Dinny McGinley
Question:8 Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for Defence when Irish troops will commence training in the EU established battle groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23963/06]
View answerThursday, 22 June 2006
Questions (8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)
Brendan Howlin
Question:10 Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Defence the mechanism under which battle groups will be established by the United Nations General Assembly or the United Nations Security Council so that Irish troops can be deployed as rapidly as the troops of other countries; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23728/06]
View answer
Trevor Sargent
Question:11 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Defence the reason the Nordic battle group’s headquarters will be located at British Operation headquarters in Northwood, England; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24147/06]
View answer
Eamon Ryan
Question:21 Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Defence if he will report on his address to the Forum on Europe on 11 May 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24144/06]
View answer
John Gormley
Question:25 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Defence if he will report on the latest contacts he has had with his counterparts in Sweden regarding Irish participation in the Nordic battle group; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24136/06]
View answer
Michael Ring
Question:33 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Defence if troops from foreign armies can train here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23965/06]
View answer
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:35 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence the extent to which military training or manoeuvres has taken place or will take place with EU, NATO or other forces in preparation for participation in an emergency response or EU battle groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24110/06]
View answer
John Perry
Question:41 Mr. Perry asked the Minister for Defence if the battle group which Irish troops will participate in has been decided; the extent of this participation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23962/06]
View answer
Emmet Stagg
Question:49 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for Defence if it is proposed to send Irish troops to train in other countries for the purpose of forming battle groups; if it is proposed to allow foreign troops to train here for the purpose of forming battle groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23734/06]
View answer
Richard Bruton
Question:54 Mr. Bruton asked the Minister for Defence the number of members of the Defence Forces to be deployed to the Nordic battle group formation in which Ireland will participate; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23782/06]
View answerEamon Ryan
Question:59 Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Defence if he or his officials have had further discussions with Finland or Austria regarding co-operation in EU battle groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24145/06]
View answerJohn Gormley
Question:60 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Defence the range of missions that the EU battle groups will be participating in; if they are broader than the Petersburg Tasks adopted in the Amsterdam treaty; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24137/06]
View answer
Olwyn Enright
Question:66 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Defence if members of the Defence Forces can engage in joint training missions with forces from other countries within the territory of Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23772/06]
View answer
Jan O'Sullivan
Question:70 Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Defence if he has received a response from the Swedish Government regarding the approach made by the Irish Army to participate in the Nordic battle group; the details of the negotiations between the Swedish and Irish representatives; when a final decision will be made; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23795/06]
View answerOral answers (66 contributions)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 10, 11, 21, 25, 33, 35, 41, 49, 54, 59, 60, 66 and 70 together.
Discussions with like-minded states have begun regarding battle groups. A delegation consisting of representatives from the Department of Defence, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Defence Forces met our Swedish counterparts in Stockholm on 9 and 10 March to discuss possible participation by the Defence Forces in the Nordic battle group. Our representatives outlined Ireland's position on battle group participation and international peacekeeping, and gave a presentation on the capabilities which Ireland can make available to a battle group. These range from smaller niche capabilities to an APC mounted light infantry company group of approximately 200 personnel, plus support elements.
Further consultation between the Defence Forces, the Swedish armed forces and officials from their respective ministries are continuing, including technical discussions and a memorandum of understanding on the specific nature of our contribution. Pending completion of these discussions, I am unable to state the nature or extent of our contribution to the Nordic battle group. However, any decision on a specific contribution to a battle group will be subject to formal Government approval. It will be met within the context of the overall ceiling of 850 personnel serving overseas at any one time, as set out in the White Paper on Defence.
The Nordic battle group was organised some time ago and most of the core elements are already in place. In addition, battle groups covering the period through to 2010 have already been announced and on this basis, I expect that our contribution in the period to 2010 is likely to be limited. However, this will be a matter for ongoing discussion with other member states over the coming months, in particular, with Finland and Austria with whom we have also had some initial informal discussions. The discussions with these countries have been of a purely exploratory nature, as the main focus is on concluding arrangements with Sweden regarding the Nordic battle group.
