Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, EQUALITY, DEFENCE AND WOMEN’S RIGHTS debate -
Wednesday, 24 Nov 2004

Permanent Defence Force Service with EUFOR: Motion.

As members are aware the Dáil today passed a motion concerning approval by Dáil Éireann of the dispatch, pursuant to section 2 of the Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1960, as applied by the Defence (Amendment) Act 1993, of a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force for service with EUFOR, established under the authority of UN Security Council Resolution No. 1575 of 22 November 2004. The motion has been referred to the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, in accordance with paragraph (1) of the Orders of Reference of this committee, which, not later than 25 November 2004, shall send a message to the Dáil in the manner prescribed in Standing Order 85, and Standing Order 84(2) shall accordingly apply.

I welcome the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea. I believe this is his first time to attend this committee in his capacity as Minister for Defence. I wish him well in his appointment and I look forward to having a fruitful relationship with him and his officials in future. I also welcome Deputy Sherlock, the Labour Party spokesperson on defence, and Deputy Timmins, the Fine Gael spokesperson on defence. Members have already been given a short briefing document and I invite the Minister to make a short presentation on the motion.

I thank the Chairman of the committee for agreeing to take this motion at very short notice. As members are aware, under the Defence Acts, the deployment of a contingent of the Defence Forces on an overseas mission requires prior UN authorisation, Government approval and the approval of Dáil Éireann. This process is referred to as "the triple lock". The triple lock is a cornerstone of the Government's approach to deploying our Defence Forces overseas.

The Government had expected the necessary Security Council resolution would have been passed by the end of October. However, for various reasons, this did not happen. The requisite motion was passed unanimously by the Security Council last Monday, 22 November. The delay in finalising the resolution at the Security Council has imposed significant time constraints on Ireland completing its national decision-making process. The EU is due to take over the mission on 2 December and our troops are to be deployed, in theatre, prior to the commencement date.

As members will appreciate, it would have been inappropriate to bring a motion before the Dáil, in the absence of the final UN Security Council resolution authorising the establishment of EUFOR. I, therefore, appreciate that the committee, understanding the importance of the mission, agreed to fit this motion into its busy schedule. I thank the Chairman for his assistance in expediting this.

I propose to introduce the motion and provide some brief information and background on the proposed Defence Forces participation in this mission. On 9 November, the Government authorised me, as Minister for Defence, to arrange for the dispatch of a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force for a period of one year for service with EUFOR, the EU-led mission-operation in Bosnia Herzegovina, to be established under the authority of the United Nations, as the legal successor to the NATO-led Stabilisation Force, SFOR, in Bosnia Herzegovina, and to move a resolution in Dáil Éireann approving the dispatch of a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force for service on this mission.

The Government decision was subject to the passage of the formal UN resolution authorising the establishment of EUFOR. Pursuant to this authority and the passage of the appropriate Security Council resolution, the following motion has been placed on the Order Paper for Dáil Éireann:

That Dáil Éireann approves the despatch, pursuant to section 2 of the Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1960, as applied by Defence (Amendment) Act 1993, of a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force for service with EUFOR, established under the authority of UN Security Council Resolution 1575 of 22 November 2004.

In commending this motion to the select committee, I would like to outline the background to EUFOR and the reason the Government decided to authorise the dispatch of a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force for service with the new multinational stabilisation force in Bosnia Herzegovina. EUFOR is the legal successor to the current SFOR mission in Bosnia Herzegovina. SFOR was established in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1088 of 12 December 1996, with a mandate to implement the military aspects of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia Herzegovina, usually referred to as the "Dayton Agreement".

Members of the Defence Forces have served with SFOR since 1997, following Government decision and the subsequent approval by Dáil Éireann of the necessary enabling motion. Since then, the UN Security Council has authorised the continuation of SFOR for successive periods and the Government has approved continued Irish participation.

At the Copenhagen European Council in December 2002, the Heads of State of the EU indicated willingness to lead a military operation in Bosnia Herzegovina as a follow-on mission to SFOR. The EU Council conclusions dated 12 December 2003, reaffirmed this willingness and the Government agreed that, subject to completion of national decision-making procedures and the appropriate UN mandate, the Defence Forces would participate in a substantive manner in the then planned EU mission in Bosnia Herzegovina.

