Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Nov 2009

Vol. 198 No. 5

Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Defence (Deputy Willie O’Dea)

I am pleased to bring this Bill before the Seanad and thank Members for agreeing to take it at short notice.

This is a short Bill which gives effect to the provisions of the national declaration on the Lisbon treaty relating to Ireland's participation in certain activities of the European Defence Agency, EDA. It also puts in place approval procedures for Ireland's participation in permanent structured co-operation. It introduces the requirement for prior approval of the Government and Dáil Éireann for participation by Ireland in certain projects run by the EDA and permanent structured co-operation. In accordance with the terms of the national declaration, it also provides that any participation must be for the purposes of enhancing capabilities for UN mandated missions for peacekeeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The Bill also introduces a triple lock mechanism in relation to any decisions regarding Ireland's participation in these initiatives. This is similar to the triple lock we have for the deployment of Defence Forces personnel on peacekeeping operations overseas. As is the case in regard to all defence issues within the European Union, any decision by Ireland to participate in the projects of the EDA or in permanent structured co-operation remains fully and completely within Ireland's control. Also, participation in either will not affect Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality.

The Bill provides that participation in EDA projects and in permanent structured co-operation can only take place where the Government is satisfied that such participation will enhance capabilities for UN mandated missions. Under the Bill, any decision by the Government must be endorsed by Dáil Éireann.

Before I outline the provisions of the Bill, as useful background information I would like to outline briefly the EU's role and that of the EDA in the development of capabilities and provide Members with an overview of permanent structured co-operation. The EU is developing a range of capabilities and capability standards to support the EU in deploying military capabilities in support of the Petersberg Tasks. As Members are aware, the Petersberg Tasks are an integral part of the EU's European security and defence policy, ESDP. They cover humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks, and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking.

The European Defence Agency was established under a joint action of the Council of Ministers on 12 July 2004, during the Irish Presidency "to support the Member States and the Council in their effort to improve European defence capabilities in the field of crisis management and to sustain the European Security and Defence Policy as it stands now and develops in the future". The EDA affords EU member states the opportunity to keep track of best practice in modern technology in the development of capabilities. This process is designed to address and overcome shortfalls in capabilities. Such shortfalls could impede the efforts of EU member states to achieve the capacity to undertake appropriate crisis management missions.

Ireland has participated in the framework of the agency since its establishment. It is important to note that participation in the framework of the EDA imposes no specific obligations whatever on or, indeed, commitments by Ireland other than a contribution to the budget. This is used to fund the agency's day-to-day operating expenses. Participation in the EDA means that Ireland has access to research and information on developing and maintaining professional capabilities and research that we cannot self-generate.

Ireland's objectives in participating in the agency is to achieve economies of scale in defence procurement and to keep abreast of best practice and new developments in the defence environment, especially as it impacts on multinational crisis management operations. It is vital to the protection of our troops when they are deployed on UN mandated peacekeeping operations that the Defence Forces have access to the latest developments in these fields. My primary concern as Minister for Defence is that we can provide the best protection possible for our troops.

Since 2007, Ireland has participated in the joint investment programme on force protection run by the EDA. This project is an important enabler in the development of technologies to protect troops from threats such as snipers, booby traps and improvised explosive devices. Body armour, sensors and systems to counter explosive devices are key elements of the programme.

As part of the EDA's annual work programme we are also involved in ongoing work on defence against chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear explosives threats; improved communications systems for use on the ground in operations; health and medical support for EU military operations; and the development of improved counter-improvised explosive devices. This is a capability that enables military forces operate safely in an environment where such devices are present.

In regard to permanent structured co-operation, this simply allows for a group of member states to come together under the EU umbrella to make available to the Union higher-end capabilities for the more demanding EU operations. It is not clear at this stage how permanent structured co-operation might work as no such arrangements currently exist. However, it could be the case that a number of member states may come together to provide the Union with, for example, large aircraft or helicopter transport capabilities. Permanent structured co-operation could also facilitate the sharing or pooling of assets like helicopters. This would eliminate duplication and allow these capabilities to be made available more economically for ESDP operations.

For Ireland, the important thing is that any participation in permanent structured co-operation arrangements will be entirely voluntary and the legal guarantee puts this beyond any doubt. As I already stated, it is not clear how this operation will work in practice. However, this is an issue which will be discussed in greater detail at appropriate level in the EU where Ireland can ensure its values and principles are fully represented.

Member states recognise that they have an obligation to ensure their troops have the necessary capabilities when serving on ESDP crisis management operations. As such, member states' participation in permanent structured co-operation arrangements and EDA projects is a mechanism to ensure these capabilities are available. Member states working together within the EU can do this more effectively.

The Bill recognises that Ireland already participates in the framework of the agency and notes the purposes for which it was established. Ireland's participation in the framework of the agency is not subject to the provisions of the Bill. The main provisions are contained in sections 2 and 3. Section 2 deals with Ireland's participation in projects or programmes established under articles 20 and 21 of the joint action establishing the agency. Section 3 deals with Ireland's participation in permanent structured co-operation.

Section 1 is a standard provision in regard to the terms mentioned in the Bill. It sets out definitions for the Council joint action establishing the European Defence Agency, the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty of Lisbon, and United Nations mandated mission which, as outlined in the guarantees, is authorised by the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Section 2(1) provides that participation by Ireland in projects and programmes established under articles 20 and 21 of the joint action will be subject to prior Government and Dáil Éireann approval. Article 20 of the joint action allows for the establishment of a project or programme which shall presume general participation by the participating member states unless a member state specifically opts out of so doing. Article 21 of the joint action allows for the participation of a group of interested member states to come together to establish, finance and develop specific projects of mutual interest which are within the remit of the agency.

Section 2(2) requires that the Government should only approve participation if it is satisfied that such participation will contribute to enhancing capabilities for UN mandated missions for peacekeeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The text of the provision is drawn directly from the national declaration by Ireland annexed to the Lisbon guarantees.

Section 3(1) provides that any decision enabling Ireland to participate in permanent structured co-operation shall require the prior approval of the Government and the approval of Dáil Éireann. The national declaration by Ireland on permanent structured co-operation does not contain a similar UN qualification to that pertaining to the EDA. It seemed to me that the arrangements in regard to permanent structured co-operation should be consistent with the arrangements for participation in EDA projects. I have, therefore, included the qualification that participation in permanent structured co-operation will contribute to enhancing capabilities for UN mandated missions for peacekeeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security. This qualification is set out in section 3(2). Section 4 sets out the Short Title.

European security and defence policy is an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. This encompasses the EU's international obligations in regard to the maintenance of international peace and security. Military capabilities are but one element among a wide range of instruments which the EU can deploy in this regard which include economic, political, administrative, rule of law, etc. Ireland's participation in UN mandated peacekeeping operations is undertaken within the framework of the EU's European security and defence policy. This is a continuation of our long and honourable tradition of support for multilateral arrangements in the maintenance of international peace and security. While military capabilities are but one element among a wide range of instruments which the EU can deploy in its international obligations in regard to the maintenance of international peace and security, it is a very important element.

As Minister for Defence, I am committed to ensuring we can contribute effectively to UN mandated operations. I am also committed to ensuring the Defence Forces have the best protection and the best equipment possible for participation in UN mandated operations. In this regard, where an EDA project or a permanent structured co-operation arrangement has the potential to assist in the enhancement of capabilities for UN mandated operations, then I will consider the merit of such a project or arrangement in terms of Ireland's participation. I commend the Bill to the Seanad.

Senator Paddy Burke

I welcome the Minister for Defence. Before I speak on the Bill, I wish to be associated with the congratulations to a former Member of the Dáil, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, on her appointment as European Commissioner. I wish her the best of luck. I have no doubt that with her experience as a politician, a former Minster and a member of the European Court of Auditors, she will have no problem carrying out a great job for this country.

I wish to be associated with the expressions of sympathy to the families of the four young girls killed in a tragic road accident on the Mayo-Galway border yesterday. I to express my deepest sympathy to their families.

I welcome this short Bill which Fine Gael supports. There are two main parts to it, one covering procurement and research and design and the other State participation in programmes of permanent structural co-operation. I note from speeches the Minister has made that the triple lock mechanism provided for in the Bill is consistent with the policy position of the Government on the deployment of Defence Forces personnel on peacekeeping operations overseas. There is no change in that respect. The other two basic issues are covered in the Bill.

Members of the Defence Forces who have participated in peacekeeping missions overseas have done magnificent work for many years, the latest mission being to Chad where conditions have been very difficult. We have paid a hefty price through the loss of life and injuries sustained by personnel in our peacekeeping forces. It is only correct, therefore, that the best equipment be made available and that our Defence Forces receive the best possible training and advice. We all agree with this. I thoroughly agree that they should receive training and have such equipment at their disposal, however that will be done. It is not clear from the Minister's speech how it will pan out. He referred in this regard to procurement. How will the most up-to-date technology and equipment be made available on the ground? Will Irish forces be sent to other countries? Will a European centre of excellence be provided? Will some countries have expertise in one area, while others will have it in others? Will forces be sent from one country to another, or will a centre of excellence be provided? I note the Minister has said the full details are probably not yet known.

On procurement, will there be group purchasing of equipment? Will Ireland be able to purchase equipment such as helicopters, guns or whatever surveillance equipment will be required at the same price as the larger member states of the European Union whose forces are participating in peacekeeping missions? It is important that we have the same purchasing power as the larger member states. As the Minister said, at this time, when there are great demands on very scarce resources, it is important that we are able to purchase the best technology in the world at the same price as the larger forces in Europe.

