Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, EQUALITY, DEFENCE AND WOMEN'S RIGHTS debate -
Wednesday, 28 Mar 2007

Multinational Battle Groups: Motion.

I welcome the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, and his officials to the meeting, the purpose of which is to consider the motion referred by Dáil Éireann on a memorandum of understandingconcerning the principles for the establishment and operation of a multinational battle group to be made available to the European Union(Nordic battle group memorandum of understanding); and a memorandum of understanding concerning the principles for co-operation regarding the operational headquarters function for the Nordic battle group (operational headquarters memorandum of understanding).

I thank the committee for taking this motion today. This provides a good opportunity to discuss in detail, Ireland's participation in the Nordic battle group. As members will recall, we have previously discussed Ireland's participation in EU battle groups, in particular when the committee debated the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006 in the summer of 2006. The issue now before the committee essentially relates to the terms of agreement for Ireland's participation in the Nordic battle group. Before going through the specifics of the memoranda of understanding, I wish to set out some of the background to our proposed participation.

The ambition of the EU to be able to respond rapidly to emerging crises has, and continues to be, a key objective of the development of European security and defence policy. In the headline goal 2010, the EU set itself the objective of being able "to respond with rapid and decisive action, applying a fully coherent approach to the whole spectrum of crisis management operations covered by the treaty on the European Union". A key element of the headline goal is the capability to deploy forces at high readiness, broadly based on the battle groups concept. The purpose of the EU battle groups is to undertake operations known as the Petersberg Tasks, which include humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking. These tasks are consistent with our national traditions in peacekeeping and peace support operations.

As I have done on many previous occasions, I again emphasise that the creation of battle groups does not alter the scope or purpose of the European security and defence policy or the Petersberg Tasks. These are firmly rooted in the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, both of which the Irish people approved by referendum. Battle groups are not linked to the concept of a possible EU common defence. The purpose of battle groups is, very simply, to enable the Union to be more effective in contributing to international peace and security in support of the United Nations by putting in place a rapid response capability. In this regard, I would like to again recall the strong support of the United Nations for the European Union's efforts in this direction.

In January 2007, the European Union achieved full battle group operational capability, which means that two battle groups are continually on standby for a period of six months at a time. In an informal decision taken at its meeting in January 2006, the Government agreed I could enter into discussions with Sweden and other like-minded nations in regard to Ireland's contribution to EU battle groups. Representatives from the Departments of Defence and Foreign Affairs and the Defence Forces have met with their Swedish counterparts on a number of occasions to discuss possible participation by the Defence Forces in the Nordic battle group. Following ongoing discussions, Sweden, as the framework nation for the Nordic battle group, advised it would welcome a contribution from Ireland to the Nordic battle group, subject to Ireland's agreement to sign the memorandum of understanding for the Nordic battle group.

In July last year, the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006 was enacted by the Oireachtas. The Act provided for, among other things, participation by the Defence Forces in overseas training and field manoeuvres, in humanitarian operations and for early pre-assembly and dispatch of contingents. While not solely related to our possible participation in EU battle groups, these were important provisions in facilitating and furthering our engagement with the participants in the Nordic battle group. Following enactment of the legislation, discussions with Sweden continued in earnest and the detailed provisions of Ireland's participation in the Nordic battle group were agreed subject to Government and Dáil approval.

At its meeting of 14 November 2006, the Government formally approved the arrangements for Ireland's participation in the Nordic battle group, agreeing to provide a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force to participate in the battle group and to sign the memorandum of understanding for the Nordic battle group, subject to the approval of Dáil Éireann.

I wish to outline to the committee the detailed elements of Ireland's contribution to the Nordic battle group. The Defence Forces will contribute an EOD-IEDD contingent with its own security detail, together with staff posts at the operational and force headquarters. EOD-IEDD means explosive ordnance disposal and improvised explosive device disposal. EOD relates to normal type munitions whereas IEDD generally refers to devices devised by terrorist groups, such as car bombs.

It is expected that between 80 and 100 Defence Forces personnel will be involved. This level of commitment will only arise should the battle group be called on to undertake an operation. The number of personnel involved operationally during the standby period, where the battle group has not been mobilised to undertake an operation, will be approximately 15 personnel. Any contribution to a battle group will be met within the context of the overall ceiling of 850 personnel serving overseas at any one time set out in the White Paper on Defence and will have no adverse impact on our existing peace support operations. It goes without saying that any deployment of the Irish element of the battle group on an operational mission will, as always, be subject to the requirements of the triple lock.

Turning now to the issue at hand, the Nordic battle group memorandum of understanding is an agreement between the participants comprising the Nordic battle group, namely, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Estonia, which sets out principles in regard to the operation, deployment and management of the Nordic battle group. The memorandum of understanding has already been signed by the existing participants in the battle group. Ireland will join to the memorandums of understanding through an exchange of letters with each of the existing participants in the form of the letter of accession included in the documents laid before Dáil Éireann on 22 March 2007.

