Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Defence debate -
Thursday, 24 Jan 2019

Ratification of EU and NATO Status of Forces Agreements: Discussion

Chairman

Before proceeding to the business of the meeting, I remind members and those in the Public Gallery that their mobile phones should be switched off completely for the duration of the meeting as they cause interference, even if in silent mode, with the recording equipment in the committee rooms.

The purpose of this meeting is to consider the motions referred to the select committee by Dáil Éireann on the agreement between the member states of the European Union concerning the status of military and civilian staff seconded to the institutions of the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Partnership for Peace Status of Forces Agreement.

Under the terms of the Dáil motion of 16 January 2019, the committee must consider the matter and, having done so, must send a message back to the Dáil not later than 5 February 2019.

I welcome the Minister of State with responsibility for defence, Deputy Kehoe, to today's meeting. I also welcome the officials from the Department and thank them for the briefing material forwarded to the committee in advance of the meeting. The format of this meeting will be that we will hear the opening presentation from the Minister of State and then take questions from the members of the committee.

Before commencing, I remind members of the committee of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I call the Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe.

Government Chief Whip and Minister of State at the Departments of An Taoiseach and Defence (Deputy Paul Kehoe)

I am joined by Mr. Ciaran Murphy and Ms Bernie Maguire. I will make a short opening statement, outlining the motion I will bring before the Dáil for final consideration in the coming weeks. I will also highlight the need for the approval of the terms of both the EU status of forces agreement, SOFA, and the NATO Partnership for Peace. I will explain throughout this statement that such approval will not and does not detract from our national policy of military neutrality.

As the committee is aware, the following motion has been placed on the Dáil Order Paper and copies of the agreements concerned, along with Ireland’s proposed reservations, were laid in the Oireachtas Library earlier this month, on 2 January.

The motion I moved reads:

"That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of:(i) the Agreement between the Member States of the European Union concerning the status of military and civilian staff seconded to the institutions of the European Union, of the headquarters and forces which may be made available to the European Union in the context of the preparation and execution of the tasks referred to in Article 17(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including exercises, and of the military and civilian staff of the Member States put at the disposal of the European Union to act in this context, done at Brussels on 17 November 2003, a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 2 January 2019; and

(ii) the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Partnership for Peace Status of Forces Agreement, done at Brussels on 19 June 1995, a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 2 January 2019, subject to the respective reservations, copies of which were laid before Dáil Éireann on 2 January 2019;

subject to the respective reservations, copies of which were laid before Dáil Éireann on 2nd January, 2019."

Approval of this motion will allow Ireland to become party to the SOFAs and thereby will afford our Defence Forces the same immunities, rights and privileges as their military colleagues while serving overseas on peacekeeping and crisis management operations.

I want to ensure that we have a shared understanding of what a SOFA is throughout our discussion this morning. A status of forces agreement, SOFA, is designed to regulate the legal and administrative arrangements applied to members of foreign forces operating within the State where they are deployed. In relation to the Defence Forces, SOFAs relate to the immunities and privileges extended to members of the Defence Forces when serving on overseas missions as part of a UN-authorised or UN-mandated force.

Specific SOFAs also relate to the immunities and privileges extended to members of the Defence Forces when engaged in exercises in EU or NATO and Partnership for Peace member states, or on standby for the EU battle groups. This will be the case for the EU and Partnership for Peace, PfP, SOFAs.

All international organisations, including the UN, the EU and NATO, have concluded SOFAs with the states where they have deployed forces or engaged in training missions. The SOFAs provide for the rights, obligations, entitlements, privileges and immunities of deployed military personnel and deal with matters such as jurisdiction, claims and applicable law between the sending organisation or state and the host state where these personnel are deployed.

SOFAs are designed to protect military personnel deployed in terms of accidents, third party liability claims, potential prosecutions and other actions which may be covered by legislation in the host country. The ratification of the SOFAs simply means that the Defence Forces can acquire the rights and privileges of these arrangements as a matter of right, rather than having to rely on a difficult or contentious exchange of letters between jurisdictions which may or may not be concluded on their behalf. We cannot continue to operate on this basis. Our Defence Forces should be protected in the same manner as all other military personnel with whom they operate on missions and exercises when deployed outside the State.

In the past, issues have unnecessarily arisen in relation to the completion of an exchange of letters through no fault of either party concerned. To resolve such issues requires that Ireland depends on the goodwill of our EU or other partners. Situations have arisen where no exchange of letters is agreed and our Defence Forces are restricted in their participation or operate without the relevant protections.

This was a reality in 2016, when, as part of Ireland’s participation in the German-led battle group, Germany advised that it could not facilitate the exchange of letters arrangement in the time required due to legal, constitutional and parliamentary requirements. In the case of this battle group, the immunities and privileges afforded to foreign militaries could only be extended through the PfP SOFA. As a result Ireland could not participate in the field exercises undertaken by all other battle group participants in the German battle group. This is unsatisfactory from a training and interoperability perspective but also resulted in some reputational damage. We also had to rely on the goodwill of partners and members of the Defence Forces in respect of the deployment to the battle group operational headquarters for the standby period.

Irish troops have on occasion been deployed to the mission areas or operational or force headquarters prior to the conclusion of letters of exchange. This was experienced in the case of the three-month deployment to the EU Artemis mission in the Congo in 2003. For this mission the relevant exchange of letters was never completed as the troops had been deployed, completed the mission and withdrawn before the exchange of letters could be completed with France, the then lead nation.