The Bill provides legislative autonomy for the State to engage in procurement and research and design programmes under the auspices of the EDA. This will allow the State to join in programmes designed to achieve economies for the Defence Forces and share in research and design among participating members. I presume this relates to the research and design aspect. I also presume a centre of excellence will be provided, otherwise I do not know how matters will pan out, other than that personnel will be sent from one country to another. I question if that would be the best practice. However, it is only right that the best technology will be made available to the Defence Forces.

This is a short Bill. I note from the Minister's speeches in this House and the Dáil that the State's participation in each individual programme will depend on Government and Dáil approval. I have tabled three minor amendments to the effect that such participation should depend on the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas to ensure such a proposal would have to come before the Seanad as well as the Dáil. I hope that when we come to deal with Committee Stage, the Minister will accept these amendments.

There is very little more to the Bill. Fine Gael is in total agreement with its provisions and hopes the Minister can push it through as quickly as possible and that it will be implemented as quickly and as smoothly as possible for the benefit of the Defence Forces, especially those that will participate in overseas peacekeeping missions. The Minister might indicate if a centre of excellence for training will be provided within the European Union.

Senator Kieran Phelan

I welcome the Minister back to the House. He was here last week when we dealt with one of the most detailed and complex Bills ever to go through the House. Today's welcome appearance by him is very much in contrast, as he has introduced one of the shortest and most straightforward of Bills. I suggest it may be one of the least contentious Bills ever to have been brought before us, as Committee and Report Stages were passed in the Dáil without any amendments being tabled to it. It received broad acceptance and support across the Dáil and I hope we can demonstrate a similar consensus here.

The Bill makes it crystal clear that our participation in the European Defence Agency is voluntary and will be decided on a case by case basis. It also puts beyond doubt the fact that our focus in the agency will be on those areas relevant to the protection of our troops when deployed on peace support operations.

While the title "European Defence Agency" may sound a little sinister to some, its intent and purpose are not. Put simply, the agency provides a means of ensuring interoperability with our EU partners, especially those with whom we often serve on peacekeeping missions, as well as ensuring access to all new developments in peace support operations. I learned during my research on the Bill that "interoperability" was one of the major buzzwords in peacekeeping. In essence, it means the communications, protection and other equipment used by troops of different nations involved in peace support operations matches and works in tandem. In practice, it means ensuring our communications equipment can talk to and work with the communications equipment of other forces.

Ireland's participation in the European Defence Agency will also help the Defence Forces and the Department of Defence to achieve economies of scale when it comes to purchasing new defence equipment and to keep up to date with best practice and new developments in the defence environment, particularly as it impacts on crisis management operations. It is also worth reminding ourselves that the agency was established during Ireland's Presidency of the European Union in 2004. Its primary role is to help the member states to develop their defence capabilities in order that they can contribute to crisis management operations launched by the Union. It also has a role in improving the structure of the European defence industry to eliminate duplication and improve the effectiveness of existing research investment. It is hoped the initiatives of the agency will help to reduce the cost base in the industry and, thus, lower the cost to member states of acquiring and maintaining defence equipment. The Minister has often said the cost of purchasing defence or military protection equipment by the European Union is up to two and half times the costs incurred by the American Government.

Last year the Irish defence budget was just over €1 billion. While over 70% of this is accounted for by wages, allowances and pensions, it still leaves us with a capital, equipment and supplies budget in excess of €250 million a year. Therefore, it is particularly important in light of the current difficult economic environment that the Government should pursue any economies we can achieve without compromising the quality of the protective and support equipment we make available to those who serve on very dangerous missions. We have a duty of care to our men and women in uniform to ensure the equipment, support and training they receive is the best available and is at least the match of our European partners. I note that Ireland has participated in the past in the EDA's joint investment programme on force protection. The Minister has made it clear the Defence Forces' main interest in this programme was the development of technologies to protect troops from such dangers as snipers, booby traps and improvised explosive devices. The programme also included such important elements as body armour sensors and systems to encounter explosive devices. I understand Ireland, as part of the EDA's annual work programme, is involved in ongoing work on defence against chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear explosive threats, improved communications systems for use on the ground in operations, health and medical support for EU military operations and the development of improved counter-IED, improvised explosive devices, capability to enable military forces operate safely in an environment where such devices are present. As the legislation now puts beyond doubt, our participation in EDA programmes is in areas relevant to the protection of our troops when they are deployed on peace support operations. This is important work. It is essential the Defence Forces have access to the latest developments in these fields such that we can provide the best protection possible for our troops. This is and must continue to be our primary concern.

I am satisfied the Bill does absolutely nothing to diminish our traditional policy of military neutrality. As I stated at the beginning, this is a short Bill and adequately sets out the very specific conditions under which we may participate in projects undertaken by the European Defence Agency or in permanent structured co-operation.

Any proposed participation will be based on the triple lock of Government and Dáil approval, coupled with the qualification that such participation would contribute to the enhancement of capabilities for United Nations mandated missions engaged in peacekeeping, conflict prevention or the strengthening of international security in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. I believe this is a very sensible and measured approach and I am pleased to support the Bill and recommend its endorsement by the House.

Senator Feargal Quinn

I welcome the Minister. I thank him for the explanation because I was not aware of the reason for the Bill beforehand. Those of us in the Seanad believe ourselves somewhat snubbed because we are not required to declare war or for anything in that area.

The Bill confirms that Ireland can only participate in certain EDA programmes, projects or permanent structured co-operation subject to the prior approval of the Government and the Dáil, of which we were already aware. I refer to one or two matters which concern me in this regard because Senators Burke and Kieran Phelan have covered the areas referred to by the Minister in his contribution. At the end of September EU defence Ministers met in Sweden, which held the EU Presidency at the time, to consider ways to connect national civilian and military radar and satellite systems to better deal with incidents at sea. Such incidents cover a range of areas. The defence Ministers considered a data sharing model used by nations in the Baltic Sea, where some 500,000 ships transit every year. At the meeting it was stated that the greatest challenge would not be financial but legal. The legislation among the 27 European nations differs greatly on matters of maritime surveillance and the exchange of data.

We intend to make a large financial contribution to the European Defence Agency. Last year the contribution was €300,000. Ireland has participated in the EDA's joint investment programme on forced protection since 2007, to help boost Europe's efforts in defence research and technology. It has committed €700,000 to the budget. Should we insist on more help from Europe and from the EDA to patrol our coast? Mr. Javier Solana, the EU High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy, made clear the requirement that all countries in the EU should spend more money on the European Defence Agency.

The Naval Service has only eight vessels. However, it faces the task of policing more than 340,000 sq. km of coastal waters, a figure of which I was unaware before I researched the matter. That is four times the area of the island of Ireland, which is very interesting.

We have only two container scanners. Last week representatives of the Irish Cancer Society were in the Houses for a discussion on cigarette smuggling. I mentioned there was only one container scanner but I was informed by them that there were two because a new one had arrived recently. It surprises me that we know how many scanners there are because smugglers would be interested to know as well. I would like to believe there are many more such scanners. However, to the best of my knowledge there are only two container scanners for the entire country.

It is estimated that cigarette smuggling alone costs the Government between €500 million and €700 million in lost revenue. It is growing at an incredible rate. Recently in the House I raised the matters of cigarette smuggling and counterfeit cigarettes. I seek a view from the Minister on how Ireland can get help to protect our coast. Obviously, we do not have the resources to do it on our own. Can we engage with the EU in some way such that we can properly protect our coastline? I refer not only to cigarette smuggling but to several very high profile cases of drug smuggling. The high profile cases are such that we praise the Defence Forces and the Coast Guard when they help in this area, but it is a reminder that this may be only the tip of the iceberg.

I refer to the extension of EU operations in such countries as Somalia. At the two day summit of defence Ministers at the end of September to which I referred, it was stressed there should be more EU involvement in international operations. The defence Ministers referred to increased EU involvement with Operation Althea, the EU led operation in Bosnia-Herzegovina. There was widespread agreement that future military operations should focus on training the armed forces of countries. However, certain concerns were also raised at the same meeting. The EU is involved in fighting piracy off the coast of east Africa and there has been much publicity in recent times in this regard. The EU defence Ministers stated they wished to engage in state-building, a term I had not heard previously, and development work in mainland Somalia. The flexibility of the battle groups was also discussed. In recent days EU defence Ministers met in Brussels to discuss the various foreign and defence missions under way. They are expected to prolong Operation Atlanta, the naval operation in Somalian waters, and approve the principle of a training mission for security forces at the request of the transitional government in Mogadishu. This mission, which will include fewer that 200 European police officers and will take place in Uganda, could train up to 2,000 police and military operatives, interesting information that only came to light on the Internet yesterday. To many, it appears the EU is ramping up its involvement internationally. It seems very risky to enter a place such as mainland Somalia given the recent events in Iraq and Afghanistan. Given that the EU appears to be willing to incentivise a project in a country such as Somalia, what incentives will it offer Ireland for increased international involvement? Are there incentives for us? Is there an encouragement for us to do so? What is the Minister's opinion on the European Union's pledge to get involved in state-building, especially in mainland Somalia? Is the Minister in favour of such a move? I thank the Minister for his attention and for informing the House. It was interesting to learn so much about the matter and I was unaware of the involvement in other areas until now.