Most training for the battle groups will take place in the contributing member states, that is, Irish troops will mainly be trained in Ireland. However, some level of joint training with other battle group elements will be an imperative. The extent of any such joint training and whether training will extend to exercising is a matter for decision by battle group participants. No such training has taken place to date. The Attorney General has advised that there is a constitutional impediment to training foreign troops in Ireland. As such, there are no plans for training foreign troops in Ireland. However, as we are not a framework nation, this should not be a problem. As a framework nation for the Nordic battle group, Sweden has confirmed that there will be no requirement for joint training or exercises by the Nordic battle group in Ireland.
When fully operational, the EU will have two battle groups available and on stand-by to respond to crises as they arise. As in the case of the forthcoming operation in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the UN may request the EU and, thereafter, authorise the deployment of an EU force to undertake a peace support operation on its behalf. It will be a matter for the EU to decide whether the battle group is the appropriate response, having regard to the circumstances pertaining to the operation. Battle groups will not be established by the UN. The UN will authorise the deployment of a force and the EU will decide whether the battle group or some other force is to be deployed.
The decision to use Northwood as the operational headquarters was taken by the current participating states in the Nordic battle group and is obviously a matter for them to decide. I can only assume that it is because Northwood has all the necessary infrastructure, communications systems, facilities and support which may not be otherwise available within the member states currently participating in the Nordic battle group. The establishment of an operational headquarters is not a simple matter. There are only a small number of such facilities in Europe, mainly in the larger member states. For example, Germany has such a facility in Potsdam, which is currently being used for the EU operation in the Congo. I welcome the contribution of the UK to the development of EU crisis-management response capabilities by making available the technical and support facilities at Northwood.
I am fully satisfied that our participation in the battle group concept in no way weakens or undermines Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality. On many occasions, I reiterated that our participation in peace support operations will continue to require UN authorisation. Participation in battle groups will not diminish this requirement in any way. Ireland's basis for participation in missions undertaken by the EU is grounded in the legitimacy conveyed by the UN Security Council. That will not change. The triple lock of UN, Government and Dáil approval will remain in place.
I welcome the decision by the Government to participate in EU battle groups, which was a long time coming. Will the Minister confirm that the troops will likely train in England?
No.
One of the reasons the battle group was formed was to have a cohesive network. Prior training would be required for this. Will the Minister give an indication where they might train? It is most unusual that Irish troops can go abroad to train, but foreign armies cannot train here. Does the Minister agree? Are there any intentions to hold a referendum?
Section 8 in the new Act is at the hub of the sham debate we have had about neutrality in this country. It represents an Irish solution to an Irish problem. Irish troops may be somewhere in Europe, waiting to cross the start line. They may have Dáil and Government approval, but cannot move until the Americans, Russians and Chinese solve their old problems and come forward with a UN Security Council resolution. This is farcical. Does the Minister agree that the triple lock is dated? It is time that we in the Dáil——
It does not exist.
I agree with Deputy Gormley on that, but it does exist unfortunately. The Minister is caught between two stools. I am telling him that he is not going far enough, while DeputyGormley tells him that he has abandoned neutrality. He has not abandoned neutrality, whatever that may mean. I would like to see the Minister address this in a logical way. We will bring forward an amendment to this on Committee Stage of the Bill and I hope that others support us. I believe that the Irish public supports the Fine Gael position on this.
I am caught between several stools. I will do my best to resolve these fundamental differences——
The Minister is in the trenches.
——between different components of a potential future government.
He should put on his hard hat.
There is no need to be offensive. The Deputy should keep it at a reasonable level.
I did not say anything offensive.
I do not agree with Deputy Timmins's final point. We will have to agree to disagree.
