Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 19 Feb 2019

Vol. 979 No. 5

European Defence Agency Project: Motion

Just after the Order of Business, Deputy Barrett raised a question on this issue and specifically inquired about the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Defence. I am told that the committee did not produce or lay a report before the House. It simply conveyed a message to the House.

This matter was raised at the committee. The Minister of State was present. I do not have any great problem with what is being suggested in the motion, provided that what we were led to understand about it will actually apply. Am I in order to speak?

Briefly, please.

I am sorry. I thought the Ceann Comhairle was calling me.

The Deputy can contribute after the motion has been moved.

The Deputy is all right.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves Ireland’s participation in a European Defence Agency Project in relation to Military Search Capability Building pursuant to section 2 of the Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009.

I appreciate the opportunity to present this motion, which was placed on the Order Paper following its discussion at the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Defence. In commending the motion to the Dáil, I will briefly outline the function of the European Defence Agency, EDA, and the background to the programme in which Ireland wishes to participate.

The EDA is an agency of the European Union established by a joint action of the Council of the European Union in 2004 "to support the Member States and the Council in their effort to improve European defence capabilities in the field of crisis management and to sustain the European Security and Defence Policy as it stands now and develops in the future". On 6 July 2004, the then Government approved Ireland's participation in the framework of the EDA. Ireland has participated in a number of EDA projects since we commenced our participation in the agency in 2005. They included projects in the area of maritime surveillance and networking, a force protection project that involved measures to protect military forces engaged in operational activities, a programme relating to chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear protection, projects focused on counter-improvised explosives devices manual neutralisation techniques, and a project on co-operation on cyberranges in the EU.

This proposal seeks approval for Ireland to participate in the EDA military search capability-building project. This is a key capability when working in a contested environment. The Defence Forces engage extensively in specialist military search activities, dealing with unexploded ordnance and improvised explosive devices and ensuring a safe and secure operating environment for military operations. The Defence Forces engineer specialist search and clearance teams are regularly deployed on both home and overseas operations.

There are two specialist search teams operating overseas in UNDOF and UNIFIL and they predominantly conduct route searches and area clearances in advance of vehicle or foot patrols. The Defence Forces have also provided this capability to An Garda Síochána in support of aid to civil power operations during high profile visits by foreign VIPs and for searches for bodies and weapons. A recent example of this was the deployment of military search teams to search buildings and open areas involved in the Papal visit last summer. There have also been a number of searches for the bodies of missing persons and more conventional operations against paramilitary groups and criminal organisations.

The Defence Forces corps of engineers does not have specialist search teams at an advanced search capability level. Advanced search personnel are capable of conducting hazardous environment search, working in confined space and operating in chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear environments. Participation by the Defence Forces in this project addresses this capability gap.

It was very clear to me following the discussions with the select committee that the committee members all recognised the importance of ensuring our Defence Forces personnel are equipped and trained to meet the needs of Government and ensure the protection of our State. The aim of the project is to develop common processes, techniques and procedures for military search for contributing member states.

The overall cost of the project is €2.28 million over six years and it will be funded by eight participating member states. Funding comprises both financial contributions and contributions in kind. Ireland's contribution over the lifetime of the project is €157,500. This comprises €102,500 contributions in kind associated with hosting an international seminar and a number of training events, and a direct financial contribution of €55,000. Costs will be met within the defence Vote.

The anticipated benefits of the Defence Forces participation in this project are that it addresses a current deficiency at the advanced level of engineer specialist search and clearance capability, that the training to instructor level in this project will ensure that this requirement may be met in-house going forward and that the project provides an efficient and cost effective means of qualifying teams to advanced search level and maintaining their currency, which would otherwise be prohibitive if it had to be procured in the market.

Ireland’s participation in this project affords us the opportunity to keep abreast of best practice and new developments in the defence environment in a cost effective manner, particularly as it impacts on multinational crisis management operations. Participation in this European Defence Agency project has the full support of military management.

I note the breathtaking speed with which the Government and the Minister of State have advanced this business through the House. It is disappointing the defence matters of pay and conditions that we often discuss do not receive the same level of attention. We have had many promises about deadlines around quarter 1 - quarter 2 and we have had continuous delays, yet this proposal is being advanced within a two-week window. Perhaps the Minister of State could address pay and conditions and the core issues regarding defence-related expenditure in this House with the same degree of urgency and at a similar pace.

I welcome that we have a formal declaration of support from military management for this project. I support it and I will outline the reason I do so shortly. However, we know that military management has not supported everything the Minister of State's Department has progressed in recent months. It is unfortunate that some of the recommendations from military management around the pay commission were dropped and ignored by his Department. We need to see greater collaboration and agreement on many defence matters. I ask the Minister of State to bring a similar urgency to bear on other matters this year.