I would like to get these matters resolved before our proposed participation in the German led battle group in 2020. Planning is currently under way for this battle group and Defence Forces personnel should be able to participate in the same manner and with the same protections as the military personnel from other participating member states.

The EU SOFA has been ratified by all EU member states except Ireland. It can only come into force upon ratification by Ireland. The committee will appreciate that our current situation is especially evident given that all other non-aligned or neutral member states, including Finland, Sweden and Austria, have ratified the EU SOFA.

I would like to highlight that approval from the Dáil is not required in relation to ratification of the EU SOFA as this is covered by the Lisbon treaty. I have included the approval of the EU SOFA in the motion for the sake of transparency.

In relation to the PfP SOFA, it is important to note that EU crisis management operations and battle groups have operated under this agreement where there has been third state participation in operations. Very often Common Security and Defence Policy missions and operations also involve third state participation from non-EU member states. These third states are usually parties to the PfP SOFA but not party to the EU SOFA therefore making it more appropriate to apply the PfP SOFA in such a context.

These SOFAs will only extend to members of the Permanent Defence Force deploying overseas where these SOFAs apply. They cannot apply within the State. Article 15.6.2 of the Constitution states that: "No military or armed force, other than a military or armed force raised and maintained by the Oireachtas, shall be raised or maintained for any purpose whatsoever." Taking the Attorney General's advice on this provision in relation to the application of the SOFAs in Ireland, as well as the policy advice that I received from my Department, I have decided to include reservations to both agreements.

Ireland will not be a receiving state for foreign troops based on its territory, and there is no situation in which the SOFAs could have application in Ireland, including forces in transit or visiting personnel. The proposed EU SOFA reservation and the NATO PfP reservation explicitly articulate Ireland's constitutional and policy position in respect of foreign troops. There is no scope for ambiguity given the inclusion of the following clause in both reservations: "Ireland shall not be a receiving state for the purposes of the present Agreement". These reservations will be associated with Ireland’s instrument of ratification in respect of each of the SOFAs should this motion be approved by Dáil Éireann.

I cannot stress enough that Ireland's policy of military neutrality is not diminished, circumvented or reduced by our ratification of the SOFAs. If anything our national position is more strongly discernible following this process, given the reservations we are attaching to our instruments of ratification. The reservations, as I have stated, do not allow for any ambiguity.

Our Defence Forces and the wider defence organisation continue to make an invaluable contribution to international peace and security, and conflict resolution. In doing this, we rarely act alone. Our positive contribution is achieved through our ongoing and professional engagement with the UN, the EU, NATO, the OSCE and other international engagements within a bilateral and multilateral context. Security and defence today must be considered in the light of new threats and security challenges which are beyond the capacity of an individual state acting alone, challenges such as cyber, hybrid, radicalisation, and uncontrolled migration, among others. In addressing these challenges, while working with partners and host states, operating under the EU, NATO, PfP or SOFA would place our Defence Forces on an even legal footing with their military colleagues from other states participating in such missions, which is only right and proper.

I state again that approval of the terms of the SOFAs does not adversely affect our military neutrality. The SOFAs will allow for our Defence Forces to be protected in the same manner as all other military personnel with whom they operate on missions and exercises when deployed outside the State, all the while making an invaluable contribution to international peace and security, and conflict resolution.

I thank the members for their attention. I look forward to discussing this matter and I hope we can have a constructive discussion.

Chairman

I call Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan.

Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan

I thank the Minister of State for his opening statement. He said these SOFAs will provide for the rights, obligations, entitlements etc. of our military personnel when deployed overseas, that there is no obligation to deploy or maintain personnel, that it will be a national sovereign decision, that ratifying this has no impact on our policy of military neutrality, and that we would not want to deprive Irish troops of entitlements and privileges to which other troops are entitled. If we consider the mission in Mali, however, for example, I do not know how anybody could call it a peacekeeping one. Regarding the footage we got when the Taoiseach was there, while the Irish Army were very impressive and professional in their work, overall, the Mali situation is a very different one, with Mali and the Sahel, the whole history of colonialism and mineral wealth being exploited by the colonial power, the current chaotic situation which was exacerbated by the overthrow of Colonel Gaddafi, and all the volatility, corruption and peaceful protest being suppressed there. We can contrast Ireland's troops being there with work that is done through Ireland's humanitarian programme and our Irish Aid programme. There was such a contrast between what the Taoiseach visited in Mali and what we saw in Ethiopia. For me, there is a contradiction between the two.

I would be very wary of Ireland and the Irish Army being drawn into conflicts that have nothing to do with us. That is undermining the work that Ireland does in the humanitarian area where we are very much respected. It is also undermining our reputation in peackeeping operations. We are seeing the increasing European securitisation agenda. It is being matched now by this increasing militarisation in Africa. That is fuelling further conflict which is a contributory factor to poverty and displacement which lead to mass migration.

The Minister of State said that the Defence Forces will have immunities, rights and privileges while on peacekeeping and crisis management operations. How does Mali fit into that compared with the other peacekeeping operations that Ireland has been involved in? The Minister of State mentioned the German-led battle group that is coming up. He might expand a little on that. He mentioned that Ireland will not be receiving foreign troops based on its territory, but that is playing with words because we are facilitating the transit of troops. We see the way in which Shannon is being used. There are a number of ironies in what is being presented here today.