I wish to outline each of the provisions of the memorandums of understanding. Sections 1 and 2 deal with the definitions and reference documents, respectively. Section 3 outlines the purpose of the memorandum of understanding as a framework document, which sets out principles in regard to the operation, deployment and management of the Nordic battle group. Section 4 deals with the scope of the memorandum of understanding.

I draw the attention of the committee to the fact that the memorandum of understanding specifically recognises the sovereignty of each participant in terms of any decision to deploy its forces being in accordance with its own national law. This principle is reiterated in section 6 of the memorandum of understanding. In Ireland's case this means any decision to participate in a battle group operation, irrespective of our joining to this memorandum of understanding, would be subject to a further decision in accordance with the provisions of the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006.

It is unlikely the Minister will be able to finish reading his script before the vote in the Dáil is taken.

I apologise, I did not realise a vote had been called. Does the Chairman wish to adjourn?

I propose we adjourn for the duration of the vote.

Sitting suspended at 4.20 p.m. and resumed at 4.30 p.m.

It is likely there will be a vote at 4.45 p.m., therefore, I ask the Minister to read only the heading on each of the sections. Perhaps he would do so as speedily as possible.

Sections 1 and 2 deal with definitions and reference documents. Section 3 sets out the purpose of the Memorandum of Understanding. Section 4 deals with the scope of the MoU. Section 5 deals with the purpose of the Nordic battle group. Sections 6 and 7 set out the principles for deploying and withdrawing the battle group. Section 8 outlines the political-military consultation process. Section 9 deals with the establishment phase. Section 10 deals with force contribution, generation and tailoring. Section 11 deals with command and control. Training is dealt with in section 12. Section 13 deals with certification. Section 14 deals with the status of forces in terms of jurisdiction and discipline and section 15 deals with claims and liabilities. Section 16 deals with financing. Section 17 deals with logistics. Section 19 provides that third parties can be invited to participate in certain situations. Section 21 deals with modifications, amendments and disputes. I commend the proposal to the committee.

It is unfortunate the way our business is arranged. I am not blaming the committee or the Minister that we have to suspend our business for votes but it leaves us open to the claim that our neutrality is slipping away in the quietness of the afternoon. I do not agree with that because we are discussing having a more efficient military force than we had heretofore.

Some of the arguments made against the European Union battle group concept are disingenuous because Irish troops have operated with other nationalities in the past, and do so as we speak, which is important in terms of the efficiency of the United Nations. It must be remembered that the EU battle group concept arose from the Brahimi report, which was set up following several spectacular failures on the part of the UN. It is important that there is interoperability among the various contingents who operate on the ground, train together and prepare together in terms of the equipment they use and the actual chain of command.

I welcome this development, however, but Fine Gael does not agree with the triple lock mechanism. It is important that I point out, as I am at the other end of the spectrum, that this development does not impinge upon our so-called neutrality but ultimately will give rise to a more effective and efficient force. It will make it more capable of achieving its missions and, more importantly, ensure that our troops can operate in a safer environment than was the case heretofore.

I want to put some questions to the Minister which I hope can be addressed before the vote is called. While we are streamlining the military aspect, we must consider the political aspect also. In light of the helplessness of the international community regarding the situation in Darfur, we must consider changing our political systems to adapt to the modern age. Everybody is appalled by what is happening in Darfur yet nothing is being done about it because of a system that does not work.

Sweden is a framework nation and we have worked with its forces in the past. We have worked also with the Norwegians and the Finns. I do not believe we worked with the Estonians in the past but we may do so now. Regarding the explosives ordnance disposal, EOD, team, during the stand-by period 15 people will probably be permanently tied up with that. If it goes operational it will involve 80 to 100 personnel but will the 15 people be located out of the country? Also, will the staff posts to be located in the headquarters be additional to the ordnance personnel involved? Did the Minister receive a request for any other group of troops such as signals or transport? Was this a specific request or did we indicate that this is what we had available? Are any of the other participants in the Nordic battle group subject to a triple lock mechanism similar to the one we have?

The Minister spoke about an appropriate EU decision-making process. Can he outline what that process is? I presume it will be based on a request from the UN. I understood him to say that, to withdraw forces, there would need to be a consensus. What happens if there is not a consensus or if one country, such as Ireland, wished to withdraw?

What additional costs, if any, will there be to the Exchequer and will Supplementary Estimates be required? There may be no costs in the current year but what are the projected costs? I ask the Minister again to review the rule whereby foreign troops cannot train in Ireland, because the advice he has received from the Attorney General in that regard represents a narrow interpretation of the Constitution. The next time we have a constitutional referendum we should put that issue to the people. It would not be a direct question on our neutrality but it would give them an opportunity to express a view on our contribution in the wider area of security.