Everyone in this House will be aware of Ireland's proud history of peacekeeping. As I said previously when debating this motion, my party is supporting this proposal because it allows us to develop our role further as a nation committed to promoting peace, understanding and co-operation. Having listened to the Deputies who spoke against this motion on the last occasion, it seems this point is lost on them. I note that Deputy Barrett, who is seated behind the Minister of State, has voiced many grievances but the Deputy needs to engage in internal discussions within Fine Gael. It will be interesting to see how he votes on this matter if he is fully supporting the Government's position on this defence motion.

Many of the Deputies opposed to this proposal argue that our involvement in projects such as this somehow contravenes our role as a neutral country which proactively engages positively with other European states in the pursuit of peace. This is not true but I expect we will hear more of the same arguments again today. Matters such as a European army were mentioned time and again at the committee. It is important we outline, as stated by the Minister of State at the committee, that the European treaties do not allow for that rhetoric. People can talk about it at a European level in an Irish context but it is not allowed for within European treaty law. It is important we reiterate that whenever we are debating defence motions in this House.

From my perspective, it is vital that the men and women of our Defence Forces have access to the very best training, expertise and modern technologies in order that they are properly equipped in their peacekeeping duties. Ireland's internationally renowned reputation for peacekeeping is only strengthened by our involvement in European Defence Agency projects such as this one. As I have said previously, we have been participating in programmes under the European Defence Agency for the past decade and have benefited enormously from this participation. Our Defence Forces now have world class skills and abilities in the area of peacekeeping that we would not have otherwise.

Participation in the European Defence Agency has also allowed us to foster better relationships with fellow EU member states, which has netted considerable savings for this State. As we look at what is happening next door in Britain and at other isolationist policies being pursued in other parts of the world, everyone in this House should support and allow for co-operation on matters such as this.

Ireland's involvement in European Defence Agency projects is underpinned by the Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009. It is important to remind everyone that the legislation states that any participation in such can only be for the purpose of enhancing capabilities for UN missions. In addition, our participation is also contingent on the UN missions having the stated aim of peacekeeping, crisis management and conflict prevention. The project being debated today, military search capability building, fits into this space. Moreover, participation in European Defence Agency exercise is also subject to the triple lock mechanism we use for Defence Force involvement in overseas operations, meaning we must secure approval from the Government and the Dáil before participating in UN peacekeeping missions. This mechanism further strengthens our right to opt in and out of any missions as we deem appropriate, worthwhile and beneficial.

All member states retain full control over defence budgets. By approving this motion, we are approving the continued co-operation with eight other European countries, namely, Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden.

Our position as a nation that is serious about playing an active peacekeeping role also provides us with opportunities to benefit ourselves. Participating in projects such as this allows us to keep track of the most modern and up-to-date peacekeeping practice, including training and IT developments, while also managing to keep costs down. Ultimately, this means our Defence Forces are fully equipped and prepared to take part in these peacekeeping operations. Furthermore, those who participate in this project are trained to instructor level and the value of what they have learned can then be shared with other personnel.

Fianna Fáil will be supporting this motion. It is important we build capability at a domestic level in order that we can defend ourselves and have the relative capability if there was a threat. Participating in this project facilitates that.

Like the previous speaker, I spoke on this matter at the committee, as I have done on a number of similar matters that seem to have come forward at a pace in recent years without any proper discussion about the nature of all these projects combined, as opposed to the dripfeed of individual projects, the subject of supposedly innocuous motions before the House. This is one of those European Defence Agency projects which the Minister of State has tried to present, both in this House and at the committee, as innocuous, inoffensive and beneficial to the Defence Forces, but that is not the case. This motion and the sum of all of those motions that have gone before it are further steps to ingrain our Defence Forces and our foreign policy into the European military project, to make our Defence Forces more dependent on and more integrated into an EU army. I can hear Deputies say: "Foul, foul, there is no such thing." They should look around them, listen and see for themselves what those countries in Europe are saying.

The Minister of State is either blind or something else. Only last month we heard from France and Germany that they had signed a new agreement between themselves, and so they may. Part of that agreement, however, was to make our contribution to the emergence of a European army. We have heard Jean-Claude Juncker state that we will have an European army by 2021, or at the very latest, 2025. It is coming. We are on the edge of it. Every single one of these motions - and I include this motion - is a further step towards that inevitable aim. These are also further steps to make it more difficult for Irish soldiers and the Defence Forces to stand alone. Ireland should have nothing to do with this. Our magical, mystical triple-lock will not prevent us from being tainted with what the European Union will do in the future.