Deputy Paul Kehoe

The Defence Forces contribution to the German battle group will involve a special operations task force comprising special operations forces platoon, engineer special search capability, explosive ordnance disposal capability, and security platoon, together with staff posts at both the operational and force headquarters. I would single out one capability from that list, that of explosive ordnance disposal. Given the part of the country the Deputy comes from, she will be aware that many Defence Forces personnel have had to provide their services in terms of ordnance explosive disposal over the recent past. I am not sure if that has happened in her constituency and I do not want to diminish it in any way but we have seen that happen in parts of Dublin. It is very important for our personnel to exercise and train and to have the opportunity to increase their training capacity in order that when called on, they are able to deal with whatever eventuality presents.

The total number of the Irish Defence Forces personnel who will be involved in the German battle group will be about 148. The level of resource commitment will only arise should the battle group be called on to undertake an operation and should Ireland agree to participate. The number of personnel involved in leading up to and during the standby period, where the battle group has not been mobilised to undertake an operation, will be in the region of ten. These personnel, mainly staff officers and non-commissioned officers, will be engaged in training and planning activities serving in various appointments and posts in the operational force headquarters in Ulm in Germany.

I have had the opportunity to visit battle group exercises and participate in such exercises on the policy side. It was only when I went to see a battle group on the ground that I saw their importance. When our personnel serve on overseas missions, be it in Mali, Lebanon or the Golan Heights, we recognise the importance of interoperability, working with like-minded states, and being able to increase our training capacity. Some people want us to send our Defence Forces personnel to Lebanon and to say they are doing a fabulous job there, but there is no point in our troops only training in Ireland, running around the Glen of Imaal or down in Kilworth in Cork, when we do not have someone to exercise against. To use a sporting analogy, if any team was only to train on its home ground and not to have practise matches, when it would compete in the championship, it would not be able to give of its best.

It is very important for our troops to be able to participate with like-minded states, have interoperability and keep their training to a very high rate and high standard.

Regarding the EU training mission, EUTM, Mali, I had the privilege of visiting Mali with the Taoiseach in January. It was my second opportunity to visit the country. There is also a UN blue helmet mission employed in Mali in support of the sovereign Government of Mali. We are carrying out a mission there to train the Malian armed forces. It is only right and proper we give them an opportunity. They are highly trained and highly skilled. We can bring back some kind of ordinary life to Mali. It is only right and proper that they have such an opportunity and that we bring stability back to the country. One needs trained soldiers and armed forces to do this. We are not doing this in Lebanon, but Lebanon is a similar case. Other countries are helping the Lebanese to train their armed forces, which is only right and proper. One cannot expect any country to have a highly skilled army unless someone comes in willing to help and train them and give them the capacity to carry out their daily duties.

Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan

We could have a wider debate as to what brings stability and whether it is armed forces or looking at the social and economic situation in the country that leads to justice and fairness in order that there not be a need for people to go to these extremist groups, which leads into conflict and what we are talking about now.

Deputy Paul Kehoe

It is a wider argument.

Chairman

It will have to be for another day.

Deputy Paul Kehoe

Absolutely.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Where does one start with this issue? I will start with what SOFAs are about. They are not for sitting on; they are in the main basically to grant immunity in the face of prosecution. They are also for things that are perhaps a little more benign, car crashes and the like, for soldiers operating overseas. If we look at how SOFAs have been used by other militaries over recent years, we can see the consequences exactly. The question is whether Ireland wants to be associated with these militaries on operations overseas, especially given what we have seen in Iraq, Somalia and the like. In case someone wants to misrepresent me, I am not suggesting that Irish soldiers are or would be in any way engaged in this, but we saw what happened in Abu Ghraib prison, for instance, and the humiliation of prisoners of war by US soldiers. I presume the same soldiers had a SOFA because they were all returned to America to face charges, which they did before a US court, not an Iraqi court. There is a significant difference between what they would have faced before a court of a country in which the incidents happened and what they faced before a US court. There were similar occurrences in Canada, which would be regarded by most countries as a peaceful country. Their soldiers ran amok in Somalia and beat a teenager to death. Footage of the incident emerged. These things happen. They are soldiers, and the SOFAs basically give them protections from the local courts and the local justice system in order that they be returned to their home countries and face prosecution in some cases. What they face before local courts and what they face before the courts of their home countries is totally different.

One question to ask about this is: why now? This still has not been answered, although the Minister of State in his contribution said, strangely enough, that approval by the Dáil is not required for ratification of the EU SOFA. What the hell are we doing if we do not need to ratify it? We have enough other material we need to get into. This SOFA was produced and linked to the Partnership for Peace, PfP, SOFA to give it some cover such that linking it to EU battlegroups may be the key reason. PfP is a NATO organisation. For us to have any link at all with it is contrary to our neutrality. It was also contrary to the promise made by the party in government at the time when it stood for election prior to that.