During the course of Ireland's EU Presidency, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, as President of the EU Council, wrote to the UN Secretary General setting out the terms of the EU takeover of the UN-authorised mission in Bosnia Herzegovina. In its resolution 1551 of 9 July 2004, the UN Security Council welcomed the EU's intention to launch a mission in Bosnia Herzegovina, including a military component from December 2004. The EU Council, on 12 July 2004, adopted a joint action by which the European Union shall conduct a military operation, called Althea/EUFOR, as a follow-on mission to SFOR. EUFOR was established as the military component of the new EU-led mission in Bosnia Herzegovina under UN Security Council Resolution 1575 of 22 November 2004, for a period of 12 months.

Similar to SFOR, EUFOR will be a Chapter VII mission, that is, it is entitled to use force to implement its mandates and to protect itself and the international civil presence. The role of EUFOR will be to assist the parties, in an even handed manner, to implement the peace accord to which they have freely agreed and to contribute to the continued development of the secure environment necessary for the consolidation and stabilisation of peace in the region. EUFOR will co-operate and work with the other agencies principally involved, including the Office of the High Representative, currently Lord Ashdown, the EU police mission, the UN agencies, including the UNHCR, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia and the OSCE. The co-operation covers a wide range of activities, including maintaining security, preventing a resumption of violence, supporting counter terrorism and the fight against organised crime, facilitating freedom of movement for the local population and assisting the return of refugees.

Ireland's participation in international peacekeeping is firmly grounded in the United Nations. Ireland has always been a strong and committed supporter of co-operative multilateral arrangements for collective security and the development of international organisations, particularly the UN. Successive Governments have confirmed that Ireland considers the UN to be the international authority for co-operative arrangements for collective security. Ireland has recognised and defended the primary role of the UN Security Council in maintaining international peace and security, in accordance with the UN charter.

The UN has recognised the advantages of regional organisations to which it can assign missions. Increased reliance on regional organisations to lead missions authorised by the UN is one of the major developments in the changing environment of UN peacekeeping in recent years. The UN's increasing reliance on regional action for crisis management has partly contributed to the development of the European Security and Defence Policy, which focuses on crisis management and humanitarian operations known as Petersberg Tasks.

The European Union, which has the capacity to mount peacekeeping operations, has engaged in two military operations so far, in Macedonia and in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The Defence Forces played an active part in Operation Artemis in the latter country, which exemplified the potential of such operations. The EU provided a force under a UN Security Council resolution, with France as the framework nation. The UN is involved in similar operations with other regional organisations. The initial deployment of troops in Liberia came from the Economic Community of West African States and from NATO in the case of Kosovo.

Co-operation between the EU and the UN is being developed to ensure a complementary and coherent response to crisis management operations. Members of the committee are aware that the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Kofi Annan, welcomed the ESDP developments when he visited Ireland recently. In particular, he welcomed the development of EU rapid response elements which can be deployed at short notice to support UN peacekeeping operations. There is increasing co-operation between the UN and the EU in the area of crisis management. The EU is involved in "rule of law" areas such as courts and prisons, civil administration and civil protection, including responses to natural disasters. The increasing necessity for post-conflict peace building has necessitated the involvement of civilian police, typically including a training element. The capacity developed by the Garda in this field, having participated in a number of such operations, is recognised internationally.

The UN continues to be the touchstone for Ireland's participation in overseas missions. Decisions on Irish participation in ESDP missions, which are taken on a case by case basis, are subject to the triple lock approach. Irish participation in such operations is in keeping with its commitment to the UN and its policy of military neutrality. Its ESDP and UN activities are complementary and mutually reinforcing. The development of the ESDP and Ireland's commitment to the EU rapid reaction force provide an asset that can act effectively and cohesively to further international peace and security based on international law and humanitarian principles.

Ireland strongly supports substantive EU involvement in crisis management missions within an ESDP framework. The focus of Ireland's participation in such arrangements is to develop the ability of the Defence Forces to undertake multinational peace support operations with an optimum level of inter-operability with other participating countries, reflecting Ireland's commitment to international peace and security. The Government fully supports the substantive participation of the Defence Forces in the EUFOR mission. The enhanced capability being developed through Ireland's preparations for the EU rapid reaction force and its participation in operations such as EUFOR will maintain and further develop its effective involvement in peace support operations in support of the UN.

