them squarely how the extra costs arose and to check out whether they will definitely be involved. That is a matter for them to consider in the context of our considerations as to whether to participate in what are wrongly termed "battle groups".
I forgot to reply to the Deputy's earlier question about the European Defence Agency. The purpose is to establish a single market for the purchase of armaments. Obviously, if people are going on peacekeeping missions, they will need certain armaments to protect themselves. Currently all the countries participating in peacekeeping compete to purchase arms from dealers. The primary purpose of the European Defence Agency is to establish a single purchaser that in theory and, one hopes, in reality, will make those armaments cheaper for the member states.
I like to refer to it as the "European Arms Agency". I was on the defence working group that discussed it. It states explicitly in the new draft constitution that each member state will progressively improve its military capabilities. Is the Minister for Defence suggesting to the House that it could cost less money? It will cost more, and he should be up-front with the House, telling us how much more it will cost and where he will get the money.
The Minister did not answer my other question on structured co-operation. Instead he engaged in cheap smear and innuendo. I suggest that if he has any evidence of criminal activity on the part of members of my party, he go to the Garda Síochána and have those people charged instead of attending the House to take cheap shots.
I have done that. I have told the Garda Síochána.
Now the Minister is interrupting me. Perhaps I might ask him about structured co-operation. "Battle groups" are the proper words. Are they not the first step in structured co-operation, and is that not the first step towards a common defence?
"No" is the answer to both questions.
How can the Minister say "No" when it is quite explicit in the document?
The Deputy will not accept someone else's opinion.
Please do not talk absolute nonsense. I cannot stand it.
"No" is the answer.
It is not the correct or truthful answer. It is about time we had some truth in this regard.
Whether the Deputy approves of it is a matter of supreme indifference to me.
The Minister sold out on Irish neutrality.
Whether the Deputy accepts that is a supreme irrelevance to me. "No" is the answer to both questions.
We will see whether the Irish people accept it, because the Minister is not telling the truth.
Let us move on to Question No. 61.
Do not encourage people to damage others' property.
Will the Minister withdraw that outrageous remark? A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, he said that I was encouraging people to damage people's property.
I did not say that the Deputy did so, but his party.
Yes, he said it. It is on the record. He said, "Do not encourage people to damage others' property." That is what he said. The Minister should withdraw that remark.
Order, please.
People associated, according to the gardaí——
Withdraw that remark.
According to gardaí in Limerick, people associated with the Deputy's party have damaged my property twice.
On a point of order, I ask the Minister to withdraw that remark.
If the remark was made in a personal way, it should be withdrawn.
I did not personalise it. I said "people associated with the Deputy's party".
Yes, he did.
I said "people associated with the Deputy's party". How is that personal?
No, he said, "Do not encourage people to damage others' property." He addressed the remark to me.
If the Deputy did not encourage them, I withdraw the remark. Does he condemn it?
Order, please. I call Question No. 61.
I would never encourage anyone to do that. Withdraw the remark.
Does the Deputy condemn it?
Withdraw the remark.
Does the Deputy condemn it?
Withdraw the remark.
I will do so when the Deputy condemns it.
Does the Minister withdraw the remark?
I call Question No. 61. Order, please. If the remark was meant in a personal way, it should be withdrawn.
Does the Leas-Cheann Comhairle intend to ask the Deputy to condemn such damage to property?
That is not the question.
The Deputy did not condemn damage to property.
Can we go on with Question No. 61 now?
The Deputy did not condemn damage to property. Who damaged the aeroplanes at Shannon Airport? Did the Deputy condemn that?
I call Question No. 61.
I insist that the remark should be withdrawn. The Minister cannot accuse me of encouraging criminal activity.
Did the Deputy condemn the criminal activity of his party member at Shannon Airport?
The Minister cannot accuse another Deputy of encouraging criminal activity. He should withdraw that remark.
Order, please. I call Question No. 61.
Did the Deputy condemn the criminal activity at Shannon Airport for which people have been convicted?
That has nothing to do with this. The Minister should withdraw the remark. I have never encouraged criminal activity of any description.
Order, please.
One condones it if one does not condemn it.
I am sorry, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, there are rules in the House for which there should be respect. The Minister has damaged the House by the remark he made and he has damaged me. He said I encouraged criminal activity but I have never encouraged such activity.