Senator Dan Boyle

The Bill, while small in scale, has a particular importance for re-affirming the Government's and country's attitude towards its involvement in foreign affairs, international and national defence. It was a key component in the recent debate in terms of the second referendum on the Lisbon treaty. It is important that the promises made on the introduction of the Bill and in today's debate match the expectations of many, although there are alternative views on where this country should position itself in these areas. The overwhelming view of the majority of the Irish people and the Government which is reinforced by the Bill is that Ireland does not want to be associated with or participate in the use of force to achieve political ends. The opposite is the case — this is a nation that uses its expertise in peacekeeping and conflict resolution. This has attained particular importance in recent years because of European Union treaties that have led to the fading away of the Western European Union and the development of the European Defence Agency. This creates potential conflicts for countries with a neutral status such Ireland. In a European Union of 27 member states, many of which are involved in a military alliance in the form of NATO, how this development might conflict with the foreign policy and defence needs of Ireland must be articulated and enshrined in legislation. We hold one advantage in that our neutral status is shared by a number of other EU member states, including Finland, Sweden, Austria and Malta. We need an ongoing detailed debate on the nature and quality of neutrality. It has often been argued that our definition and that of other member states differ wildly. For instance, a former Finnish Prime Minister went so far as to say he no longer considered Finland to be neutral but a non-aligned country. That debate takes place regularly in Finland.

The role of the European Defence Agency and Ireland's involvement or otherwise in it, with the necessary distance Ireland, as a participating country in the European Union, needs in engaging with the agency, must be addressed in legislation. I, therefore, welcome the publication and content of the Bill and recognise the role in coalition Government that has given rise to its genesis and, I hope, eventual implementation. While the European Defence Agency, in my opinion and that of the Green Party, complements what many European Union member states see as an important part of foreign and defence policies, it unnecessarily complicates such policies for Ireland which is involved in Partnership for Peace actions and with other member states in many UN peacekeeping missions. In recent times there was a successful EU mission to Chad.

Ireland has a history of being colonised. Our involvement with the international grouping of the European Union, some of whose member states have a certain history and approach to defence matters, has been governed by the fact that they have been colonising powers. The use of force to achieve political ends, even in the 20th century, is something we have seen too frequently in Europe. The danger in the European Defence Agency and the reason we need to keep our distance from and interact with it to the smallest degree possible is that for some defence equipment procurement and the development of a war economy, in which weapons can be produced and sold, are seen as a viable economic basis of the European Union. This must be questioned. We need to say the thinking behind the agency is not in keeping with our definition of what "defence" means as a neutral country. That said, there are useful and important roles in defence equipment procurement and the standardisation of the equipment that can be used for specific means, particularly in international peacekeeping operations. As we opt in and out of peacekeeping operations, particularly where there is an EU mandate, there is a need for effective interoperability. We must achieve this balance.

We have chosen neutrality and I hope the country chooses to maintain it. Therefore, we have a special need for legislation such as this, although there has been a reaction against this in the past. It has been said constitutional provisions, such as they are, and ongoing Government policy are sufficient barriers to prevent us from going too far down the road that we would be compromised, with many citizens uncomfortable about the direction we are taking.

The Bill is important. Its provisions will go a long way towards reaffirming our traditional policy of neutrality. This will give great confidence to the citizens to ensure that as we fulfil our international obligations in peacekeeping, we will not be drawn into a situation where we will become a belligerent in a global context in meeting the resource needs of this part of the world. On those grounds, I welcome the Bill and look forward to the continuing detailed debate on the wider issue of neutrality and how it can be made more firm in the public consciousness through whatever legal and constitutional means are necessary to meet the ongoing belief of the Irish people.

Senator Dominic Hannigan

I propose to share time with Senator Doherty.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Dominic Hannigan

I welcome the Minister and confirm that the Labour Party will support the Bill. I reiterate the statements made by my colleague in the other House, Deputy Brian O'Shea, who commended the Minister for the speedy way in which the Bill was published in September. It is impossible to discuss it without placing it in the context of Ireland's neutrality. One point that came across in the first Lisbon treaty referendum concerned the depth of feeling about a perceived threat to our neutrality which, rhetorically, is enshrined in the national mindset. However, it is clear that there are gaps in our shared understanding of what neutrality means. Many assume that Irish neutrality is protected in the Constitution but that is not the case. Such a misunderstanding means that policy changes such as those proposed and introduced in the Lisbon treaty can be misrepresented by groups and individuals to suit their own agendas. We saw this clearly in the first referendum and, to a lesser degree, in the second when various groups on the far left and far right introduced red herrings in respect of conscription and the formation of a European army to confuse and scare the electorate into voting against the treaty. Policy discussion in the public sphere is hampered by a soundbite oriented news media and a lack of trust in many of our institutions, elected officials and politicians. Neutrality is just one good example of a policy frequently misrepresented by those wishing to promote their own agendas.

On that basis, I welcome the opportunity to have a meaningful discussion on Irish neutrality and the implications for how we see the world and how it sees us. As part of that discussion, I would welcome an honest assertion by the Government and others that a policy of neutrality, as recognised in its purest form, is not and has not been exercised by the State. Rather, Ireland follows a nuanced, flexible and legally ambiguous form of non-alignment. This policy has served us well and I do not criticise it per se. Rather, the misappropriation of the term “neutrality” has unnecessarily created confusion, fear and mistrust.

It is generally agreed that Sweden constitutes the best example of a European country which is genuinely neutral. Its position is reflected in the self-defined position that the country is not allied with power blocs in peacetime in order to remain neutral in wartime. Sweden has not participated in any war since 1814. In addition, Sweden has maintained a relatively high average spend on defence. Along with Switzerland it takes its position on armed neutrality very seriously. While it is rarely discussed, it is very clear that Ireland exercises no such policy. From the benevolent neutrality of the Second World War to the legal passage of an immense army through Shannon Airport, it is clear that our approach to neutrality is bespoke and represents an Irish solution to an Irish problem.

Bryan O'Boyle of NUI Galway sets out a similar view when he states, "The flexibility of Irish neutrality has enabled successive governments to affirm or elongate the policy of neutrality in appropriate situations and, on other occasions, to contract or diminish and even ignore neutrality to comply with other policy considerations." The Shannon stopover debacle highlights the frustration of the people at our willingness to abandon the central tenets of a traditional neutrality. It also indicates the Government's willingness to utilise the flexibility of our approach for political and economic gain.

I recognise this flexible approach also has advantages and these lie in our role as peacemaker and peacekeeper throughout the world and the Labour Party fully supports Ireland's role in peacekeeping duties on the international stage. I refer to the sentiments expressed by the security correspondent of The Irish Times, Tom Clonan, late last year. He stated that participation in EU military structures has allowed Ireland to continue its tradition of UN service under an EU flag. Such participation has also provided Ireland with unique leadership opportunities, such as our lead role in the EU’s mission in Chad. In that vein, I welcome the development of permanent structured co-operation which addresses capacity building and synergies among other issues. It is important to note that Ireland retains a veto and the right not to participate in future missions. Additionally, formal UN, Government and Dáil and Seanad approval would be required for any such missions.

I agree with Senator Boyle that the European Defence Agency could be a relatively benign development in the context of Irish foreign policy. The development and pooling of defence capabilities in areas of key concern to EU peacekeeping missions is a positive development as is the capability to share procurement and promote specialist research and development.

Nothing in the Bill negatively affects Irish neutrality. However, I encourage a realistic debate on the practicalities of our nuanced and ambiguous position on neutrality. Arguing in defence of something that does not obtain is unlikely to become any easier in the years ahead.

Senator Pearse Doherty

Ní chuirim fáilte roimh an Bhille seo, a thagann amach as an reifreann is déanaí a bhí againn. Is é seo ceann de na fáthanna gur chuir mo phairtí in éadan chonradh Liospóin. Cheapamar go raibh an tír seo ag sleamhnú isteach in Eoraip níos míleata. Bhíomar in éadan an European Defence Agency nuair a bunaíodh é i 2004. The European Defence Agency is the armaments industry of the European Union. While in his speech the Minister outlined some of the benefits that come from this, such as ensuring our troops are supplied with the best equipment for peacekeeping missions under UN approval, the European Defence Agency also has a darker side. The Minister also stated that the only commitment we have to the EDA is a budgetary commitment but we should not participate in this. We should not be funding an armaments industry.

Other Members spoke about neutrality and the Minister also mentioned our traditional policy of neutrality. Will the Minister outline what is that traditional policy of neutrality? It was raised during his contribution today, referred to with regard to the Lisbon treaty and it will be lodged with the United Nations. Will somebody please define for me what is Ireland's traditional policy of neutrality? Neutrality is defined in international law and it is clear that if we did have a policy of neutrality, Ireland would have breached it time and again. One could not allow one's land or airspace to be used for the movement of foreign troops and what we see in Shannon would be a complete breach of this. As a previous speaker stated, we do not operate a policy of neutrality, we operate a traditional policy of neutrality. It is about time we defined Irish neutrality. I would like to see a referendum on neutrality. Even though the Government makes up the traditional policy of neutrality as time goes on and various events occur, I believe the heart of Ireland would like to see a real policy of neutrality such as that under which other countries operate. This is why I do not see the European Defence Agency playing a part in it.

Enhanced structured co-operation also allows us to slip further down the road of a militarised EU. While I acknowledge that we do not have to opt in to any such co-operation and it would be with the consent of the Dáil and the Government and not the Seanad, as was stated, it still allows for a number of member states to come together and organise under the name of the EU and carry out operations. They would be doing so in our name as well as in their own because they would do so with the support of the European Union and the European Defence Agency to which we would contribute financially. There are serious questions to be answered.