The Defence Forces' initial SFOR deployment involved a military police contingent. The contingent was withdrawn in January 2003 as part of the overall restructuring of the deployment of the Defence Forces in the western Balkans. The process of restructuring included the replacement of a transport company with an infantry company group at KFOR, the UN-authorised mission in Kosovo. Members of the Permanent Defence Force continued to serve at SFOR headquarters as part of the process. The personnel deployed at that headquarters will transfer to EUFOR when the mission is taken over by the EU.

It is proposed to deploy an additional 42 personnel to EUFOR as part of a Finnish-led multinational task force, bringing Ireland's total deployment in the mission to 54. A small number of additional personnel may be deployed from time to time, as is the case in all missions, to fill other roles within the overall mission. The multinational task force will consist of personnel from Finland, Ireland, Austria, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Poland, Portugal, Turkey, Greece, Estonia and Belgium. The other nations which are serving with SFOR — Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and the United Kingdom — will also participate in the task force. Ireland will provide personnel for the force's headquarters, military police unit and joint military affairs verification teams, as well as a national support element. As the framework nation for the military police unit and the joint military affairs verification teams, it will provide the central headquarters role in respect of such elements in the task force's headquarters. Ireland's military police role will enable it to build on the experience of its previous military police deployment in the mission.

The joint military affairs verification teams were established under the Dayton accord to monitor arms caches and arms movements by the two forces in Bosnia Herzegovina. The teams, which are advised on weapons purchases and movements, inspect the arms holdings of the two forces. They monitor their movements, including the movements and training of the two forces' military personnel, to ensure both sides comply with their obligations under the Dayton accord. The UN regularly seeks observers and monitors from the Irish Defence Forces, which are recognised as having key skills in this area. It is a hallmark of many of our smaller deployments throughout the world.

Initial planning and reconnaissance has commenced ahead of the proposed deployment of the contingent. Advance parties of 11 personnel for each element have been deployed to put in place the requisite arrangements for the proposed deployment. The EUFOR deployment will take place next week, subject to the approval of the Dáil, with a view to starting the takeover of the mission by the EU on 2 December. The initial deployment will be for a year with a possible extension thereafter, subject to the renewal of the UN mandate and a satisfactory review of the mission. The level of security in Bosnia Herzegovina is assessed as stable, mainly due to the strong presence of the international community there. The attitude of the political parties and the general public in Bosnia Herzegovina to an increased EU presence ranges from neutral to positive. Some elements may increase their activities during the handover by SFOR to EUFOR. While disaffected sectors of the population may use this period to express discontent with their socio-economic circumstances, there have been no concrete indications so far that any such activities are planned.

All troop contributors to EUFOR, like SFOR, are responsible for their costs. It is estimated that the additional cost to the Defence Vote of Ireland's participation in EUFOR, will be €3,458,456. That figure includes Ireland's contribution of €877,000 to common costs, in accordance with the EU Council decision of 17 June 2002 on the financing of operations with military or defence implications. The common cost contribution will be payable through the Athena mechanism, which is responsible at EU level for collecting the contributions of member states and the disbursement of moneys received in respect of operational common costs.

The EUFOR mission, which is important for the EU and Ireland, will be undertaken under the authorisation of the United Nations. The success of the mission, which is the largest such mission deployed by the EU to date, will signal the strength of the EU's ability to undertake a robust and large scale mission. It will highlight the EU's capacity to provide a real and substantive response to requests from the UN for it to undertake increasingly complex peace support operations. It reaffirms our support for the UN and multilateralism in a meaningful and substantive way.

I commend the motion to the committee.

It seems we should be proud to sanction the participation of the Defence Forces in an exercise of this nature.

Will the Minister respond to our questions?

I ask the Minister to bank the contributions and questions. If there are further questions after the Minister responds, we can take them.

I thank the Chairman and Minister for Defence for organising this meeting at short notice. While it might be claimed that this business is being dealt with in a rushed manner, the issue was flagged in the report the Minister laid in the Oireachtas Library earlier this month. Fine Gael is strongly supportive of the motion and will endorse the resolution.

The UN mission in Bosnia was launched in 1995 following the three year war which gave us the term "ethnic cleansing" with which we are all familiar. Approximately 200,000 people were massacred during the war and it was realised in Europe that we had to get our act together. The United Nations has moved on and considered various ways in which it might operate, a process which culminated with the concept of sub-contracting missions to regional forces such as those of the European Union or the African Union.