One condones it when one does not condemn it.
I ask the Minister to withdraw the remark.
I did not make the remark. I cannot withdraw what I have not said.
The Minister must withdraw the remark because he has damaged me in the House.
I cannot withdraw what I have not said.
The Minister would not say it outside the House.
I will say it outside the House.
The Minister would never say outside the House that I encouraged criminal activity.
I have no hesitation repeating what I have said outside the House.
Order, please. Deputy Gormley should resume his seat.
On a point of order, there are certain standards in the House. The Minister has crossed the threshold and he has gone way beyond the Pale on this. He must withdraw the remark, Sir.
I have asked the Minister, if the remark was personal, to withdraw it.
It was made towards me. He said I encouraged criminal activity.
I withdraw any suggestion that the Deputy is encouraging criminal activity.
Defence Forces Reserve.
Michael D. Higgins
Question:61 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Defence if he has plans to introduce a system whereby Army reservists would be used in overseas missions; his views on whether reservists may not have the same standard of training as full-time Army staff serving abroad; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28825/04]
On 26 July 2004 my predecessor, Deputy Michael Smith, launched the Reserve Defence Force review implementation plan which is the start of a process that will radically change the structure and configuration of the reserve while preserving its traditional strengths. These include the spirit of voluntary commitment, the maintaining of strong links with local communities and a nationwide spread.
The permanent Defence Force is organised in a three-brigade structure and a Defence Forces training centre. The Reserve Defence Force will be similarly reorganised and restructured and it is envisaged the implementation of this plan will take place over the next six years. The plan defines the organisational framework of the new Army Reserve and provides for a greater concentration of units within each Army brigade area. There will be mergers both at battalion and company level as well as between sister technical support units. This will be the key to providing enhanced training facilities and opportunities for each member of the reserve.
The military authorities have taken due cognisance of the existing FCA presence within communities in producing detailed proposals for restructuring of reserve units within each brigade area. Consultation and communication have been a priority throughout the development of the plan. They will continue to be important if the proposed changes are to be carried through smoothly and effectively. Reserve units will be kept informed of developments on a regular basis.
Members of the FCA are experiencing the benefits of the reorganisation process in terms of better clothing and improved equipment and more and better quality training. As the process develops additional benefits will accrue through a clearer role for the reserve, a better overall organisation structure and opportunities for suitably qualified personnel, who have received additional training, to serve overseas. There will also be benefits from the closer integration of the reserve with the Army.
As indicated in the White Paper on Defence, an important change recommended by the study of the reserve is that members of the FCA and Naval Service reserve should be considered for participation in overseas peace support missions subject to suitable qualifications, personal availability and appropriate advance training. Service by reservists on overseas peace support missions in other countries is common.
General criteria governing selection for overseas service come within the scope of representation and matters relating to overseas service by members of the reserve that come within the scope of representation will be raised with the representative associations at the appropriate forum. The question of the security of civilian employment for the members of the reserve who may wish to serve overseas will be considered as part of the ongoing implementation process.
Will reservists be called up to participate in missions, for example, in Iraq? Will they have sufficient training and experience to participate in such missions? Is the use of and reliance on reservists further evidence of the Government's cutbacks on Defence Forces strength to save money?
I was not aware the Labour Party favoured a larger Army but one lives and learns. Most countries who participate in peacekeeping give their reservists the opportunity to participate in overseas missions. The Reserve Defence Force implementation plan concerns the reorganisation of the reserve and this issue has been mooted at the request of the representative associations. No decision has been taken but the associations have mentioned they would be interested in such participation. A decision on whether to permit reservists to participate in peacekeeping will be discussed in more detail with the representative associations. No country, including Ireland, would send reservists abroad unless they were properly trained and equipped and the authorities were satisfied they would be as safe as the permanent defence forces. Appropriate measures would have to be introduced and a system put in to place to ensure security of employment while reservists were abroad.
The Minister referred to my concern about the security of employment at home for members of the reserve force who may serve abroad. I encourage him to introduce the necessary legislation for those employed by the State to protect their pensions. Several European countries supply reservists to UN peacekeeping missions and they are adequate and successful.
This issue is of critical importance. The reserve is a volunteer force and, even though the force is being reorganised and we propose to give the force a clearer role and more training, etc., it would be unreal to offer reservists the prospect of overseas missions at the cost of jeopardising their jobs and pension rights.