Europe is moving in the wrong direction. Ireland has a crucial role to play in conflict resolution throughout the world. The expansion of the Petersberg Tasks under the Lisbon treaty takes in far more than peacekeeping and intervention and includes joint disarmament projects, which is what President Bush called the invasion of Iraq. Quite alarmingly, in his contribution, the Minister acknowledged that it is not clear how enhanced structured co-operation will work. It is ambiguous and it cannot be said for certain how it will work and how various countries will come together to operate in an international military context, using the support of the European Defence Agency, which we will fund, and under the imprimatur of the European Union, to carry out actions in our name.

This is an area in which we have a unique history and we could provide a specific role in global conflict resolution. Ireland is a former colony, has had a peace process and has international goodwill; these could be used in the best way to deal with conflict resolution. Supporting the enhanced structural co-operation of the European Defence Agency, which will allow other powers to come together using resources to which Ireland will contribute, undermines this.

Unfortunately the Minister is hell-bent against it but I would like to see a proper internationally accepted definition of neutrality being put to the people so that they can decide. It is great that the Dáil and the Government — which amount to the same thing — will decide but let the people decide whether the country should be neutral and not just have the traditional policy, which is made up by the Minister of the day. If the Minister does one thing in answering my questions I ask that it is to outline exactly and legally what is the State's traditional policy of neutrality. It would clear up many issues for us.

Senator Geraldine Feeney

I welcome the Minister, Deputy O'Dea. As was pointed out by my colleague, Senator Kieran Phelan, the Minister was here last week to deal with NAMA. I will probably make the Minister blush but his involvement in such a complex issue as the NAMA Bill brings to mind his roles as an accountant and a lawyer.

I am delighted with the speedy way in which the Bill is being brought before the Houses. As other speakers stated, it follows from our commitment under the Lisbon treaty and puts on a legislative footing our involvement in the European Defence Agency. We all know the EDA was the subject of huge misrepresentation. I am sorry Senator Doherty did not stay because his party was one of the main instigators in putting out the misrepresentation and lies during the recent Lisbon treaty debate. Some groups even suggested that the EDA was the beginning of a European army. While canvassing, I met women who were frightened that their 16 year old sons would be conscripted into a European army. A lot of talking was required to convince them otherwise.

The European Defence Agency provides a framework for member states to co-operate on matching equipment and strategy. This co-operation on dangerous but necessary peace missions reflects the best traditions of the European Union. The agency plays an important role in reducing the cost to member states of acquiring and maintaining defensive equipment. Standardisation will allow significant economies of scale to be achieved in the purchasing of equipment. Given that more than €250 million of the Department of Defence's annual budget of €1 billion is spent on equipment and capital purchases, the savings made through standardisation are to be warmly welcomed, especially in the context of our current economic constraints.

I was nominated to the Seanad by the Irish Conference of Professional and Services Associations. The Minister will be aware of this because I have worn a path to his door in recent weeks to discuss issues on behalf of members of the conference.

The members of the Defence Forces have served their country with distinction in the most dangerous areas of the world. They have put themselves in harm's way to protect others with professionalism and dedication. As the Minister rightly recognised, they have forged a peacekeeping reputation that is second to none. They have actively contributed to rebuilding communities in Kosovo and East Timor. Last week, the Minister and I discussed certain issues which are affecting the Defence Forces at present and I have shared the outcome of this discussion with the Defence Forces members whom I represent.

Senator Joe O’Toole

That sounds like a secure nomination.

Senator Geraldine Feeney

Senator O'Toole will understand this, coming as he does from a trade union background.

Senator Joe O’Toole

Those people support next week's strike even though they are not allowed to go out themselves.

Senator Geraldine Feeney

Senator O'Toole will not find members of the Defence Forces out striking. However, the members of RACO and PDFORRA are still experiencing difficult times. I appreciate the conversation that the Minister had with me last week, particularly in regard to maintaining numbers in the Defence Forces.

I wish to describe briefly how I feel when I come into the Seanad to pass legislation such as the Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009. There is an air of comfort and security in passing such legislation because our Defences Forces are so finely tuned and professionally run. I thank the Minister for his contributions to our defence. In 2006, I observed from a stand on O'Connell Street as the men and women of the Defence Forces paraded in celebration of the 90th anniversary of the 1916 Rising. For the first time in my memory, I watched Irish troops marching down O'Connell Street. I was hugely proud of the way they presented themselves to the people.

I do not agree with Senator Doherty in regard to a referendum on neutrality. The nation feels safe because the Defence Forces acquit themselves well as peacekeepers and peace enforcers. I question the need for a referendum on neutrality at this point in our history. I am glad to say there is only one army in the State. The Defence Forces have an outstanding record.

As a nation, we feel grief and shock when something happens to members of the Defence Forces. Last month, two young Air Corps pilots died in a crash. One was a cadet from County Wexford and the other was an instructor from Dublin. The nation went into mourning at their deaths.

I am delighted to contribute to Second Stage of this Bill and l look forward to debating any amendments that may be proposed.

Senator Maurice Cummins

I welcome the Minister. The Defence Forces have undergone major changes in recent years and the manner of this reform has received favourable comments from the Minister and his predecessors. Numbers have fallen significantly and a spate of barracks closures has caused great inconvenience and hardship to families and communities. Some members now have to travel in excess of 80 miles owing to these closures but they have taken this inconvenience and added financial pressure on the chin.

Given that members of the Defence Forces have taken such strong medicine in recent years, surely they should be spared from any additional cuts. They cannot be expected to take any more pain, especially when many of them are on relatively low wages. The fact that hundreds of personnel qualify for family income supplement is evidence of the low wages they receive. The Minister should be fighting to protect their standards of living, which cannot be described as extravagant.

The Minister's threats against PDFORRA when he had a firm undertaking from it that it would not be part of the Frontline Alliance was reprehensible. He should be fighting its members' corner and praising them for their continued loyalty and bravery in defending this country and on peacekeeping missions abroad. These men and women deserve great praise and support and threatening their representative association is no way to treat them.

The Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009 envisages that Permanent Defence Force personnel will work abroad to develop enhanced capability with other co-operating states through permanent structured co-operation, PSC. Will the Minister explain how this co-operation will operate? Will he confirm that members of the Permanent Defence Force who joined before the enactment of the legislation will not be liable to be sent abroad on PSC work unless they volunteer to do so? This is a matter of concern to the membership of the Permanent Defence Force.

In general, I welcome the Bill. It will, for example, ensure members of the Defence Forces have access to modern equipment. We do not have anything to fear from the European Defence Agency which provides assurance that European soldiers participating in peace support operations will have modern, safe equipment. This is of paramount importance to our soldiers.

Participation in the European Defence Agency is entirely voluntary. Under the legislation, any proposed participation will be brought to the Dáil and, I hope, the Seanad for approval. I hope a Fine Gael Party amendment requiring Seanad approval for any proposal for Irish participation in other European Defence Agency programmes will be passed on Committee Stage. Participation in the European Defence Agency will deliver advantages for Ireland given that the pooling of military resources will result in economies of scale for all countries involved.

Ireland has made a valuable and significant contribution to peacekeeping throughout the world. It is important that everything possible is done to ensure the safety of our troops abroad who operate in dangerous and volatile circumstances. I pay tribute, in particular, to our forces in Chad who are doing an excellent job in difficult conditions. I commend the Minister on bringing the Bill before the House with such speed. The Fine Gael Party fully supports the concept of the legislation and hopes the Minister will accept our amendments, especially the proposal providing for a role for the Seanad.

Senator Diarmuid Wilson

I welcome the Minister and his officials to the House. I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in favour of this legislation which will greatly assist the Defence Forces in developing their capabilities to serve the cause of peace and justice in support of the United Nations. Ireland's record on UN peacekeeping gives us a great deal of which to be proud. More than 750 young Irish men and women are serving on United Nations mandated peace support missions in places as diverse as Chad and Bosnia Herzegovina. Ireland is taking leadership roles in these missions. For example, we provided the commander for the original EUFOR mission to Chad in the person of Lieutenant General Pat Nash and, until recently, held command of the task force central area in Kosovo. We have been able to take these crucial and important roles as a result of the considerable investment in training and equipment the Government has undertaken since the late 1990s.

In recent years, massive improvements have been made in the personal and protection equipment available to our troops, whether the provision of new armoured personnel carriers, personal protection equipment, communications equipment or weaponry. The recent missions undertaken by members of the Defence Forces have been characterised by their multinational nature. We increasingly serve and deploy on UN mandated peacekeeping and peace support missions in close co-operation with other small like-minded countries such as Sweden, Finland and Austria. This co-operation has highlighted the need to ensure different equipment and systems are able to work in tandem without incompatibility issues arising. Known by the Defence Forces as "interoperability", this issue was addressed by Senator Kieran Phelan.

As has been evident from the mission in Chad, Europe has much to contribute in the field of crisis management and peace support operations. Any assistance the European Defence Agency can give member states in this regard will be welcome. As all of us who canvassed for a "Yes" vote in the Lisbon treaty referenda will recall, many fears and concerns on defence and military matters were raised by some on the "No" side, particularly during the first referendum campaign. While these fears, especially those concerning conscription and the creation of a European army, were not founded on reality, they needed to be allayed. The guarantees negotiated by the Taoiseach and Minister for Foreign Affairs went a long way towards addressing the concerns of many during the second referendum campaign.