The original SOFA, which was requested of all the countries who were in the PfP, which included the Government at the time, was 23 years ago, in 1995. The next one, the EU SOFA, is from 2003, so it is not any new construction. I was checking something earlier so I am sorry but I was not paying 100% heed to what the Minister of State said when he opened up. Deputy Mick Wallace raised an interesting point, to which the Minister of State did not respond, in his opening gambit on this in the Dáil last week. He said that a WikiLeaks cable from 2009 showed an assistant secretary in the Department of Defence telling a US political officer of Ireland's hope to ratify the EU SOFA and the NATO PfP SOFA in 2010. Obviously, this did not happen. I was in the Dáil at the time. I attended virtually all the committee meetings that related to defence matters. I have no recollection of any attempt being made to put that SOFA before the Houses. However, promises were being made, or the US was being told, that such changes were in the offing, yet since 2010 I have heard neither sight nor sound of this. Is it a tidying up of some of the side issues to prepare us for more intense or greater links with the EU army that has been proposed? I know the answer the Minister of State will give, but every step that has been taken moves us further along the way of those within France and Germany, which were this week, in particular, speaking out on the need for a European army. Is this also a move towards tidying up some of the side issues that are preventing us from ingraining ourselves more deeply in that military operation? The Minister of State is not here to answer for his party, but the MEPs of his party want full integration into the EU military apparatus and NATO itself. They produced a policy document to this effect only a few short months ago. Is this matter before us because of that?

Thus far, the lack of operation of SOFAs on the level that the Government now wants us to operate them has not in the main hampered us, but the Minister of State referred to a number of incidents where there was difficulty. Was the difficulty in the exchange of letters because they were not sent on time? We have sometimes seen bureaucratic hiccups, especially in October last year, when Irish UNIFIL troops could not return home because, again, documentation, we were told at the time, was not sent or responded to on time. Was the fault, regarding the EU battlegroup, the Germans, or our failure to take part in operations or exercises then? From a German bureaucratic point of view, was it our fault or were the Germans putting pressure on us by refusing or being obstructive in terms of the exchange of letters to try to force the Minister of State to come before the House and get this SOFA passed?

Has there been any difficulty with the UN when Irish troops are on UN duties? I presume there is also a status of forces agreement, SOFA, in place. If there have not been any difficulties, the logic in play is that which I have used over the years, which is that, rather than looking at and chasing after other military organisations to get involved in, we should instead concentrate on our involvement with the UN. The information I have is that there have been no difficulties on UN missions. We do not have to pass these two SOFAs today or at any stage when we already have quite an effective operating SOFA which deals with what is laudable and what is acceptable to the Irish people, which is participation in UN missions abroad. I may ask further questions later.

Deputy Paul Kehoe

Deputy Ó Snodaigh has asked a wide range of questions. He has been at Representative Association for Commissioned Officers, RACO, and Permanent Defence Forces Other Ranks Representative Association, PDFORRA, conferences over the last number of years, and members of the Defence Forces have raised this issue with me, both at the conferences and outside. I have often been accused of not listening to members of those organisations by the Members of these Houses. When I do act I am asked what I am doing. I believe our Defence Forces should be protected in the very same manner as all other military personnel with whom they operate on missions and exercises when deployed outside of the State. I genuinely believe that. Perhaps Deputy Ó Snodaigh does not believe that, but I do.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I did not say that.

Deputy Paul Kehoe

Other neutral member states, including Finland, Sweden and Austria, have ratified the EU SOFA. This does not have to be approved in Dáil Éireann; I can do this at Cabinet level and forget about it.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

That is not what the Minister of State said.

Deputy Paul Kehoe

If I do that, I can be absolutely assured that I would be accused of trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. I am not saying that Deputy Ó Snodaigh would say that, but other Members of these Houses might. I am being open, transparent and honest because I understand that this is a very sensitive area for many people. As the Minister of State at the Department of Defence, I feel this is the right thing to do for members of our Defence Forces.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh started by mentioning other states. What other states do is a matter for them. Ratification of the SOFAs by Dáil Éireann would provide privileges for our personnel and protect them. It is not a means to enable forces to avoid responsibility for any illegal actions; that is certainly not the intention.

The Deputy asked why this is happening now. I have had the privilege of working in the Department of Defence since 2011, and this has been an issue since then. I raised it with Ministers when I was in opposition also. I am not sure whether I raised it on the record of the House, but I know for a fact that I raised it with them privately. I was told this is a very challenging legal matter that required extensive engagement with the Office of the Attorney General. It has had that engagement over a long period. It is my decision to proceed with this process at this juncture, but it is important to acknowledge that the case of ratifying the EU SOFA has grown over recent years, given the difficulties we have experienced in completing the exchange of letters in certain instances. That exchange of letters involves an exchange of national correspondence between Ireland and either the lead state of the relevant operation or the host state. The relevant privileges, immunities and indemnities for Irish Defence Forces personnel operating on overseas missions or operations are outlined and agreed through correspondence. An exchange of letters with lead or host nations on missions and exercises is necessary in the absence of the SOFA. Ireland is unique in having to pursue the exchange of letters in terms of the Partnership for Peace, PfP, activities where the EU PfP SOFA is applied. Finland, Sweden and Austria, all neutral countries, have ratified the EU SOFA. In the negotiations the exchange of letters presented significant challenges for both Ireland and the lead or framework nation in terms of the process and engagement in the content. For some states, such an exchange of letters may require parliamentary approval or involve cumbersome national administrative procedures. In the case of the last German-backed movement in 2016, it was not possible to negotiate the required exchange of letters, either in respect of the headquarters contingent or the pre-deployment training contingent. As a result, Ireland could not participate in the live training exercise in Germany in 2016, and the HQ staff on the mission were employed on a very different status basis from other EU colleagues.