Are missions envisaged within the State in aid of the civil power rather than sending reservists overseas on missions? Has there been a request to take part in such missions similar to the use of escorts?
No such request has been made. The Permanent Defence Force has a three-brigade structure and it is proposed that the Reserve Defence Force will comprise 12,000 members, of whom approximately 2,600 will be integrated with the Permanent Defence Force as a back up in contingency scenarios. The remainder will be organised similar to the three-brigade structure of the Permanent Defence Force. The 2,600 members could be used as an aid to the civil power but no decision has been taken in that regard.
Hearing Impairment Claims.
Seán Ryan
Question:62 Mr. S. Ryan asked the Minister for Defence the number of claims for damages for deafness determined in court or settled out of court at the latest date for which figures are available; the amount paid out to date in damages or legal costs; the number of claims outstanding; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28835/04]
On 31 October 2004 a total of 16,726 claims had been received in my Department from current and former members of the Defence Forces in respect of loss of hearing allegedly caused during their military service of which 332 claims have been determined in court and 15,070 have been disposed of out of court, mainly through settlement, leaving a total of 1,324 claims outstanding at that date. A sum of €277.3 million has been paid in respect of hearing loss claims, including €93.3 million in legal costs for plaintiffs.
When will the Department deal with the outstanding claims? What procedures are in place to expedite them? What is the estimated final cost of claims?
The Deputy will appreciate from the figures I have outlined that few claims are outstanding. New claims were coming in at a rate of 11 per week in 2002. The rate reduced to four per week last year and it is running at one per week currently. We are satisfied the claims will be wrapped up reasonably soon.
The early settlement system under which most people settled expired in July 2002. Our best estimate of the total cost, taking into account payouts and plaintiff costs, comes to under €300 million. That current projection is a considerable improvement on some of the figures predicted in the early stages of the process, which were doomsday figures.
Military Investigations.
Ruairí Quinn
Question:63 Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for Defence the details of the investigation he has initiated into practices at a barracks (details supplied); the reason such an investigation has been initiated; when the investigation is likely to conclude; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28833/04]
Gay Mitchell
Question:64 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Defence if he will report on an ongoing investigation taking place at a barracks (details supplied) in Dublin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28771/04]
John Gormley
Question:114 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Defence if he will report on the investigation he has initiated into practices at a barracks (details supplied) in Dublin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28807/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 63, 64 and 114 together.
The Chief of Staff approached me two weeks ago and outlined that he proposed to have an investigation carried out into the operation of the Army equitation school in McKee Barracks, Dublin. As Deputies will appreciate, when a situation such as has recently transpired in Irish showjumping hits the news, and with the series of events which has subsequently occurred, rumour and innuendo abound. The Chief of Staff advised me that some unattributed rumours were circulating which suggested that certain unacceptable practices were taking place in the equitation school. While he advised that there were no grounds for believing that anything untoward was happening in the school, as a proactive measure he felt it prudent to move quickly to safeguard the school's good name and reputation.
The investigation is being carried out by the Military Police in conjunction with two independent veterinary surgeons from the UCD veterinary college. The investigation is being carried out both at the equitation school in McKee Barracks, where almost 40 horses are stabled, and at the equitation detachment at the Curragh Camp in County Kildare, where up to 12 non-competition horses are kept. The investigation includes an examination of animal husbandry and interviews with all relevant personnel, including grooms and riding officers. It has been welcomed by the commanding officer of the equitation school, who has stated that the school has nothing to hide.
I understand that the investigation has just been completed and that a report is being forwarded to the Chief of Staff. I hope to have that report shortly. Pending receipt of that report, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on the matter at this time.
The Minister has provided general details, but will he provide the exact details? I read a report, which stated that the Minister sanctioned the investigation. If he did, what progress has been made on it? The investigation appears to relate to animal welfare. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the case? Given the recent focus on the use of drugs in showjumping, will the Minister state whether drugs are an issue in the investigation?
The Chief of Staff approached me to inform me he wanted to launch the investigation because of unattributed rumours that were circulating. I told him to proceed and, therefore, I sanctioned the investigation. I understand that some of the rumours related to the allegation that illegal substances were being used to improve the performance of the horses. Therefore, the answer to the last part of the Deputy's question is "Yes". The rumours related to the illegal use of drugs.