If memory serves me correctly, Ireland has been involved in the Bosnian mission since its inception. We supplied a large contingent to SFOR at the beginning of the mission but have 12 people there today. Under discussion are a further 42 postings to culminate in a total force of 54. Fine Gael welcomes this development. As the Minister stated in his contribution, an advance party of 11 soldiers has travelled to Bosnia indicating that the mission is one which has been prepared for.

Fine Gael agrees with and is aware of much of the substance of the Minister's contribution. If the Minister can answer my questions now, that is well and good. If he cannot, I would appreciate it if he could respond to me at a later stage. According to the briefing note, the Government approved on 9 November the concept of supporting the mission but has been awaiting UN authorisation. The note states that for various reasons the passage of the motion was delayed. Do we know why the motion was delayed at the United Nations?

Deputy Kenny questioned the Tánaiste on this morning's Order of Business. While I do not want to wear out the triple lock, we must consider it in the cold light of day without using emotive language. Ireland has been a State for over 80 years and should be mature enough to adopt its own foreign policy and be comfortable in doing so. Currently, Ireland's foreign policy can be dictated by the veto of permanent members of the UN Security Council. We should be mature enough to get involved with a mission we identify as worthwhile.

I realise that this is a very emotional subject. There are people who frighten mothers and fathers with this concept by claiming their children will end up in Baghdad or Afghanistan. If a mission is right, it is right. Tremendous numbers of Irish people fought in the First and Second World Wars of their own volition before we ever had a UN resolution on foot of certain beliefs. While one can certainly argue that in some cases they were misguided, it is ironic that while some members of Irish society castigate the United States of America for certain foreign policies they oppose, they are quite happy to go along with it when the USA prevents us from doing something we believe is right. There is an inherent contradiction we must examine maturely. No one in Irish society is saying we should jump on every bandwagon and get stuck into everything.

Some people are concerned.

While that is true, it is a natural trait of many Irish people to want to get involved in things. On a local level, we cannot keep our noses out of anything.

I direct members to the particular motion under examination. The generality of defence is a matter for the Dáil as a whole. The committee is considering the motion.

While I thank the Chairman for his intervention, the generality of defence matters is very important in the context of the triple lock on which all peacekeeping will hinge in the years ahead. The Minister is aware of the implications which I hope he will take on board. The committee could play a role by inviting various bodies to examine the matter rather than allow it to be something which is resurrected every time we have an EU referendum on some issue or other.

Can the Minister tell me what delayed the motion? Will the €3.5 million cost of implementing the resolution come from Supplementary Estimates?

I am given to understand that the policy within the Defence Forces is to source soldiers for peacekeeping missions from within one brigade unit. While this is a worthy and correct approach, it has caused a difficulty at senior command and staff levels where there is a problem in finding personnel. There is pressure on certain appointment holders to keep going out. I would like the Minister to consider recruiting senior officers from a central pool rather than from a brigade area. For example, approximately 27 officers of the Southern Brigade are serving in Kosovo. There may be officers at Defence Forces headquarters or at the Curragh training depot who might not have the same level of access to peacekeeping missions but who may want to go out.

We must increase our awareness that there is a reliance on regional organisations to take up the baton for the UN as it does not have its former wherewithal to organise missions. The concept of peacekeeping has also changed. Fine Gael is very supportive of the resolutions.

I will be brief. The Labour Party is concerned at the speed with which this matter is being dealt with. A more thorough debate would be appropriate, though I understand the motion will be debated in the Dáil tomorrow.

Given the decision to expedite the matter in this way, I must raise a number of issues of special concern. These are the maintenance of the triple lock procedure and the wording of the motion we are being asked to approve.

It is not intended to discuss the motion further in the Dáil. This is the debate.

I understand. Critics of the triple lock mechanism often complain that the requirement of a UN mandate, a Government decision and Dáil approval is a cumbersome, unwieldy and time-consuming way to decide what missions Irish soldiers should be involved in. As it was only yesterday the Security Council adopted the resolution to allow EUFOR to take over the stabilisation role in Bosnia Herzegovina and Dáil approval is only now being debated, the triple lock appears to be justified. I emphasise that point. While the Labour Party would like more time to debate and scrutinise the Security Council resolution, its implications and consequences for our troops' activities in Bosnia and peacekeeping in the Balkans, we recognise that a speedy decision is desirable. Therefore, we are content to assent to the motion before us. This proves the triple lock mechanism works. It is not unwieldy and can be implemented quickly.