I am representing Deputy Costello. I participated in this debate previously when I was my party's spokesperson and wish to repeat that my party supports totally the triple lock mechanism.

I welcome the Minister and thank him for his presentation. I have major concerns about the term "multinational battle group". I would prefer it to be called a peacekeeping group or a conflict prevention group because as it stands it sends out the wrong message to Irish citizens. There are too many powers in the world with major weapons and the money should be spent in other areas such as health, education and tackling poverty.

Could this be an opportunity for Ireland to use its conflict resolution skills, gained during our own peace process, to assist in troubled parts of the world? I strongly support the triple lock mechanism. The Minister said in regard to Article 29 of the Constitution, that the Attorney General had examined the issue and advised that Ireland's signing of the memorandum of understanding be approved by Dáil Éireann. Is this advice solid?

The Minister also said that battle groups were not linked to the concept of a possible EU common defence. As an Independent Deputy I am concerned about this issue so can he convince me, and others who have concerns over the prospect of an EU common defence, that that is the case? He also emphasised the support of the United Nations. Does this amount to outsourcing on its part, to assist UN resolutions relating to conflicts throughout the world?

Does the Minister share people's concerns about battle groups? Many of us who strongly support the role of Ireland's soldiers in UN peacekeeping efforts have concerns about this latest development. Can he convince the citizens of this State that we will not walk away from our strongly held principle of neutrality? There is nothing wrong with neutrality, which is something on which I disagree with some colleagues. Many people misrepresent the concept as amounting to sitting on the fence in regard to international conflicts. That is not the truth, as demonstrated by the positive and constructive role Irish forces have played in the Middle East. We have never sat on the fence when it comes to making peace and I am very worried that an attempt will be made to subtly erode our neutrality by participation in these battle groups.

I am always happy to support the Minister. I listened to "Morning Ireland" this morning, when he received some criticism, but his response was very positive and he made the point that the Army had a serious role to play in the modern world. I compliment him on that and wish him well.

I agree with Deputy O'Connor and strongly concur with the points made by the Minister. I echo my support for the triple lock strategy. However, I concur with Deputy Finian McGrath's point on the unfortunate term "battle groups". Perhaps we might have found a better description for what we intend.

The Minister emphasised that there would be no joint training exercises in this country. Can he envisage a situation in which that would change in the future?

I thank the Deputies for their kind comments and for their support for the triple lock. Deputy Timmins is correct to say the intention is to improve the efficiency of UN peacekeeping operations. It does not in any way undermine the triple lock because the participation by Ireland in any battle group operation will have to be subject to each element of the lock. Ireland is a member of the Nordic battle group and has signed the memorandum of understanding but, if the battle group decided to mobilise tomorrow without a UN resolution, Ireland could not participate.

The 15 people about which Deputy Timmins asked will be located abroad. Four will be located at operational headquarters in Northwood and 11 in the main headquarters in Stockholm, in the framework nation. Staff posts will be included in the figure given of between 80 and 100 personnel.

The initiative came from us. All the other countries have their own national decision-making processes for sending troops abroad. We are the only country in the Nordic battle group with a legal requirement for a United Nations resolution. Nevertheless, in many cases, a resolution will be a de facto political requirement anyway because governments will not dare move without it. We have discussed our legal requirement with Sweden, Estonia and Finland and they have no difficulty with it.

The Deputy also asked about the decision-making process. It will require a unanimous decision of the European Council. I can see why Deputy Timmins is confused on the procedures for withdrawal but if the participants in the battle group decide to reduce its size or withdraw the entire group there has to be consensus. However, any individual nation can pull out of the battle group at any stage. In that case the memorandum of understanding will continue to apply to those remaining for a particular operation.

There will be no Supplementary Estimates as we will be able to meet additional costs from within our own resources. The cost of standby is estimated at €450,000; of the joint training at €1.3 million; and the deployment of the battle group for 120 days during the six-month period at an extra €3 million.

I agree with members who condemned the term "battle group" but we had no control over it. It is a term we tried to get changed as it is most unfortunate.

I agree with the Attorney General's advice and believe it to be solid. The Constitution prevents us from getting involved in any common or mutual defence but the terms of the memorandum of understanding state that every country which participates in the battle group is sovereign and will only be expected to participate in an operation if it meets its own internal legal and constitutional requirements. Ireland will look at each case on its merits and, if there is any question of an operation becoming an exercise in mutual defence, we are out.

I thank the Minister. That concludes our discussion on this matter. Is it agreed there should be no further debate on the matter by Dáil Éireann? Agreed. Is the draft report agreed, subject to the insertion of the Minister's speaking note and details regarding attendance and contributors to the discussion? Agreed. I thank the Minister and his officials for attending.

Top