We have members of the Irish Defence Forces who are treated like tourists. They had the very same rights as any tourist would have. They were working with a range of different member states who had the privileges provided by the SOFA. If anything had happened, those Defence Forces members would have had to go to the ambassador to seek assistance. I believe that is absolutely wrong, and that is why I want to correct it. I want to give them the rights of every other member state and to provide the same rights to them as the people they are working alongside have. The Department, the Defence Forces and I were all told that we would not be able to participate in the German battle group in 2020 if we did not have the SOFA in place. The Minister of the host country stated to me that we cannot have this exchange of letters any longer and that it must be done through a legal framework, meaning that the SOFAs have to be in place. That was another reason I was so determined to have this put in place on a proper, legal footing.

I have mentioned the approval of Dáil Éireann and the exchange of letters. Deputy Ó Snodaigh mentioned the possibility of an EU army. The Treaty of Lisbon does not provide for the creation of a European army or for conscription to any military formation. Any change to this position would require a treaty change, and no such change is proposed. The protocol on the concerns of the Irish people on the Treaty of Lisbon specifically states: "The Treaty of Lisbon does not provide for the creation of a European army or for conscription to any military formation" and, "The Treaty of Lisbon does not affect or prejudice Ireland’s traditional policy of military neutrality." It was stated, when I was bringing permanent structured co-operation, PESCO, through the Dáil, that this was the start of an EU army. Nothing could be further from the truth; the opposite is provided for in the Lisbon treaty protocols.

When this was brought through the Dáil a couple of weeks ago many people did not understand what a SOFA is. The simplest way of describing this is that it is designed to give members of the Irish Defence Forces the very same legal rights and status of forces as all other member states. When I explained that to the ordinary people on the street over the past week or week and a half they were shocked that this was not in place already. They wondered whether this raises issues around our military neutrality, but it absolutely does not. The members of the general public I have spoken to, and I have no doubt that many other members of the general public are educating themselves on this issue, cannot understand why this is not in place already.

We all talk about the great work that members of the Defence Forces do, and rightly so. In saying that, if we are to respect the work that they are doing overseas, we should be giving them the same rights and privileges as all other member states.

Deputy Seán Barrett

I am a former Minister. What is really happening here is we do not know what we want to do. Are we going to engage in peacekeeping or are we going to extend from peacekeeping into other areas, which is not traditional for the Defence Forces? Peacekeeping is something that Ireland is proud of. Ireland is probably the best in the world at peacekeeping but now we are being dragged in to all other areas.

The wording used is "crisis management". What is crisis management? Crisis management can mean anything. Our Defence Forces have an expertise second to none in terms of peacekeeping abroad. Our Defence Forces are small. We have to look after our own country as well as engaging in peacekeeping missions abroad but we are now talking about crisis management. Crisis management extends so far that one is talking about something way beyond what was traditional for the Defence Forces. The question now is whether we are going to make up our mind that we will engage in peacekeeping only, not crisis management, because crisis management covers a multitude. We are asking for the impossible here.

The reputation we have built up in producing peacekeeping forces in various parts of the world is second to none. Are we going to drag ourselves into operations called, "crisis management"? That is a totally different scenario from peacekeeping. It involves a different form of training and having the equipment to deal with crisis management.

Down through the years, like the Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe, I am sure, I was so proud when I went to visit the troops abroad of the manner in which they became part of the community. It was incredible the way they built up this skill of becoming part of the community that they were there to protect. It was not down to the sort of machinery or the sort of tools of trade they had with them but it was down to their individual skills.

I fear we are now talking about serving overseas on peacekeeping and crisis management operations. What are we asking our Defence Forces to do? Are we asking them to serve overseas on peacekeeping and crisis management? That is a totally different area.

I ask that we revert to what we were the best at, namely, peacekeeping. We do not want all of this. Leave it to others, if they want to become part and parcel of battle groups. Battle groups are not peacekeepers. The words "battle groups" mean that they are trained to go into battle. Do we want to be part of the battle groups? Since when do peacekeepers become involved in battle groups? With the greatest respect, we are losing our way here.

As far as I am concerned, I will, for as long as I am here which, unfortunately, will not be long now, defend the role of the Defence Forces in peacekeeping. Leave it to others who want to play games with battle groups, which is a totally different skill. We were highly respected abroad. Our troops are so highly respected that they are away above all this comment on the equipment and the manner in which they go about doing what they are supposed to be doing.

There has to be a cut-off point. The Minister of State and his officials may disagree with my point of view. I am setting out my point of view that the Defence Forces are excellent, the best in the world, at peacekeeping but I doubt very much if they would have the same skills as those in crisis management and in getting involved in battle groups. There is a hell of a difference between peacekeeping and battle groups, it is as simple as that.

I fear we are losing our way because it is the in thing in Europe that we are supposed to participate in all areas of activities, including battle groups. Next we will be called on to contribute to crisis management, which involves a different aspect of peacekeeping.

I urge colleagues to be careful about extending our activities beyond our capabilities. We are a small country with an expertise in peacekeeping. We should be proud of what we are doing and proud to train others in our methods of peacekeeping and not become one of the gang which is involved in battle groups.

It is important we get a message across that we are not participating in other activities because the other boys in Europe are engaged. Just because Germany is involved in battle groups, are the Paddys going to be involved in battle groups? My answer to that is "No". We should not be and we should stick to what we are excellent at.