While Ireland is a neutral country, as we all know neutrality has many different guises. We must always remember that. The Labour Party considers that our neutrality should be defined in the Constitution. To insert the triple lock mechanism into the Constitution would guarantee the procedure and ensure that Irish troops take part in UN mandated missions only. This is a subject to which we will return in the context of the debate on the EU constitution. The Defence Act states that Irish involvement in any international United Nations force, such as EUFOR, must be established by the Security Council or General Assembly of the United Nations. The motion, however, states that UNFOR was established under the authority of UN Security Council 1574. There is a subtle but important anomaly. There is discretion between operating in activities established under the authority of the UN Security Council and those established by the Security Council. The Constitution, for example, recognises the distinction between the two. In it, both terms are used to state that the executive powers of the State are exercised by or on the authority of the Government. Put simply, the motion is at variance with the Constitution in this regard.

I recognise that this circumstance has arisen because the section of the Defence Act referred to was drafted at a time when the United Nations did not subcontract peacekeeping missions to other institutional or international bodies such as the European Union or NATO. The previous Minister for Defence was aware of this position but did not agree to our argument. Will the new Minister give the issue consideration? Resolving it will cause few, if any, problems.

A member of the committee secretariat has been to the Journal Office. It is confirmed that it is intended that the motion will be taken in the House tomorrow without debate. This discussion is, therefore, the substantive debate on the motion.

The matter was raised in the Dáil this morning and a motion of referral to this committee was passed. However, I believe the Tánaiste agreed on behalf of the Government that the motion would be debated in the Dáil.

I certainly formed that impression.

I was not under that impression. As matters stand, the Order Paper tomorrow will include this motion to be taken without debate.

Will the Chairman ask a member of the committee staff to check the position with the Whips Office? It is my understanding that while the Fine Gael Party was happy to go along with the proposal to take the motion without debate, the other parties indicated they were not and the Tánaiste agreed that time would be made available tomorrow to debate it.

A clerk has left to check the position.

I welcome the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, and wish him well in his portfolio. I welcome his positive commitment to the triple lock mechanism. This is a sensible and progressive view. I do not share the views of other members on this matter. It is important to have United Nations authorisation, Government approval and the approval of Dáil Éireann for overseas missions.

The Minister's submission notes that Irish participation in the ESDP operations is fully in keeping with Ireland's commitment to the United Nations and our policy of military neutrality. I support this position. Later, however, it states that Ireland is a strong supporter of a substantive involvement by the EU in crisis management missions within the framework of the ESDP. While I am open to correction, these statements appear to be contradictory. Will the Minister explain?

As regards the project to commit troops to Bosnia Herzegovina, will the Minister update the committee on the security position in the region and the level of threat to our Defence Forces? Will the contingent of 54 members of the Defence Forces wear EUFOR or United Nations uniforms?

When debating neutrality it is important to point out that those of us who support a strong, independent foreign policy line on neutrality are not necessarily in favour of sitting on the fence. Ireland's commitment to the United Nations over the past 40 or 50 years and the sacrifices our soldiers have made are proof of this. I seek a commitment from the Minister that our foreign policy will be focused on neutrality.

To take up Deputy Finian McGrath's point regarding the assessment of the risk involved in this mission, how are assessments made in the Department? Who makes them and who provides the intelligence for them? We have experience from other countries not so far from here that the intelligence upon which various decisions are based can sometimes be flawed. For this reason I am interested in how the assessment in the Department is made, who has responsibility for making it and whether we rely on intelligence from outside the State. Do we rely on information from the United Nations or other authorities when accumulating the intelligence and information upon which the assessments of risk are made?

I apologise to the committee for not being aware of the arrangements regarding the motion in the Dáil tomorrow. I was not in the House for the relevant part of the Order of Business. I presume the matter is being checked.

Yes, the joint committee will arrive at a decision on the matter before the end of the evening.

All will be revealed. I thank members for the positive tone of their contributions. Deputy Timmins asked why the United Nations motion we expected last October was delayed. I am advised that the mission will use NATO assets and certain technical details had to be finalised between the European Union and NATO with regard to the use of these assets. For reasons I do not have to hand — I can provide greater detail in writing if members wish — the arrangements took longer to make than originally envisaged, with the matter finalised only last Monday.