We have launched a thorough investigation. The report will come to the Chief of Staff, who will then give it to me. I will publish the report when it is to hand, which I expect to be within days.
I welcome the decision to carry out the investigation. I am confident that nothing untoward will be found because the equitation school has established a fine reputation over many years. Does the Minister agree that it is regrettable that because of the society in which we exist, we must almost do as President Bush did a number of years ago — carry out an investigation into himself to show he was clean? Is this a country that is becoming awash with rumours, whether over this or any other incident?
I agree this country is well known for rumours of various sorts, some parts of the country being worse than others. In the wake of the O'Connor controversy and the question as to whether the gold medal was won legitimately, certain rumours began circulating about the Army equitation school. Some of the rumours were specific in detail, but I hope they will prove to be unfounded. Nevertheless, they circulated widely enough and in sufficient detail to encourage the Chief of Staff to take pre-emptive action to protect the reputation of the Army equitation school. I hope the action he has taken will do that.
Do some of the rumours relate to the practice of rapping, which is a practice used to make the horses jump higher? It was also alleged against Cian O'Connor. Does the Minister agree that this is an unacceptable horrific practice that should be condemned and that anybody found guilty of it should be punished?
Some of the rumours related to that practice. I agree it is unacceptable and represents the worst form of cruelty to animals. If any evidence of rapping is found, the guilty will be punished. I hope the investigation will vindicate the reputation of the Army equitation school, as it has been a thorough investigation. However, I do not yet know the result of the investigation. I do not know whether the report has reached the Chief of Staff's desk yet. When it comes to me, there will be no delay in publishing it.
Given that the Minister was aware these questions would arise today, how is it that he does not have up-to-date information on the investigation and when it is likely to be concluded?
The investigation is concluded and I said that in my reply. The report is on the way to the Chief of Staff and I imagine he will have it today or tomorrow. He will transmit it to me and I will publish it immediately.
Defence Forces Operations.
Paul Nicholas Gogarty
Question:65 Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Defence if he will report on the Defence Forces participation in the Partnership for Peace to date in 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28814/04]
Aengus Ó Snodaigh
Question:67 Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Defence the number of joint training exercises in which the Defence Forces have participated in each of the past ten years; the nature of the exercises in each case; and the other forces participating in each case. [28806/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 65 and 67 together.
Ireland's participation in Partnership for Peace to date is set out in our four individual partnership programmes, copies of which have been lodged in the Oireachtas Library. Ireland's fourth IPP, covering the period 2004 to 2005, was completed in consultation with the Departments of Foreign Affairs, Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Justice Equality and Law Reform, Health and Children, and Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. A total of 108 activities were chosen representing participation by the Department of Defence, the Defence Forces and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Activities consist of training courses, seminars, workshops, conferences, staff exercises and table top exercises.
Defence Forces personnel have participated in a number of staff, technical and crisis management exercises in the context of both the EU and PfP as set out in the following schedule. In accordance with stated policy, the Defence Forces do not participate in multinational military field exercises.
Ireland also participates in the PfP planning and review process, known as PARP. In common with the other EU neutral states, Ireland is using the PARP in connection with planning for humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping and crisis management, collectively known as the Petersberg Tasks. The scope of our involvement in PARP is focused on enhancing inter-operability and familiarity with operating procedures in a multinational environment.
Participation in Partnership for Peace activities is voluntary and is based on the principle of self-differentiation, that is, a state selects for itself the nature and scope of its participation.
|
Exercise Title |
Exercise Type |
Participating Nations |
Host Nation |
|
Viking (held in 2001 and 2003) |
Computer-based crisis response exercise |
PfP nations |
Sweden |
|
Combined Endeavour (held from 2001 annually to date) |
Radio communications exercise (required to test DF communications equipment for inter-operability purposes in PSO) |
PfP nations |
Germany |
|
Co-operative Lantern 2002 |
Peace support command post exercise for crisis response |
PfP nations |
Netherlands |
|
Co-operative Nugget 2002 |
This exercised PfP nations on their planning and process and staff procedures. |
PfP nations |
Sweden |
|
Co-operative Safeguard 2002 |
Maritime command post exercise based on response to a natural disaster |
PfP nations |
Iceland |
|
Allied Action (2003 and 2004) |
Exercise to deploy a peace support operation joint task force HQ. |
PfP nations |
Turkey |
|
CMX (2001) |
Crisis management exercise |
PfP nations |
In capitals |
|
CME (2004) |
Crisis management exercise |
EU member states |
|
|
CME/CMX (2003) |
Crisis management exercise |
EU & NATO |
In capitals |
|
CME (2002) |
Crisis management exercise |
EU member states |
In capitals |
Does the Minister agree that it is regrettable that Fianna Fáil did not honour its commitment to hold a referendum on the Partnership for Peace and our participation in it? Would he also agree that the Partnership for Peace is an important element of NATO strategy and is a stepping stone towards full participation in NATO?