We have contributed to peacekeeping around the world. I was so proud when I was a Minister and I witnessed the manner in which the members of the Defence Forces integrated into the areas where they were protecting the local community. They were not hostile. They did not need the most modern piece of equipment because it was about the manner in which they went about their peacekeeping mission.

It is better to be good at something than to be half-good at many things. My argument is about letting us keep being very good at peacekeeping.

Deputy Paul Kehoe

Deputy Barrett raised a range of different issues. I refer to peacekeeping and the manner in which members of the Defence Forces carry out their duties as peacekeepers. They still excel in carrying out their duties as peacekeepers. Unfortunately, peacekeeping has changed over the years. I do not want the Deputy to take me up the wrong way. Compared to when Deputy Barrett was Minister, people say the nature of peacekeeping has not changed but the threats and the complexities of peacekeeping have changed.

Deputy Seán Barrett

Sorry, could I interrupt the Minister of State? We engage in and decide on different missions. We should decide on the missions that are involved in peacekeeping, not peacekeeping and other matters. That is my point.

Deputy Paul Kehoe

I will cite UNIFIL as one of the perfect examples. If we had not participated in the training missions, the battle group training and so on over the past number of years and sent members of the Defence Forces to UNIFIL, military personnel and management assure me, we should not have been participating in it.

I refer to having the necessary training, looking at like-minded states and the complexity of threats now compared with what they were in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. The equipment used by countries that may be threatening the country we are protecting may be second to none. We must be able to participate in battle groups and support the development of rapid deployment skills and capabilities within the Defence Forces, along with improved interoperability with other like-minded states. Ireland's participation in EU battle groups also reflects Ireland's support for the UN, where successive Secretaries General have endorsed the development of the EU battle group concept and Ireland's participation therein. These Secretaries General in the UN have seen the importance of countries like Ireland being able to develop skills and capabilities. They do this by working with other like-minded states in training, with battle groups being one of the training missions in which we are able to gain invaluable experience.

Ireland's active engagement in EU battle groups demonstrates Ireland's commitment to the development of EU capabilities in the crisis management area. Deputies have mentioned crisis management, which is about humanitarian peace enforcement and peacekeeping. We could argue about the meaning of crisis management but I will not get into that now. It includes a myriad of-----

Deputy Seán Barrett

It is why we should stick to peacekeeping. We are very good at it. Do not get involved with crisis management.

Deputy Paul Kehoe

I am making the genuine argument that peacekeeping has changed over the past 20 years.

Deputy Seán Barrett

Not at all. It has not totally changed.

Deputy Paul Kehoe

I have made the argument to the Chairman. The only way to see the change in the way our peacekeepers operate and the complexities of the different types of threat is to visit one of the missions and speak to the people on the ground. They have the experience of what peacekeepers do on a daily basis. I had a visit from a veteran last St. Patrick's Day and he spoke about one of the most dangerous activities he and his colleagues did, which was sweeping for road mines. That is still part and parcel of the work of our peacekeepers but the process is way more complex than it was in the 1980s. We must have the very best of equipment and match what other countries have. We must be able to match the threat of those people on the other side. If we do not have the proper equipment, why should we be involved with peacekeeping? The process is way more advanced than what it was five, ten, 15 or 20 years ago. Part of the peacekeeping effort is about having advanced equipment.

I spoke about the areas of training that members of the Defence Forces get in the battle group. This includes engineering and special search capability. I spoke to Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan about explosive ordnance disposal, security and staff posts. This is very important training. If we are to work with like-minded countries in a peacekeeping scenario, we must have the experience of working alongside these people. Unless we train and equip these people in the very best manner we can, I would not be happy to send those members of the Defence Forces on any peacekeeping mission.

Deputy Seán Barrett

Perhaps I did not put across my point very well.

Chairman

It was put very well.

Deputy Seán Barrett

I will repeat it. Since Adam was a boy, the skills of peacekeeping have been the same. It is about communicating, infiltrating in the local communities-----

Deputy Paul Kehoe

We still do that to a very high standard.

Deputy Seán Barrett

-----and gaining confidence. Will arriving with lorries full of guns and equipment improve peacekeeping? Leave that to others. We are a small country with expertise in peacekeeping. We have a small Permanent Defence Force and it is very good at what it is trained to do. It is a tradition for Irish people to participate in peacekeeping. It is about building connections with the local communities that we are there to protect. It is part and parcel of all these efforts. We will agree to differ. We are losing our way because we have become one of the guys who want to join the battle groups. Even the term "battle group" is wrong for a so-called peacekeeping mission. It is all wrong. What is the thinking behind it? As we are in the European Union we think we must get involved with all aspects of EU activity but we do not. We are excluded from much of the military involvement in a European sense because we wish to be. Let us keep to what we are good at and get on with it.

Deputy Paul Kehoe

As a Minister of State of the Government, I have the obligation to protect members of the Defence Forces when they go overseas. It is about giving them the very best of training and equipment. If this is part and parcel of that effort, I will do it.

Deputy Seán Barrett

I accept that fully.

Deputy Paul Kehoe

The Deputy mentioned lorries full of equipment but if we did not send that out and if something happened to a member of the Defence Forces, I would be in the Dáil being asked why members of the Defence Forces were not given right and proper equipment on overseas peacekeeping duties.