Deputy Timmins pointed out that the triple lock mechanism enables Irish foreign policy to be decided by one member of the United Nations. The position is that we regard the United Nations as the guarantor of world peace and security. Our tradition has been, as the law now states, that we will only act under the aegis of the United Nations. We will not join ever varying coalitions of the willing here, there and everywhere. Our participation in missions is under the guidance and direction of the United Nations.

In modern conditions the United Nations rule that the Security Council must decide on matters of this nature unanimously may not be the best rule. That is a matter for the United Nations, as is its decision making mechanism. The committee is concerned solely with whether a mission has been established by the United Nations. If that is the case, it is then a matter for the Government, with the support of the Dáil — if that is the view of Deputies — to decide, on a case by case basis and depending on a number of factors, whether to involve our troops in any such mission. The critical point is that under Irish law, it must be established, rather than just supported, by the United Nations.

Deputy Sherlock asked if it would be possible to incorporate the terms of the triple lock mechanism in the Constitution. I presume he is referring to the Irish Constitution. As the Deputy will be aware, the triple lock currently operates on the basis of law, namely, the Defence Acts. As to whether it should be written into the Constitution, that matter could be considered in the context of drawing up a new constitution. I suppose it could be looked at in that context but one very important amendment was made to the Constitution in the last year or two, namely, an amendment preventing this country getting involved in any common defence arrangements for the European Union. That would mean that if we ever became part of a European Union common defence policy we could only do so by sanction of the Irish people, in other words, the Constitution would have to be changed and the only way that can be done is by referendum.

Deputy Sherlock raised a technical-legal matter about the format of the resolution. I will certainly look at what he said. All I can say today is that the matter has been raised and the advice we have got from the Attorney General does not accord with the legal advice available to Deputy Sherlock. I will ask the Attorney General to have another look at it.

Regarding what budget the money will come from, I am advised that the €3.5 million will come out of the defence Vote. It will come out of the allocation we have for the Department of Defence for 2005 which, between Army pensions and general departmental estimates, is in the order of €916 million.

In regard to Deputy Timmins's point about command staff being under pressure because they come from one brigade, I have spoken to people who are being deployed to as replacement troops in Kosovo and some of the 435 going out as replacements to Liberia. I visited the relevant barracks in Athlone and Collins Barracks in Cork. A number of issues were raised in the course of discussions with officers, troops and their families. Various matters were brought to my attention which might not necessarily have been said in the presence of the officers or the civil servants but that point was not one of them. However, I will certainly look at it.

In case anybody is under the illusion that we are press-ganging people to go abroad, the reality is that the only people who are going abroad at the moment as a result of being mandated or ordered to do so are certain technical staff. There can be shortages of technical staff on certain missions. There are 435 Irish troops in Liberia, our largest contingent abroad. All but 15 of those are volunteers. Therefore, it is still very much a voluntary operation.

Regarding Deputy Finian McGrath's point about neutrality, I clarified when I was in Brussels on Monday that what we are doing by way of peacekeeping under the aegis of the United Nations, whether it is by the United Nations recruiting our troops directly in the traditional way or through a United Nations established regional operation such as the one in Sudan under the African states or the Bosnian mission under the European states, as far as I am concerned we are not doing anything we have not done in the past. Our focus is on keeping the peace and stopping people being slaughtered, preventing people going at each other and stabilising situations where peace has been established. That is our focus and we have been doing that for 50 years. There has never been any question that it infringed on our neutrality in any way.

The classic Irish definition of neutrality under which all Governments have operated is that we do not become part of any military alliance. That is and will remain the position. I am very wedded, as is the Government, to the idea of the triple lock.

Deputies Finian McGrath and Power asked about the level of threat in Bosnia. The current situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina is assessed as being stable. It is relatively quiet there. There may be a difficulty during the immediate take-over phase, particularly from organised crime elements in the country. That could be exacerbated by the fact that there is a significant level of economic dislocation and poverty in the area, but it is regarded as less dangerous than certain other places in which we have troops. It is regarded as being stable.