Who are our permanent members and who participates in the Partnership for Peace on our behalf? Where are those members stationed? Are they based in Brussels? I visited NATO in Brussels some years ago and it was clear a number of Irish people were stationed there. Will the Minister elaborate on that?
Regarding NATO, we are talking about a partnership for peace not a partnership for war or for aggression.
That is Orwellian use of language.
Membership of the Partnership for Peace does not imply membership of NATO. There is no institutional link between the Partnership for Peace and NATO. That is a fact.
There is.
There is not.
Order, please. We must conclude.
I emphasise that there is no institutional link between the PfP and NATO. All European countries involved in the Partnership for Peace and in peacekeeping co-operate with NATO. It is the practical thing to do because they need access to NATO's transport infrastructure, aerial capacity infrastructure etc. That is the basis on which all neutral European countries deal with NATO, and not only EU countries but also Switzerland, whose neutrality was never in doubt.
Of course it is.
All EU member states are already co-operating with NATO in the context of participation in the stabilisation force in Bosnia, the Kosovo force and the PfP. The United Nations also has well established co-operation with NATO. The question of mutual defence commitments does not arise and there is no question of membership of the PfP being the slippery slope to membership of NATO. It is not. This is an old chestnut. All the unfounded rumours, fears and doubts that were expressed about this in the past have been found to be beside the point.
What about the referendum?
It is true that in its programme for Government, the previous Government committed itself to holding a referendum on this. It did not do so, although it met 99.9999% of its commitments in the programme for Government. We did not get around to doing one or two little things. However, the people adjudicated on that at the last election and we were returned.
The Minister said there is no link with NATO forces but is it true that the majority of countries participating in the Partnership for Peace are members of NATO? Although participation is voluntary, are all joint training exercises held under the auspices of the Partnership for Peace akin to membership of a military alliance?
It is not akin to any military alliance. It is a training ground for troops from countries who will be involved in peacekeeping, humanitarian tasks, crisis management etc. Sometimes it is necessary to go through certain exercises in training to see how something will work out in practice. Theory is fine but there is a practical element as well. It is not true to say that it implies membership of NATO or that this is the slippery slope to NATO.
I will send Deputy Ó Snodaigh a full list of the activities in which we will be engaged. I do not have any difficulty in making that available. The issue of whether most of those countries are members of NATO is beside the point. As I said, there is no institutional link between the EU and NATO and that is the reality.
In so far as Irish people being located in Brussels are concerned, I do not have any information on that but I will get it and communicate it to the Deputy.
It is a bit confusing for the Minister to be attacked by one side for giving away neutrality when Fine Gael recognises that Irish neutrality is a myth in many respects. As members of the EU, we believe it is worth defending. I urge the Minister to keep an open mind on the common European defence policy. Should we not be one of the architects of that policy rather than be on the outside?
It is incredible for the Minister to claim there is no institutional link between NATO and PfP.
I meant between the EU and NATO.
I am glad the Minister qualified that but, in fact, he is not quite correct on that score either.
I am.
It will make it very clear if he looks at the statement issued by the European Council dated 17 June 2004. It clearly states that the operational doctrines of the EU's military forces will be "in coherence with NATO". How does the Minister square that with his last statement? If he looks at the various treaties to which we have signed up, including the new treaty, we have to have interoperability with NATO. Does the Minister not accept that?
I square it by my understanding of the English language from the Oxford English Dictionary. That statement does not imply an institutional link between the EU and NATO. That is the reality of it.
The Minister should read the treaties.
The Deputy can interpret it whatever way he likes. I will interpret it my way. We still live in a democracy.
Written answers follow Adjournment Debate.