The complexities of peacekeeping have changed totally over the years. Those personnel are still very much involved with communities and they reach out to the different organisations involved in education, health and water filtration in communities, for example. They do so to a very high standard. I have visited some of the aid projects that involve members of the Defence Forces and they play soccer with local communities, go to markets and drink tea with locals. People have said that members of the Defence Forces are in the premier division when it comes to peacekeeping. On the other side of that, military management advises me on the safety of any mission overseas when I ask them about the risk involved. In all of this there is an obligation on the Government and military management to ensure members of the Defence Forces are properly equipped and trained in the best manner and in the same way as the people they work alongside. I make no excuses whatever for equipping and training them in that way. The military management have told me that participating in the battle groups and working alongside other member states is a very good way of getting the best of training and expertise.

Working towards interoperability is important. That is the advice I get from military management. They are the experts in the field and they know what the best way forward is.

I have stated on numerous occasions that I encourage committee members to visit. It is important. I know they have been in talks over the past number of days. UNIFIL is something to visit. If one sees the troops and talks to them, one will see the importance of the work they do and the interoperability involved in working with like-minded states and equipment. It is very important. One can go to pre-deployment exercises in the Glen of Imaal to see the level of training involved.

I will return to Deputy O'Sullivan's point. There is no use in us sending members of the Defence Forces to the Glen of Imaal or Kilworth in Cork to run through mountains and then send them to UNIFIL, the Golan Heights or another mission if they do not have the experience of working with other like-minded states. The more I visit overseas, the more I see the importance of Ireland participating in whatever mission is suitable to us for training exercise purposes.

Deputy Seán Barrett

That is the point the Minister of State is making. It is the missions we decide to involve ourselves in. That is the point I am making. The Defence Forces are small and my point is that our expertise is in genuine peacekeeping. We do not need to get in with the big boys and all this heavy equipment where it is peacekeeping plus. Peacekeeping is peace-keeping. There are plenty of missions we can get ourselves involved in besides feeling obliged to become part and parcel of this.

Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan

I know our troops engage with local communities. The Minister of State mentioned football matches. We think of the famous, iconic football match between the German and British troops during the First World War where they came out on Christmas Eve. A few hours later they were back bombing the hell out of each other. I come back to the contradiction of us being so well respected for the way in which we work in the poorest of poor countries where we are working with local communities. Part of that work is about building capacity. It is about working with civil society. It is about peace and reconciliation. If our troops are coming in a very different capacity, there is a definite contradiction and irony in it. We mentioned the bigger picture and the wider debate. We are the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Defence so we are in a position to see all sides of what we are doing internationally. There is a new paper coming out on aid. Has the Department of Defence had any input into it so there is no contradiction in what we are doing?

Our troops have to be well trained and have the skills and equipment necessary to do their work. As Deputy Barrett stated, we have to define what that work is. Part of the training of some of the troops we have seen or known about is on very intense, dubious and suspect interrogation of prisoners skills. Is that part of the training that is going on?

Deputy Paul Kehoe

I do not have any knowledge of it. I will come back to the Deputy on it. I will mention the humanitarian aid projects. We have had some contact on the paper the Deputy spoke about. If there are Irish Aid agencies working underground in mission areas, we will get more involved in it. I have spoken to military management about it. They go hand in hand. We cannot have development aid without security. Development aid needs to follow up after securing a country to develop it. There are some Irish Aid agencies out there which we can develop a closer relationship with. It is something I have spoken about. I have not done a whole lot about it but I have spoken about it. If the Deputy has any ideas about how we could do it, I would be delighted to hear about them privately.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

The more the Minister of State speaks, the more questions pop up in my head. He stated in his first contribution that EU SOFA is covered by the Lisbon treaty and therefore does not require Dáil approval. He then said he could just go to Cabinet. He is being transparent. I welcome transparency on every occasion. Is linking the two together cover for the PfP SOFA? I presume we have UN SOFAs for all the UN missions we have been involved in. Have there been any bureaucratic delays that he was blaming on Germany in terms of the EU battle group? Of the 565 soldiers who are operating overseas, 504 are on UN mandated missions. Most of us feel it is where Ireland has excelled and what it should concentrate on. There are 42 others on EU operations abroad and 19 soldiers or officers in various EU, NATO or OSCE offices dotted around the country. Ireland's soldiers are present in 17 countries outside of the UN missions. Are there 17 exchanges of letters, guarantees of immunity or additional protections, which the Minister of State spoke about, that soldiers should have?

I will give some context to the issue of the German battle group. The German Minister was the one who was dictating to Ireland whether we should be involved in the EU battle group. We must remember that the underlying military or policy strategy of the Germans is to further integrate Germany into the creation of a European army. I do not say that. The head of the country said only last week that the aim is to build a common military culture. That means levelling the playing field and making it easier for different countries to amalgamate and to have joint operations, suck them fully into the apparatus and send them off on missions when they have been trained. Military culture, common defence industry and common arms exports contribute to the creation of a European army. That is exactly what is happening. Some of the steps are quite big. The Minister of State said we do not require it. Why are we taking steps that further integrate us? If the Germans do not want Irish troops in the EU battle group, they should say it, if it means an exchange of letters. If they want it, they will recognise the tradition of Ireland is to seek those letters. It has worked well in the past. In some ways, the German Parliament is dictating not only our economic strategy but our defence strategy.