Deputy Power asked where we get our information. These situations are assessed by the Defence Forces. In the case of Bosnia Herzegovina, the Army gets its information from three sources, EU intelligence, NATO intelligence and, in this case, because we have people out there already, we are getting reports from our people on the ground. As the Deputy said, people can get it wrong and the consequences can be disastrous but we have to go on the best information we can get and these are the sources.

Somebody asked me about the equipment that will be used. Equipment will be light infantry weapons for personal protection only. Personnel will be issued with a full range of personal protection dress kit and equipment. That illustrates the difference in regard to the risk assessment between Bosnia, which is now regarded as being relatively stable, and a place like Liberia. If one looks at the array of weaponry being shipped out there, we are talking about armoured personnel carriers, anti-tank missiles, etc. Obviously the perceived level of risk there is much higher than in Bosnia.

I think I have covered all matters but if there is anything else I will be happy to answer it if I can. I apologise for the fact that, as Deputy Sherlock said, this motion is pretty rushed. I agree it is, but the difficulty is that the take-over is on 2 December and our troops have to be out there in theatre, as the military saying goes, before that date. The time constraints are very severe. I thank the committee for facilitating us in this regard.

We may not be finished yet.

The Minister describe the local reaction to the UN mission as ranging from neutral to positive. The reference to organised crime suggests that the problem is more one of policing than a concern for the United Nations. Is there a large anti-social, organised crime aspect to this mission?

No, but the intelligence available to us is that certain organised crime elements are fairly skilled at stirring things up and that they might come to the fore as they see opportunities emerging for themselves during the transition phase when one force is replacing another. The situation is regarded as pretty stable and, by and large, the majority of the population welcomes the work of the peacekeeping force there.

Deputy Finian McGrath asked another question to which I have not yet replied. Irish troops in Bosnia will wear their own uniform with an EU logo attached.

I thank everybody for contributing. That concludes our discussion on this subject. In accordance with Standing Orders, the select committee will report back to Dáil Éireann to the effect that it has completed its consideration of the motion. Is it agreed that there should be no further debate on the matter by Dáil Éireann? Agreed.

Is the draft report on the motion——

I am satisfied to go along with it but I wish to point out that there has been an agreement that there should be a debate in Dáil Éireann.

What we decide in the committee is a matter for the committee. What happens tomorrow morning during the Order of Business with regard to how it is conducted and so on is a matter for the Dáil to decide.

The Chairman said if the committee agreed it there would not be any further debate on the matter. I do not agree with that in view of what happened this morning. As the Tánaiste agreed that a debate would take place, I do not see how we can make the recommendation as proposed by the Chairman.

It has been agreed by the Whips that if there is a need to do so, it could be put to a vote. We will try to get final clarification on what was agreed this morning. Would it be acceptable if we suspend for five minutes?

If the motion is agreed here, it will not be debated in the Dáil. Could the addendum not be excluded?

No. It is incumbent on me, as Chairman and as a result of the agreement of the Whips, to have this matter included. It is not binding on the Dáil; it is just a recommendation of the committee. The Dáil can subsequently decide whether it wants to discuss it, accept it or vote on it. There are administrative steps which I, as Chairman, must take. This is one of them.

According to the Official Report of this morning's proceedings, Deputy Rabbitte pointed out that he had no objection in respect of the mission but that the sending of troops abroad on such a mission ought to be done by a decision of the full House. The Tánaiste stated, "the mission requires a motion to be approved by the full House and that will be forthcoming." Deputy Rabbitte responded that it should be approved "with debate", to which the Tánaiste replied that the Government is "open to that".

If the Tánaiste said that, I presume the matter was referred back to the Whips to decide on when to hold the debate.

I had this discussion with the girl in the Whip's office and she stated the Whips were trying to have time allocated to discuss the matter the following morning.

That is also the impression I got.

That is a matter for the Whips. As far as the committee is concerned, it has discussed the matter and everyone has contributed to the discussion. There is disagreement on whether there should be further debate in the Dáil. We will vote on the matter.

Question, "That there be no further debate on the matter in Dáil Éireann," put and declared carried.

Is the draft report on the motion, putting into words what we have already agreed, agreed, subject to insertion of the details on attendance, the brief supplied by the Department and any amendment to the technical amendments to the script, as may be required, which would have no bearing on the substantive issue? Agreed.

I thank the Minister and his officials for attending. We look forward to meeting them again.

Top
Share