With regard to his technical questions on training, the troops will not be trained here. If we join the Nordic battle group, we will not be training in the UK. The training usually takes place in the framework state, which for the Nordic battle group is Sweden. It is 99.9% probable that the training will take place in Sweden. The Deputy also asked about a referendum to change the Constitution to allow foreign troops to train here. It is not high on the Government's list of priorities at the moment, but I do not think it is necessary in any case. The practice in multinational battle groups is that training usually takes place in the framework state. In this case, the framework state is Sweden. If we decide to join another battle group after 2010, it is most unlikely that we will be a framework state at that stage either. There are other issues on which we could hold a referendum that the Government might regard as more urgent.
At the moment, it does not seem that any Irish troops are serving abroad legally.
My question was about the establishment of battle groups. The Minister is saying they will be authorised, rather than established, by the United Nations. How will the troops involved train and how will they be deployed for training outside this country if they have not been established by the UN? This raises serious questions about section 3 of the new legislation. That section bypasses the triple lock mechanism by providing that a contingent or member of the Permanent Defence Force may, with only the sole prior approval of the Government, conduct or participate in training, undertake monitoring, observation or advisory duties abroad, and participate in or undertake recognisance or fact finding missions. Does that appear to provide for the deployment of troops abroad to be trained in various military exercises that may or may not become a battle group authorised by the United Nations at some time in the future?
How can the Minister manage to authorise a battle group, which is a rapid response mechanism, if he must wait for authorisation from the Security Council and UN General Assembly? They meet only on a regular scheduled basis and do no have urgent meetings to consider matters of that nature. What will happen in this regard? If an engineering section or signal section of Irish troops are to be deployed, will the battles take place and the war be over before they are deployed? There is nothing in the legislation that indicates how the Minister will get such an authorisation in time to effectively operate a battle group.
All this is germane to a Bill we will debate next week and the week after. With regard to what Deputy Gormley said, I do not have any say over the time allocated for the taking of this Bill. I am simply told the Bill will be debated in the Seanad and in the Dáil at a certain time. If Deputy Gormley is on this side of the House after the next election, he will find that is the position. The Minister does not have any input on the allocation of such time.
The Government does.
The Minister asked that this Bill be dealt with before to the summer recess.
I did.
The Government has a say in that.
I asked that it be dealt with before to the recess but I did not allocate the specific time for taking it.
We will not get an opportunity to debate it.
I asked that the Bill be dealt with before to the recess because discussions are taking place with the Swedes and the other possible participants in the Nordic battle group and time is of the essence. The fact it must be passed before the recess means we could spend the next two weeks debating it, and I do not decide on that.
It is to be debated in the Seanad but it was tabled for the Dáil.
I am not clear about where we are at in dealing with these questions. I do not see Deputy Costello's name on my list.
I asked the Minister a number of questions but the Minister answered different questions.
I will answer the questions the Deputy asked me. If he is right in saying we have no authority to send out forces which are only authorised by the United Nations, a point on which I do not agree with him, he would still be wrong in his statement that there is nobody abroad serving legally because the force in Liberia, which is our largest force, was established by the United Nations.
That is the key point. I am glad the Minister admitted that. We have one force established under UN mandate.
With regard to the other matters concerning training and whether there will be training and exercises, that will all be dealt with on Second and Committee Stages of the legislation. The Deputy's point about a force being authorised rather than established is not relevant to battle groups because our contribution to a battle group will take place only after the legislation has been passed, and the legislation will clarify that.
My colleague, Deputy Boyle, was informed that this legislation must be done and dusted by 7 July and that is the reason it is being rushed through. Will the Minister confirm that to the House?
I did not hear the Deputy.
The deadline for the passing of this legislation is 7 July and that is the reason the Minister is rushing it through the Houses. The legislation must be passed by 7 July — that is the problem and the reason the debate will be guillotined and we will not have real debate on the issue.
The Bill will go to the Seanad first.
No, this has nothing to do with the Seanad, it has more to do with operational matters. That is the issue.