I should have asked a question earlier. In his contribution, the Minister of State stated that Irish soldiers were sent on deployment to Congo in 2003 without the conclusion of the letters of exchange. They were back home before that happened.

It would be interesting to hear from the former Minister for Defence, Mr. Michael Smith. Is it being suggested that he was negligent or in dereliction of duty in sending Irish soldiers abroad on an EU mission to the Congo without the cover to which the Minister of State is demanding we sign up willy-nilly and which will never come before the House again?

The Minister of State began by saying RACO is a great organisation and I agree. Its job is to represent the interests of officers, protect their future and ensure the military has the equipment and resources required to fully train officers, but it does not dictate international military policy. That is the job of the Houses of the Oireachtas and, thereafter, the Minister. It has points of view and while it is sometimes useful to work with people of fellow standing and so on, it is not its role.

The Minister of State also mentioned that the Attorney General has been involved in this area and that it will take a long time. When was the Attorney General first asked to consider the matter? Deputy Kehoe has been Minister of State with responsibility for defence since 2011, which was eight years ago. The Wikileaks cable suggests that the document was virtually ready to be signed off on in 2010. That is a long time for a short document. Between 2010 and now, how did the Attorney General overcome the problems? He did not agree to sign up at the time, and the official in question in the Wikileaks cable indicated that there were problems with us signing up. All of a sudden, those problems have been overcome and the Minister of State wants to present the document to the House. Is it just a matter of the arithmetic in the Chamber, or have there been guarantees from other countries that give us additional protections? The Minister of State may believe we require those protections but we should not seek them. Rather, we should continue in the way that Deputy Barrett suggested, looking to the UN for the honourable and laudable duties of operating overseas in peacekeeping missions.

Chairman

I ask the Minister of State to be brief in his response because there is a time constraint.

Deputy Paul Kehoe

The Deputy accused me of leading the way for Ireland to join an EU army at some point in the future. As I have stressed, the Treaty of Lisbon does not provide for the creation of a European army or conscription to any military formation. Any change to that position would require a treaty change and no such change is proposed. The protocol on the concerns of the Irish people on the Treaty of Lisbon expressly states:

The Treaty of Lisbon does not provide for the creation of a European army or for conscription to any military formation [...] The Treaty of Lisbon does not affect or prejudice Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality.

That is the answer I gave to the Deputy earlier.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

On the Lisbon treaty, I did not make that accusation on the record and I was making a different point. The Minister of State stated, "I would like to highlight that approval from the Dáil is not required in relation to ratification of the EU SOFA as this is covered by the Lisbon treaty." He went on to state that approval from the Dáil is not needed and that the Cabinet could sign it anyway. That suggests that not even a signature, nor approval from the Dáil or anything else, is needed.

Deputy Paul Kehoe

The PfP SOFA requires the approval of Dáil Éireann under Article 29.5 of the Constitution.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Exactly. One is cover for the other, therefore, if the two are being linked together.

Deputy Paul Kehoe

The Deputy spoke about the representative associations. It is important for me, as Minister of State, to listen to the representative associations. When we are formulating policy, it is important that we listen to them and everyone else, including members of the Opposition and spokespersons from other parties. The White Paper on Defence had a wide range of contributors, which is the defence policy-----

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Did the Minister of State present it or was it dictated to him?

Deputy Paul Kehoe

-----and it is important that we do that. The advice of the Attorney General expressly indicated the SOFA agreements could not legally apply in Ireland as foreign militaries could not be based in Ireland due to the provisions of Article 15.6.2o of the Constitution. The advice allowed for Article 15.6.2o to be interpreted in such a way that SOFAs could apply in Ireland in certain cases such as transit or attendance at conferences by foreign troops, should the Government so decide. On foot of the Attorney General's advice, and having considered the matter in detail, the Government took the decision as a matter of policy not to apply the provisions of SOFAs in such situations. The decision was endorsed by Government in its decision to make explicit reservations on ratification of the agreements. The proposed reservations state clearly, without any room for interpretation, that Ireland will not receive state aid for the purposes of the agreements.

The Deputy mentioned the exchange of letters and said it was a simple way, but it is not.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I did not say it was simple.

Deputy Paul Kehoe

He may not have used the word "simple" but he asked why it cannot continue. We will not be able to participate in the German battle group in 2020 unless we have the SOFAs in place.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

That is because the Germans dictate to us.

Chairman

The Minister of State must be allowed to continue without interruption.

Deputy Paul Kehoe

As a matter of policy, Germany does not want any countries to participate in the battle group unless SOFAs are in place. That is one of its national policies. We have a national policy of not giving SOFAs to any transient or visiting member states. We can have that policy if we want. That is a policy we put in place, while Germany's policy is one it put in place.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Germany is dictating to us what happens with an EU battle group if the exercises are in Germany.

Chairman

Please, Deputy Ó Snodaigh. I will draw the meeting to a conclusion soon.

Deputy Paul Kehoe

We do not dictate German policy; Germany dictates its own policy. I am not in a position to tell it or dictate to it otherwise. If we want to participate in the German battle group in 2020, we must have the SOFAs in place. It is important that I am open and transparent in bringing it through the Dáil. I am hiding nothing-----

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

It is a vote on our participation in an EU battle group. That is what the Minister of State is saying.

Deputy Paul Kehoe

-----and we will do it in an open and transparent manner.

Chairman

I thank the Minister of State and the members for their discussion and views on this important issue.