The Bill before us provides further vital reassurance. It stems from the importance of recognising that military neutrality is important to Irish people who take pride in the fact that the Army is dedicated to peace making and peace building across the globe. While not every man and woman in the street will be able to identify the key components of the triple lock mechanism, the requirement to secure a United Nations mandate and Government and Dáil approval before Irish troops may be deployed, all of them know and understand that the triple lock is an important safeguard and a cornerstone of our policy of military neutrality. I commend the Minister and his advisers on providing a similar triple lock mechanism in the Bill for proposals to participate in European Defence Agency programmes. The approach the Minister has adopted is clear, simple and concise.

To be parochial, from my contacts with personnel serving in Dún Uí Néill Barracks in Cavan town, I have become aware of the importance and centrality of peacekeeping duties to the men and women of the Defence Forces. Almost 60 privates and non-commissioned officers from the barracks have served on peacekeeping duties over the past two years in places as diverse as Bosnia Herzegovina, Kosovo and Chad. Eight members of the Defence Forces from the barracks are serving with the 100th Infantry Battalion in Chad.

Dún Uí Néill Barracks and the men and women of the Defence Forces who serve in it are central to the social fabric of Cavan and its community and sporting life. This is evident from the significant community engagement made by personnel. Almost 200 local schoolchildren have visited the barracks on school trips so far this year. Personnel at the barracks also facilitated 24 students on transition year work experience programmes. As part of its summer training programme, the Youthreach training centre in Cavan had 20 early school leavers based at the barracks for a two-week training course. I will provide the Minister with details of this successful project after the debate. I commend the Army personnel in Dún Uí Néill Barracks, especially Lieutenant Damien Kelleher, Corporal John Wall and Corporal Darren McCarthy, on their enthusiastic approach to the project. A number of the young people who participated have expressed interest in joining the Defence Forces. In this connection, I ask the Minister to comment on the recruitment procedure for the Defence Forces.

Personnel from Dún Uí Néill Barracks are also to the fore in local fund-raising efforts, for example, in so-called rowathon events organised by troops. This year's rowathon in which 20 troops participated raised more than €7,000 for the Make-A-Wish Foundation. A previous event in 2006 raised almost €12,500 for GOAL's Pakistan relief appeal.

I express my appreciation and thanks to the commanding officer and personnel of Dún Uí Néill Barracks for all their hard work and dedication both at home and abroad. The people of Cavan are proud of them. I pay special tribute to Councillor Patricia Walsh, a tireless advocate on behalf of the personnel based at the barracks. I thank the Minister and his officials, particularly Derek Mooney and Suzanne Coogan, for the assistance they have afforded me since I was elected to the House. I ask the Minister to address the decision not to require consultation with the Seanad on the triple lock mechanism.

Senator Joe O’Toole

I wish to share two minutes of my time with Senator Norris.

An Cathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Joe O’Toole

We have learned from the last three speakers that no politics are international. I welcome the Minister who has outlined the objectives of the Bill. While I fully support what is included in it and have no difficulty with it, it raises wider issues. In that regard, I would like to pick up on some of the points raised by Senator Doherty. I have long wanted a debate on neutrality, something I have never seen. We need to challenge ourselves by asking questions. I have been on the side of neutrality all my life, although I have never been comfortable with it and have often felt conflicted. Every year I celebrated the actions and history of the 15th International Brigade which fought against Franco. I saw no conflict between attending such an event and supporting a policy of neutrality which forbade involvement with any other country. I wish to ask the Minister a serious and fundamental question. Nobody could disagree that it was pragmatic and sensible for us to be neutral during the Second World War. However, can anyone explain the morality of our decision to be neutral when Hitler was killing millions of people for all the wrong reasons, if there ever was a right one, in concentration camps and other places? Is it a policy to be proud of? Is it one to be sustained or which can be explained or defended? In more modern times when Pol Pot did the same, what questions did we ask? Where are the role models for democracy?

A fair question on Irish neutrality was asked by Senator Doherty which I ask the Minister not to attempt to answer today but to come back on another day. I do not know what "neutrality" means. As I walked into the Chamber a Senator made reference to Sweden and Switzerland. I do not know in what context that comment was made, but if I were to choose two countries which would not under any circumstances be role models for neutrality as I understand it, I would begin with Sweden and Switzerland. Sweden which has blithely and openly declared a policy of neutrality has seen nothing wrong with selling arms to both sides in every war in the last century. Switzerland which has an attitude of "I am alright, Jack" and has been at the centre of Europe for the past five centuries has seen nothing wrong with laundering the ill-gotten gains of every corrupt regime for the past 100 years. I know what "neutrality" is not, but I am not certain what it is. I am certain, however, that it is not the taking of a passive position. Rather, it is an active state.

I hear people speak of the Irish people being committed and attached to a policy of neutrality, the majority among which I find myself. Having said that, the people have a great sense of the need to right a perceived wrong, defend the defenceless and protect the persecuted. I remember some years ago when we watched the killings in the Balkans and saw what was happening in Srebrenica, Sarajevo, Kosovo and other places, people cried for the European Union to intervene and do something about it. I do not know what the answer is, but I do have ideas, to which I will come.

I do not profess to be a Christian or support any religion, but how can a practising Christian have a policy of neutrality? How can one be neutral in the face of a wrong or something which is completely unfair? Surely, there must be a demand to act in an honest fashion and if we see something wrong, there is a need to say it is wrong. Views such as those of the Christian good samaritan or the "I am alright, Jack" approach have to be considered in a debate on neutrality. An article of the Constitution which states we should take our lead from and work under the generally recognised principles of international law as our mode of conduct with other nations is very interesting and fits neatly with the Bill before us.

In the same way that a country needs to be policed, the world also needs to be policed. There is only one way that can be done and it cannot be done via the one-sided approach of NATO, the European Union or others. The obvious way it can be done is through the United Nations.

Senator David Norris

Hear, hear.

Senator Joe O’Toole

The United Nations, like Christianity, has never been allowed to work. It is not currently democratically controlled, but if it was and the Security Council did not call all the shots, it could operate as a world police force which could take decisions on when we needed to intervene. It is the most appropriate body and very close to the way we operate. We could demand a UN position and then operate the triple lock mechanism. The word "interoperability" was used. One could then have a situation where the two policies would fit snugly together. The Irish Army or any other would no longer need to exist. There could be a UN army with Irish members, which is what happens when the Irish Army serves abroad.

I would like to develop some of these ideas in greater detail but will conclude by saying we cannot stand idly by if something needs to be done. We should be prepared to play our role as a State in the world order in a controlled, democratic fashion. It is important to recognise that members of the Army at commissioned officer level and below support the action of front-line workers next Tuesday. I agree they should not be allowed to strike, but they should be able to articulate their views.

An Cathaoirleach

There is very little time left for Senator Norris.

Senator David Norris

If there are less than two minutes left, I will wait and come back later.

An Cathaoirleach

We will allow the Senator to speak for two minutes.

Senator David Norris

I express my gratitude to Senator O'Toole and take up his question. I claim to be a Christian. I know it is a large claim, of which I am unworthy, but I can answer the Senator's question. Christ reproved the disciple who had cut off the centurion's ear and made him return his sword to the sheath when he was in danger of inevitable death.

On the triple lock mechanism, many think both Houses of the Oireachtas are involved, but that is not the case. This House is disbarred from involvement in such a decision. It is ridiculous and infantile; we should be involved because this is where one will hear the dissenting voices.

I believe in neutrality which is a very difficult concept. I was able to support the Lisbon treaty because I had received assurances from the Minister for Foreign Affairs that we would not engage with the European Defence Agency, formerly the European Armaments Group, given its previous track record of trying to develop a Europe-wide armaments export industry. I will hold him to that agreement and will table amendments to seek a veto for Ireland to veto any such arrangement. This is a central issue. I do not trust the European Defence Agency and the European armaments groups, particularly in the light of the debate on an Adjournment matter a number of weeks ago when I raised the question of the acquisition by the Minister for Defence of surveillance equipment worth some €2.37 million from Elbit Systems Limited, a Haifa-based Israeli company which has produced equipment which has been used in illegal surveillance operations along the illegal wall in Gaza. I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the Norwegian finance Minister, Kristin Halvorsen, in referring to this company, stated Norway did not want to fund companies which so directly contributed to violations of international human rights law. Why is Ireland doing so? It is completely wrong. It worries me that the equipment concerned has been adapted for use in armoured vehicles built in South Africa because that brings us back to the apartheid regime when it collaborated with the Israeli military authorities in the development of weapons systems. We are still stuck in this system and I call on the Minister to revisit the issue. We know it is subject to an open tender process and supervised by the European Defence Agency, but that is another reason I am deeply suspicious. We need to look carefully and coldly at this issue and not get ourselves involved in disgraceful antics.

Why was Declan Ganley involved in the debate on the Lisbon treaty? It is perfectly obvious that he was against the Lisbon treaty because he was up to his ears in the American arms industry. Of course, he did not want us to enter into an exporting competition with the United States. That is what I am still gravely suspicious of. If my friend from Cavan can be parochial, I will be just as parochial by saying, like the Skibbereen Eagle, I will have my eye on the Minister and the European Defence Agency.

Senator Terry Leyden

I welcome the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, and commend him on his excellent work. He works in conjunction with the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces, General Dermot Earley, and has acquitted himself well in his current Ministry. In the context of the proposed amendment, it would be worthwhile considering whether we should use both Houses of the Oireachtas. If it were possible to do so, that would give us a role in the matter. Perhaps it is tradition that the Seanad is excluded from the approval——

Senator David Norris

It is required under the Constitution, I am afraid.