Will the Minister agree there is a broad remit in the provision of the legislation dealing with battle groups where it states the international United Nations force means an international force or body established, mandated, authorised, endorsed, supported, approved or otherwise sanctioned? Will the Minister agree that George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld have said their troops are in Iraq because their mission there has been otherwise sanctioned by the Security Council? In other words, this legislation has become meaningless — it is such a broad stroke, and it is a stroke.
With regard to what Deputy Costello said, I am interested in section 3(f) of the legislation which deals with the undertaking of humanitarian tasks in response to an actual or potential disaster or emergency.
The Deputy's time has concluded.
No Dáil approval is required for such a mission. If our troops were out in the field and fired upon, would they be entitled to return fire? Is it the Minister's understanding that they would be entitled to do that because that is my understanding if they were under attack? Similarly, if they assembled or embarked upon a mission——
The Deputy has spoken for two minutes and other Deputies are offering.
——and were fired upon, would they be entitled to return fire or engage in battle?
We are now debating sections of the Bill.
No, I am talking about the questions before us and the question I asked is relevant to them.
Other Deputies are offering and I want to try to facilitate them.
I assure the Deputy we will have ample time to debate all these matters next week and the week after.
We will not, that is the problem. The debate on the Bill will be guillotined.
I ask the Minister to answer my question.
On the question of the deadline of 7 July, we are literally the last into the field in terms of a contribution to a battle group, about which I have taken a certain amount of criticism.
We should not be in that field at all.
That is not our fault.
It is not our fault.
We are not excluding the Minister in this respect.
It is not the Government's fault either. We had certain legislative and technical difficulties to overcome and we have done that, and people are literally waiting for a decision. On the last occasion I answered questions in the House, I gave an undertaking that this legislation would be through the Houses hopefully by the summer recess. I could not guarantee that but I said that was my ambition. There is still a fortnight before the summer recess. I do not choose the times for the taking of legislation.
On Deputy Gormley's question as to whether participants in a humanitarian mission can return fire if they are fired on, my understanding is that if troops are on a humanitarian mission, generally speaking, they would be unarmed.
The Minister is saying troops will be unarmed if they are part of a battle group.
It will depend on the circumstances of the mission.
In regard to what the Deputy said about a force being endorsed, supported, sanctioned and so on, the law provides and will continue to provide that we will only commission troops on international peacekeeping operations if the United Nations directs that we do so. Everybody knows the United Nations want troops to keep the peace or to prevent people from being murdered in various regions but we cannot contribute such troops because of a technicality. The wording of the United Nations resolution does not meet the requirements of the Irish Defence Act, and it is not as if the Security Council of the United Nations would have a copy of the Irish Defence Act before it whenever it draws up a resolution. That would be absurd.
The Minister did not answer my last question.
I call Deputy Timmins
My question is about troops who have embarked on or assembled for a mission who are fired upon.
If the Deputy does not cease to interrupt, I will move on to the Adjournment.
The Minister has not answered my question.
Deputy Timmins has been called.
The Minister has not answered the question. This is typical.
We spoke earlier about Irish personnel who participated in Partnership for Peace and that the legislation is being brought in to confirm their legal status. We have also established that foreign armies cannot train here and for them to do so would require a referendum. Could it logically be said that foreign military personnel who are based here, be it as a military attache or people who come to the UN school on courses, could be operating here illegally?
The advice on that matter has been given by the Attorney General with reference to a particular article in the Constitution. The advice is that those people are not unconstitutionally allowed to come here whereas contingents of troops coming here bearing arms would be unconstitutional.
Perhaps I could get a copy of that advice before the legislation is debated here the week after next.
Deputy Costello has already asked me for that and I have told him I will try to procure it.
We must move on to the next question.
The Minister has not answered my question. We have no accountability.
Perhaps one of the reasons for that is that there is no proper debate here when Members continue to interrupt.
I would like answers to my questions. That is all I am asking for and it is not much to ask.