Clare Daly
Question:3. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Defence if he will ensure that the Defence Forces cease security contracts with Israeli companies. [34814/14]
View answerThursday, 18 September 2014
Questions (3)
Oral answers (7 contributions)
I too congratulate the Minister on his extra brief. I do not know what the farmers were giving out about. I think he is one of a handful of people who could admirably handle the two posts and I wish him well.
The question relates to when the Minister will order the Defence Forces no longer to engage in contracts with companies which have been involved in, or profited from, illegal Israeli settlements and companies which have been involved in the violation of international law, particularly companies such as Elbit Systems Limited, from which the Defence Forces have purchased millions of euro worth of ground surveillance equipment.
I thank Deputy Daly for her good wishes, which I appreciate.
The primary purpose of the procurement of defensive equipment by the Department of Defence is to maintain the capability of the Irish Defence Forces on overseas support operations and to afford the greatest possible force protection to Irish troops when on such missions. The need for such equipment is self-evident given recent events.
Tender competitions for defence equipment for the Defence Forces are conducted by the Department of Defence in accordance with EU procurement guidelines and with the EU code of conduct on export controls. Accordingly, competitions are open to any individual or country in accordance with the terms of all UN, OSCE and EU arms embargoes or restrictions. There are no such restrictions or embargoes in place on Israeli companies.
In following these guidelines and codes, the Department of Defence must deal impartially with all companies that are entitled to enter its procurement competitions and must evaluate tenders on the basis of objective criteria.
The principle of competitive tendering for Government contracts is used by the Department of Defence for the acquisition of defence equipment for the Defence Forces. Central to those procedures is the requirement to allow fair competition between suppliers through the submission of tenders following advertising of the tender competition, usually on the eTenders website, in line with the EU directive on the procurement of defence and security equipment.
A small number of Israeli companies have won orders for defence equipment in recent years as a result of tender competitions. This is not a new development. In each case, the contract was awarded by tender competition on the basis that the company concerned had submitted the most economically advantageous tender. To bar Israeli companies from entering tender competitions for the provision of military goods would be akin to Ireland's unilaterally placing an embargo on such goods from Israel, and this would raise serious implications for Irish foreign policy which are outside my remit. As the Deputy is aware, trade policy and market access are largely EU competencies and any restrictions or bans on imports from any particular country would have to be a concerted decision at EU level.
The Government has consistently been opposed to proposals for trade, diplomatic, cultural, academic, sporting or other boycotts of Israel. In the absence of a general trade embargo of Israel, the Department of Defence cannot unilaterally preclude Israeli companies from participating in tender competitions for military or any other type of goods.
That really is not good enough. This demand is part of a Trócaire campaign. It is not exactly the most radical organisation making efforts to discourage countries from trading with or investing in those companies that have connections with illegal Israeli settlements. That campaign was initiated prior to the summer slaughter of the people of Gaza and the particular targeting of children and so on. While it is the case that EU procurement practices must be followed in such contracts, the reality is that the EU, the UN and the International Court of Justice have, on numerous occasions, condemned illegal Israeli settlements.
Other countries have provided positive examples of what could be done. The Norwegian ministry of finance excluded Elbit Systems Limited, with which our Defence Forces are currently trading, from its government pension funds on the grounds of serious violations of ethical norms in which the company had been involved, namely, the provision of hardware on the wall in Gaza and in the West Bank and supplying armoury to the Israeli Defence Forces.
The Minister can do more and I would advise him to look at the Trócaire campaign to see how he can play a proactive role in this very important human rights issue.
It would be helpful for the information of the House to give some details about the kind of equipment we have purchased through the tendering process from Israeli companies. The vast majority of it is not offensive weaponry. We are talking about X-ray equipment for explosive ordnance disposal duties, which is required to ensure we can dispose of landmines, bombs and so on, helmets for personal protection, unmanned aerial vehicles, which can allow us to improve our surveillance and protect our troops when they are in difficult situations, and ground surveillance radars. There is a small amount of spending on small arms ammunition, but the vast majority of spending over the past ten years or so has been on equipment that makes it safer for our troops to operate in very difficult circumstances. However, I accept the principle of what the Deputy said.
I remember having many conversations-----
I will let the Minister back in.
I believe the Minister deliberately did not answer the question which was not about the merits of what the Government was spending; rather, it was about the very fact that it was spending taxpayers' money with a company involved in illegal activity in Israel. Over the summer most Irish people were appalled at the slaughter of innocent people there. It is not just this military company that is involved, although it is involved in the case of the West Bank wall and in supplying the same unmanned aerial surveillance equipment to the Israeli defence forces that undoubtedly was used in recent combat against civilians. The issue that Trócaire and other organisations are putting, not simply in respect of defence issues but with regard to Cement Roadstone Holdings, Veolia, SodaStream and all of the companies that are profiting there, is that the only way to deal with them is to hit them in their pockets. If the Government is concerned about the slaughter that is ongoing, Ireland, as a neutral country, should take the lead and state it is not going to trade with these companies while they are engaged in such practices.
I believe I have answered that question. The manner in which the Department of Defence procures both services and products is consistent with international practice and European Union and United Nations decisions on trade embargoes and so on. That is the appropriate way in which to continue, rather than Ireland taking a unilateral decision to target individual companies or countries on their own. Like many others, I was left distraught by the images of death, destruction, misery and war in Gaza over the summer months. However, there are many ways in which Ireland can assist in trying to bring stability and peace to the region. The Government will certainly try to do this, but I am unsure that the approach the Deputy is suggesting would have any significant effect.