Senator Terry Leyden

We can change that some time. Like two of my colleagues, I was nominated by PDFORRA and RACO to run for the Seanad on the Labour Panel.

Senator Kieran Phelan

The Senator is safe.

Senator Terry Leyden

I hope I will enjoy their continued support when nominations are next made. I thank the Minister for his work in respect of both organisations.

Senator Paul Bradford

The Senator has covered all bases.

Senator Terry Leyden

The Bill before the House is another example of EU legislation interacting with domestic law. I welcome the Bill which gives Ireland an opportunity to influence the actions of the European Defence Agency. During the campaign in advance of the first referendum on the Lisbon treaty real concern was expressed about the perceived militarisation of the European Union. I will be interested to hear the comments of Senator Donohoe who was involved in the process of responding to the outcome of the first referendum on the treaty. I concur with the views expressed by Senator Feeney when she mentioned such fears.

I have had an opportunity to review the context within which the European Defence Agency sits, as part of the Lisbon treaty as a whole. I have also examined the Council joint action establishing the agency. I recommend that Senator Norris read the Official Journal of the European Union, specifically in so far as it relates to Council Joint Action 2004/551/CFSP of 12 July 2004 which established the agency. The document in question sets out the exact role of the agency. I would like to dispel the concerns of Senators about the oversight role of the agency. Participation in projects of the agency, as envisaged in Articles 20 and 21 of the Council joint action, is voluntary. Ireland can opt in or out as it sees fit. One of the agency's significant purposes is to ensure the European Union's humanitarian work is made easier. Another goal is to ensure soldiers involved in EU missions are better protected. The Lisbon treaty does not change these aims. It is clear that membership of the agency does not compromise the neutrality of Ireland or the other five neutral EU member states. Any suggestion to the contrary was clearly dispelled during the debate on the Lisbon treaty which was passed on 2 October last.

The Irish people and the Irish Army have had a long and successful relationship with the United Nations. I am glad that the Bill makes explicit reference to the United Nations. Articles 42 and 45 set out the role of the European Defence Agency, one of the objectives of which will be to assist and support member states in developing the necessary capacity to undertake peace support and crisis management missions, in the context of humanitarian and rescue missions and peacekeeping tasks, etc. Lieutenant General Pat Nash was the first head of the Chad mission. We should be very proud of the role of the Army which has acquitted itself extremely well in that troubled region. It is possible that there would be genocide in Chad if the Army was not participating in the mission. We have prevented future conflict. It is clearly evident that Ireland's role as a neutral nation is held in great respect throughout the world. I refer to our work in difficult circumstances, for example, in Kosovo. The participation of members of the Garda Síochána in missions in certain regions is also welcome. When I travelled to Bosnia-Herzegovina as an election monitor after the war, I learned more about the slaughter that had taken place in the region. As Senator O'Toole said, the rest of Europe stood idly by. I hope that will never happen again. The European Defence Agency will help to prevent such events.

There is concern about the worrying trend, whereby approximately 500 officers and other members have decided to leave the Defence Forces in the last nine months. The possible taxing of gratuity sums and forthcoming wage reductions have been floated as great concerns. I assure the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues that PDFORRA and RACO are deeply concerned about these matters. Taxation is acceptable to all our citizens. However, we do not know what level of taxation will be decided on. Wage reductions will have a knock-on effect on future pensions. I do not minimise the importance of raising €4 billion to deal with the country's difficulties; it is an enormous task.

The number of personnel in the Defence Forces has decreased from 10,500 to less than 10,000. It is difficult to sustain overseas missions and domestic work when numbers are declining. I appreciate that there is an embargo on public service recruitment. I am aware that the Minister has to make the case for every appointment within the Defence Forces, for example, at officer level and I will support him as he undertakes his difficult task. However, I ask him to bear in mind the worries and concerns of ordinary members of the Defence Forces as they contemplate their futures. They are not the best paid in the world, but they have big responsibilities — they put their lives on the line every day in defence of the civil authority. I am sure the Minister will do his utmost to defend them. I understand that during the last round of economic discussions, he opposed any reduction in the number of Defence Forces staff. He agreed to the amalgamation of Army barracks to prevent a cut in the numbers of officers and enlisted men and I am sure he will continue to take such action. All we can do is support him in every way possible. I commend him on bringing the Bill to the House so speedily and I am confident that it will be passed expeditiously.

Senator Nicky McFadden

As a native of a garrison town, I welcome the Minister. There were three Army barracks in counties Longford and Westmeath until, sadly, the barracks in Longford was closed earlier this year. Although I opposed that decision tooth and nail, I have to accept it and move on. I acknowledge that it is taking a great toll on staff to have to travel 20 miles from Longford to their new workplace every day.

As my grandfather was a sergeant major in Athlone until he retired in the late 1950s, I have a keen and sincere affinity with the Defence Forces. Some 200 members of the Defence Forces are based in the Army barracks in Mullingar, the only remaining artillery barracks in the country. Over 600 members of the Defence Forces are based in Athlone. The two institutions form the mainstay of the two towns and I cannot over-emphasise their importance to the local economies. I remind the Minister, in case he is thinking of organising FCA camps, training for overseas missions or other such events, that the military authorities in Mullingar are ready, willing and able to accommodate a further 200 troops.

The Irish Army which has served all over the world is regarded with great respect everywhere. Irish troops are serving in Chad and Kosovo. There are small deployments in Afghanistan, Western Sahara, Congo, the Ivory Coast, the military headquarters in Brussels, Vienna, Belgrade and Georgia. I have probably forgotten some places where they are serving. We are recognised as being reliable and respected across the world. I commend the resources put into the Defence Forces by the Department.

The Bill provides that all deployments should have Government and Dáil approval and must operate under a UN mandate. I welcome the triple lock mechanism that governs the participation of the Defence Forces in all deployments overseas. The Defence (Amendment) Bill 2006 provided the legislative authority for Irish troops to train abroad, take part in humanitarian operations and participate in Nordic Battlegroup missions. Senator O'Toole spoke about our Christian ethos. When I was researching for this debate, I looked at the Petersberg Tasks, which I believe come under a Christian ethos, including the idea of humanitarianism, rescue tasks, peacekeeping and crisis management. All these areas represent extending the hand of friendship and support to those less well off in the world who are struggling. I feel very comfortable in supporting the Bill from that point of view. It is logical and practical and allows the State to engage in procurement that will strengthen capacity thereby facilitating our Permanent Defence Force participating in a safe way in United Nations-mandated missions.

Capacity building and training can only benefit the Defence Forces. We need to consider the morale of our troops. They all want to work hard, be trained properly and have appropriate facilities. The supply of the best and safest equipment can only be welcomed. I ask the Minister to continue to invest so that our equipment is the best. Following from the White Paper in the past ten years the latest equipment has been provided, including APCs and LPAVs coming on stream. We have new helicopters and uniforms. We are all aware of the very hot and humid conditions our troops have needed to endure in Chad. They have had the proper uniforms etc. allowing them to participate in these missions. I urge the Minister to continue with this funding stream even in these difficult times and not to allow the Defence Forces' very high standards to diminish.

I spoke about morale. Other Senators spoke about how our soldiers are struggling in these very straitened and difficult times. From speaking to those who come to my clinics I am only too well aware that they depend on family income supplement to make ends meet. I ask the Minister to be aware of this because they are civil servants and are absolutely stymied by not being able to participate in a strike. It is incumbent on us to look out for and watch over these people. These soldiers are the mainstay of our towns. They are feeling the pinch like everybody else but have very little voice. I am also concerned about the brain drain with the fear of tax on retirement lump sums. I am aware of many people who are retiring. I ask the Minister to try to find ways to keep the crème de la crème within the Defence Forces.

I also acknowledge the major community involvement of the Defence Forces. Last week I attended a fund-raising concert in Mullingar organised by the Mullingar Army barracks for the hospice. Last year it was the stroke fund. An amazing amount of community events take place in Athlone also. I commend the Bill which is a mechanism to provide for the Army to co-operate in missions associated with the European Defence Agency and I entirely welcome it.

Senator Paul Bradford

I thank Senator Donohoe for apparently giving way, probably operating on the age principle. From his attendance at debates in the Seanad the Minister will notice that interesting little nuggets of information often emerge. I was interested to learn that my colleague, Senator McFadden, has sergeant major blood in her. An immediate word of warning will need to be issued to Deputy Bannon in case of there being a skirmish at the bridge of Athlone.

Fine Gael welcomes the legislation which provides clarification. If this legislation had been passed in advance of the Lisbon treaty referendum, many of the irrelevant debates and spurious arguments from the "No" campaigners would have been unnecessary. In a sense this legislation might be a tidying-up operation, but it allows us the opportunity to say a few words on our views of the Army, where it stands internationally and what its role should be. There have been some interesting observations on our neutrality. I listened with great interest to Senator O'Toole in outlining his difficulty, which I believe we would all share, in trying to classify neutrality. We can wrap the word around ourselves like a shroud from time to time. It becomes one of these Irish phrases that can mean what one wants it to mean. In today's complicated modern world where Ireland plays a major role in Europe and Europe plays a major role in the politics and economics of the world, we should have a debate in the future about what neutrality means particularly for the Defence Forces.

The Defence Forces, of which we can be very proud, play a major role in the peacekeeping forces of the United Nations worldwide. This legislation will allow them to continue to do so. We need to clarify the grey area between peacekeeping and peace enforcement. Senator McFadden spoke about Army equipment. At a time when the economy is in a significant state of distress we need to be careful that our Army personnel and particularly those going overseas are not only trained to the highest standards as they have always been, but also enjoy the finest standard of equipment. While I know the Minister has spoken about this matter previously, it is important to put the equipping of the Army to the fore of the debate. We need to ensure it has the highest standard of not just military equipment, but also safety equipment. In that regard it has been interesting to watch certain channels covering other armies in other wars. Some of the armies at present engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan appear to suffer from the disadvantage of having inadequate equipment and most importantly inadequate safety equipment. We need to try to ensure that the Irish Army when engaged on peacekeeping missions does not suffer in that regard.

Regarding the state of the economy, one of the traditions in this State was that in many towns, including Fermoy, Athlone and Longford, the Army was seen as a significant local employer and generator of economic activity. As a result of the refocusing of Defence Forces policy in recent years, their personnel numbers have been reduced. I hope the Minister would still have the capacity to expand in so far as is possible the prospect of people again having a career in the Army, with young people of 17 and 18 having the chance to enlist, perhaps not for a lifetime, but at least for a short period of their lives. It would allow them to develop new skills, a sense of discipline and a sense of community. The phrase "national service" tends to frighten people and is perhaps a concept that we have moved beyond. However, the Army and its structures can play a significant role in terms of community service. At a time when 400,000 to 500,000 are unemployed, there are tens of thousands of people who would like to play a proactive role in the life of their community. I am not suggesting we should have men and women marching up and down the streets of every town and village claiming to be community activists. Such activity is generally aligned to a particular political grouping. However, there is scope for the Army to engage in community work in towns and villages throughout the State. Will the Minister consider how the Army can play a role in that regard?

I welcome the Bill, which underpins the ability of the Defence Forces to continue to play a significant role in international peacekeeping. Our amendment No. 1 relates to the role of the Seanad in respect of the triple lock mechanism. The Minister has written recently about the role of this House.

Senator Kieran Phelan

Positively.

Senator Paul Bradford

I am not sure exactly where he was coming from but I ask him to put his money where his mouth is in respect of this amendment. He should take this opportunity to show how he and the Government value the Seanad by giving it a full role in respect of this legislation.

(Interruptions).

Senator Paul Bradford

We are not second class politicians in a second class House.

Senator Kieran Phelan

We on this side of the House did not propose the abolition of the Seanad.

Senator Geraldine Feeney

Tell that to Enda.

Senator Paul Bradford

I ask the Minister to accept our amendment so that the triple lock requirement will encompass the support of this very important institution of our democracy. That would show how seriously the Minister values the Seanad.

Senator Paschal Donohoe

I welcome the Minister to the House for this important debate. At the beginning of the year, in the aftermath of the defeat of the first referendum on the Lisbon treaty and in the run-up to the second referendum, one of the options being considered in public by commentators who have an interest in these matters was that Ireland might seek to opt out of certain defence arrangements as personified by the European Defence Agency. If media reports are correct, this option was considered by the Cabinet, and the Minister played a significant role in ensuring it was rejected. That rejection was welcome. During my time as chairman of the Oireachtas Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union, we spoke to various delegations from Denmark, where an opt-out arrangement has been in place for the last 15 years. I was struck by how willing the delegates were to speak out against such an option for Ireland and how open they were in pointing out the disadvantages arising from the position they took in terms of their status on the world stage. They also referred specifically to the disadvantages it conferred upon their army. If for no other reason, we should all welcome this legislation because it signals that a course of action which would not have been to the advantage of our armed forces or our country was not taken. That is certainly to be welcomed.

I propose to deal with five aspects of the Bill, on the first of which I may well be a voice of one in the House. I differ strongly from my colleagues who have offered their support to the triple lock mechanism. I do not support the concept of a triple lock because I do not understand why members of the United Nations Security Council should have a veto on decisions regarding where our armed forces are deployed. Such decisions are a matter for the elected Government. I am aware of one example in 2003 in regard to Macedonia — perhaps the Minister will clarify this — where our inability to secure the full support of the United Nations Security Council meant we could not follow a particular course of action. I wonder whether the successful work of our forces in Sudan might have begun much earlier had we not required the support of the United Nations Security Council and the explicit consent of China for that mission. In the context of the extensive discussions we have had regarding the pooling of sovereignty on the European stage — which I support — I do not see why we would propose to abrogate our sovereignty to the extent that we are willing to offer a veto to an outside agency in respect of decisions on whether our troops will participate in an overseas military operation. An Irish Government of any political persuasion is elected by the people in order to take those decisions.

An alternative arrangement is that a simple majority of the Oireachtas, whether in the Dáil or in both the Dáil and Seanad, be required in regard to the deployment of our troops abroad. If we are serious about having a comprehensive discussion in respect of the work done by our military forces abroad, why does the Government not agree to seek the consent of at least one Opposition party before making any decisions in that area? This would facilitate a more rounded discussion regarding the role played by our forces abroad, the support they need and the environment within which they are operating. I assume all Opposition parties would always be supportive of the role played by our forces abroad. It is far preferable that elected representatives should have responsibility for decisions in this area rather than the Chinese Government.

That relates to the second issue I wish to raise, which is the importance of a more comprehensive discussion in regard to neutrality. Other Members have spoken at length about this. There is a valuable distinction to be made between being a non-aligned country and a neutral country. There must be scope for debate in order to clarify the role of our forces abroad. It is important to bear in mind that we are discussing a concept that does not have statutory footing; it is not enshrined in legislation but is rather a matter of policy. We should be more engaged in refining that policy for a world that is very different to the one in which that policy was created in the 1930s.

The third issue relates to the Minister's speech. I welcome his acknowledgment that what is involved in permanent structured co-operation requires fleshing out. This is a new concept that will be ushered in by the Lisbon treaty. The latter makes clear that permanent structured co-operation arrangements must respect the military and foreign policy heritage of every participating country. I am pleased the Minister has recognised that we must do some work to figure out what is involved in this regard. It is important that we have that discussion in public, as argued for by colleagues on the other side of the House. There was genuine fear among a substantial minority of the population regarding what that would involve. We will do ourselves and the country a service if we ensure that discussion is conducted in public.

The fourth issue I wish to raise is the role of the European Defence Agency. Unlike my esteemed colleague, Senator Norris, I welcome this institution as something that will be of benefit to the country and to the work done by European forces abroad. The agency should have a role in strengthening the regulation of the arms trade within Europe. As Senator O'Toole said, if we are to increase efficiency in how armaments or the facilities European armies need are purchased and to achieve value for money, there is an opportunity to improve the transparency in regulation within which those purchases take place and the EDA could play a role in this regard.

Senator McFadden made the point well that because our forces are unable to participate in the civil arrangements open to other members of society, it is incumbent on us to do what we can to respect that and to protect them. There is a growing trend abroad and in the UK, in particular, for former members of the defence forces to take on political roles when they retire. David Cameron recently appointed a former chief of staff to serve him. The non-willingness of members of our Defence Forces to get involved in politics must be commended because it would do them and the support they enjoy a grave disservice. As Senator McFadden said, it is incumbent on us all to recognise their needs, given their proud lack of involvement in domestic politics.

Minister for Defence (Deputy Willie O’Dea)

I sincerely thank all Members for their interest in the Bill and for their contributions to the debate. The effect of the legislation will be to increase openness and transparency in decision-making at EU level. It will provide for appropriate public debate on Ireland's participation in EDA projects and, in the future, on permanent structured co-operation, should that prove to be a worthwhile endeavour for the State. The qualification that such participation in EDA projects or in permanent structured co-operation be consistent with our participation in UN-mandated operations provides the appropriate safeguard for those concerned regarding our bona fides on those issues. The Government's sole purpose in participating in the agency is to ensure the Defence Forces have access to capability improvements and developments, which will support them in undertaking the roles assigned to them by the Government, in particular, in their overseas missions.

The Seanad has consistently taken the view that the Defence Forces should have the best, most modern equipment available and it has sought reassurances regarding the level of force protection provided to our troops. I take these key considerations into account in reflecting on our participation in EDA projects and programmes and this informs Ireland's approach to the agency. It is important to reiterate that decisions on involving ourselves in specific EDA projects or participating in permanent structured co-operation will remain the sole prerogative of the Government and the Oireachtas. It is reassuring that Senators appreciate that where an agency project will assist the enhancement of capabilities for an operation to which Ireland contributes troops, it is important to consider the benefits the State can obtain from such participation.

In addition, while we may not be involved in specific projects, it is nonetheless essential that we are supportive of initiatives to improve capabilities for overseas operations generally. In a climate of diminishing budgets, Senators will also agree there is a need for greater efficiency and effectiveness in spending. The focus of the EDA on assisting member states in obtaining better value for existing spending and securing greater efficiencies will be particularly beneficial. If involvement in EDA projects affords us an opportunity to achieve economies of scale in defence procurement, that would be valuable from a defence expenditure perspective, especially in the current economic environment.

Senator Burke and others praised the role of our troops in peacekeeping abroad. I appreciate that and I will pass on these sentiments to the Army.

Senator Burke also wanted to know how the EDA will work in practice, whether there will be a centre of excellence and whether there will be group purchasing of equipment and so on. With regard to how the agency works, all members have access to significant research it conducts on developing capabilities for operations abroad. Ireland has only participated in one project, which was related to force protection and how to develop better body armour and anti-improvised device, anti-booby trap and anti-sniper mechanisms. In other words, the project we have engaged in is solely related to how best to ensure the safety of our troops in hostile environments abroad.

On the issue of group purchasing, the European armaments market has traditionally been fragmented. Research I referred to in the Lower House was quoted, which indicates the Pentagon achieves four times the value for every dollar it spends on armaments compared to European countries that participate in UN operations. One of the central purposes of the EDA is to regulate and centralise the market in order that we can buy the best equipment at the cheapest rate and that is working. Whether that evolves into a European centre of excellence or group purchasing will probably be tied to permanent structured co-operation. It has not been developed yet. A list has been prepared by different members under the aegis of the EDA to show what the capability requirements will be in the next two decades and how we can access them.

Senator Kieran Phelan referred to interoperability, which is important. We operate aboard with other armies and interoperability decrees that our weapons systems are compatible, otherwise troops cannot operate effectively if different components of the UN authorised missions have different weaponry.

Senator Quinn raised the issue of radar protection for naval operations, which was discussed at the meeting of defence Ministers in Sweden recently. That work is ongoing. The Senator was anxious that we would secure more help from the EU to patrol our coast but the purpose of the EDA is to allow us to develop systems, both through research and purchasing, to carry out such functions ourselves. On the other hand, the maritime centre established in Lisbon has provided wonderful intelligence for the Naval Service and it has enabled the conviction of a number of people for the biggest attempted drugs importation into the State ever, as the centre was able to go back and track the shipment from the Caribbean.

Senator Quinn made interesting comments on the need for more focus on helping countries to help themselves and get back on their feet rather than sending in troops to keep the peace. That is the emphasis of UN mandated operations since the definition was expanded in the Petersberg Tasks. There is more emphasis on not only helping to re-establish civil society but to provide assistance to these countries to train their armies, police forces and so on to look after themselves.

Senator Boyle said we must be careful about the general role of the EDA and where Ireland sees itself. Ireland sees itself as a neutral country and an often overlooked fact is that decisions of the agency require unanimity. That means that if one or more member countries such as France or Germany want to take European defence policy in a certain direction, we can block that because it can only move in that direction with the unanimous approval of members of the EDA board. That enables us to protect our principles and our world view at EDA level.

Senator Hannigan referred to the question of the transit of troops through Shannon Airport. Shannon has been used as a stopping-off point during various conflicts. I am reliably informed that in 1962, Russian troops en route to Cuba at the start of the Cuban missile crisis refuelled in Shannon. When American troops began to transit through Shannon at the outbreak of the Iraq war some other countries loudly proclaimed their neutrality. In one such country an outgoing government won an election on the basis of its neutrality in these matters. However, when there were protests in Ireland about the transit of troops through Shannon those very countries rushed to offer their facilities, because of the revenue that was going to be generated.

An Cathaoirleach

It was agreed on the Order of Business that the sitting would suspend at 2 p.m. until 3 p.m.

Senator Diarmuid Wilson

I have spoken with Senator Cummins and we came to an agreement that we would extend the debate. To facilitate the Minister, I propose we postpone the sos until 2.30 p.m.

An Cathaoirleach

The time will be extended until 2.30 p.m. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Willie O’Dea

Senator O'Toole dealt very well with the record of some of those countries such as Sweden and Switzerland which are held up as models of neutrality.

Senator Doherty wanted to know what our definition or concept of neutrality was. I could give a long dissertation on this subject but I will keep my remarks simple. Ireland's traditional policy of neutrality is that we do not participate in any military alliance, such as NATO or the old Warsaw Pact, and that we do not become involved in any mutual or common defence agreement. In fact, we are prohibited by the Constitution from doing the latter.

Senator Doherty also expressed scepticism about our membership of the EDA. Other Senators dealt very well with the reasons why we should be part of the EDA. Senator Doherty is also, predictably, fearful that we might become involved in enhanced structural co-operation. We recently had a difficulty in Chad because the United Nations, which had promised to supply air support for us, failed to do so, even after a number of force generation conferences. We had hurriedly to acquire air support ourselves and a mistake was made in the procurement procedure, for which we all hold our hands up. My idea of enhanced structural co-operation is that a number of countries should get together to provide a pool of assets which could be used by whichever countries were participating in the peacekeeping mission. This is at a very early stage of development and we do not know how it will pan out.

If a number of European countries get together in the form of enhanced structural co-operation, they will not be able to launch a mission on their own. Any decisions on defence and security must be taken unanimously. Every country will have a veto, regardless of whether it is part of the enhanced structural co-operation group.

Senator Feeney pointed out, correctly, that the EDA helps to reduce the cost of equipment and provides for interoperability and so on. I also support what she said about the scare created about a European army. During the first Lisbon treaty referendum campaign I got the impression I had missed something and that no sooner would the ink be dry on the treaty than press gangs would arrive at 4 o'clock the following morning, as in the days of the old British navy, break into people's houses, seize their younger children, conscript them into a European army and land them in the front line in Afghanistan within 24 hours. The main advocates of that point of view came from Senator Doherty's party. I was engaged in a debate on Pat Kenny's radio show with the former MEP, Mary Lou McDonald. She trotted out those old arguments while I pointed out to her that there were various guarantees, that there would not be a European army and that the Constitution precluded us from becoming involved in mutual defence. There was a certain familiarity about her arguments. When I did some research I found they are the very same arguments Sinn Féin has used in every European debate since 1973. They simply change the date.

Senator Cummins was worried about barracks closures. There will be a certain amount of dislocation and there is a change of station allowance of €3,500. Much money has been spent, and more remains to be spent, on making the new barracks acceptable and suitable. However, a deeper policy is involved here. It is not simply a question of cost cutting. The Army high command takes the view that collective training and a smaller number of bigger units is now preferable. This is particularly advisable in the case of force protection. When people go abroad it is important that they would have trained together previously.

Senator Cummins also mentioned a threat I am alleged to have made to PDFORRA. I assure the Senator there was no threat. I simply pointed out what PDFORRA is entitled to do under the arrangement my Department has with it. That arrangement is enshrined in law and the organisation fully accepts it. I can assure the House that PDFORRA and RACO are well able to represent themselves. I keep my door open to them at all times. In fact, I received correspondence from them in recent days asking for another meeting, although we had one very recently. I will certainly accede to that request.

Senator Wilson also referred to the spectre of conscription which was conjured up during the Lisbon treaty debate. Senator Wilson also asked me about the current recruitment policy. The White Paper provides for 10,500 serving men and women in the Army, Naval Service and Air Force. The McCarthy report recommended reducing that to 10,000 over a two to three-year period. We have not accepted that recommendation and no Government decision has been made to reduce the appropriate size of the Defence Forces to 10,000. On the other hand, the embargo on recruitment operates very harshly on the Defence Forces due to the large turnover in all military organisations. We are now down to 10,018. I have made a case to the Minister for Finance to allow me to resume recruitment to ensure we do not drop below 10,000. I expect a response to that request before the week is out. I hope it will be positive.

Senator O'Toole raised the question of neutrality and pointed out that the EU was powerless to intervene in the slaughter in the Balkans. That would not be the case now. There have been a number of developments such as the expanded definition of the Petersberg Tasks and the new tendency for organisations such as the EU and the African Union to get UN sanction and then organise missions.

Senator Norris referred to the Israeli company from which we acquired parts at a cost of €2.3 million. This is not a Government operation. It is a private company. As Senator Norris acknowledged, we must go to tender in these matters. If one were to try to find a company selling arms which had not at some stage in its existence sold arms for some purpose with which one did not agree, one would have a very hard job and might not get the best value for money.

Senator Leyden raised the question of recruitment to the Defence Forces. I hope my representations to the Minister for Finance will be successful in that regard. Senator Leyden also raised the question of promotions in the Army, which is a very relevant matter. I have asked the Minister for Finance to allow me to make a number of targeted promotions so as to maintain the operational capability of the Defence Forces.

Senator McFadden asked me to continue to invest to ensure the best equipment for the Army. I will do that. Her concerns about the brain drain will be dealt with by the promotions I hope to make. The Army has a community involvement. Unfortunately, resources have forced the Army to cut back on this area of activity in the past year or so but it will be maintained as far as possible.

Senator Bradford mentioned the conflict between peacekeeping and peace enforcement. They are, obviously, two different things. The Petersberg Tasks now allow the United Nations to sanction missions for peace enforcement in addition to traditional peacekeeping.

Senator Donohoe referred to the opt out of defence arrangements. Many issues were discussed by the Cabinet, in particular in the lead-up to the second Lisbon treaty referendum campaign. However, the Cabinet never gave serious consideration to opting out of the European defence arrangements.

I take Senator Donohoe's point about not supporting the triple lock. I had this debate with his colleague, Deputy Timmins, when he was defence spokesman in the previous Dáil. The majority of European countries seek a United Nations mandate. I take the point that any member of the UN Security Council can veto a decision. If one looks at the original proposal, it was that it would be the UN Security Council or the UN General Assembly. Effectively, that has never worked. In practice, it has always been the UN Security Council. This has more to do with how the United Nations does its business. We see the United Nations as the lodestar in this regard.

I do not necessarily agree with Senator Donohoe that we would have been able to intervene earlier in Chad but for the triple lock. What really held up our involvement in Chad was the question of force generation. We had an unprecedented five force generation meetings before we got sufficient equipment and sufficient troops in the field to make the mission doable.

I thank Members for taking this Bill at short notice. I join in the kind sentiments expressed by various Members for the Defence Forces generally and, in particular, in regard to service by the Defence Forces in overseas peace support missions.

Question put and agreed to.