The Minister of State and his predecessors in Fianna Fáil have been doing the EU's bidding with this and other motions for quite a long time. They have moved further and further away from the laudable UN peacekeeping operations and have become an integral part of the European military apparatus. We have soldiers at the NATO headquarters, at the European military headquarters and we had soldiers on operations abroad that were not UN blue-hatted operations. Despite promising the contrary, under Fianna Fáil the State signed up to NATO's Partnership for Peace, PfP. We also signed up to the European Defence Agency, PESCO and Operation Sophia. There is no non-military rescue ship in the Mediterranean Sea any more, because the EU demanded that they all leave. Now, poor creatures drowning in the Mediterranean Sea are rescued by the Libyan Coast Guard, from whom they are trying to flee, and they are put back into the hellhole prisons from which they have tried to get away or paid to escape.

Fortress Europe is being planned and facilitated by this arms race. This is part of that. Funds are being diverted away from EU Structural Funds, including the European Social Fund, into grants for the arms industry. In many cases the majority of funds for research in those countries come from the EU funds. The European Commission is allocating €590 million to the European Defence Fund for 2020. It will increase to €13 billion thereafter. That is some diversion. That is an arms race and arms industry. It all fits into the militarisation agenda of the EU leaders and of the likes of Trump, the NATO leader who has demanded that European states spend an increasing amount on their military capacity.

Would it not be better to spend this on developing the capabilities of the Army here at home? It could develop the Defence Forces' morale, which is at rock bottom. It could pay proper wages. It could build up the Medical Corps again or the Engineering Corps, which had been decimated because of changes within the structures. It could deal with the legacy of Lariam and the Air Corps legacy. It could deal with the shortfall in the current capacity of the Army to send personnel abroad on operations or of ships to leave port to partake in maritime operations or of the air force to support the civil authorities when required.

I put it to the Minister of State that this is another one of those disgraceful motions and I will oppose it.

The Labour Party supports the project to increase the military search capabilities of the Defence Forces. Increasing the skill set of our military forces in the search and detection of improvised explosive devices is a much-needed skill. We got a stark reminder of this need a few weeks ago in Derry when a car bomb was detonated within the city walls. Most of us in this Chamber have memories long enough to a time when bombs and bomb threats were a part of our life. What happened in Derry reminded us that a return to such times could happen if we lose sight of what is important and weaken our commitment to peace. It is our job as politicians to strengthen peace, to build it, to nurture it and to protect it, not just on our island but throughout Europe and the world. It is the job of our Defence Forces to be prepared to act to protect us if we fail.

Across the water, the politicians are failing and the UK seems to be careering towards political insecurity. What will that do for overall security in Ireland and Europe? I believe that straw man arguments about a European super army are not relevant here. The Labour Party is implacably against such a prospect but is not against training our Defence Forces to be as professional as possible and to ensure they can act to protect our safety.

The threats that the world faces today are much different than the threats we faced in the past. The level of military search capability directly impacts their ability to resolve those conflicts. Our Defence Forces’ training needs to evolve as explosive weapon development also continues to progress. If our forces are going to continue to do effective work while maintaining their own safety, they must be trained in modern techniques and skills. Agreeing to this project is a good step towards modernising our Defence Forces without backing down from the country’s agreement with the people to remain uninvolved in shows of military aggression or in compromising our neutrality.

We cannot continue to be distracted by these false arguments. It does the issue itself a disservice and it does a disservice to our Defence Forces. The current Lisbon treaty in effect prevents the formation of an EU army and if motions to create one were seriously proposed, Ireland obviously steadfastly would oppose such a plan.

With regard to this specific project, the Netherlands and Sweden - two countries that have already agreed to this project - have both made statements saying that they do not see the need for an EU army. In this time of EU uncertainty, Ireland should be more focused on showing the current strength of the Union Ireland holds with the rest of Europe. With the threat of a no-deal Brexit a mere 38 days away, any show of division threatens the stable future of the Continent.

I believe we absolutely should be having this discussion today in order that Ireland can defend its decision to defy an EU army when the time comes, but this is not the time to do so. Beyond displaying an act of solidarity with the EU during this tumultuous time of uncertainty, this training provides our Defence Forces with very important new skills. The State's unwavering commitment to neutrality has not only left the Defence Forces underfunded, it could also put our forces in danger as they complete peacekeeping missions abroad.

Maintaining a strong and effective peacekeeping force requires up-to-date training. Not joining the project in order to send the EU a message would only put Irish lives at risk. These Defence Forces act with the intention of one goal, which is protecting innocent civilians from violence and conflict.

Expanding the Defence Forces engineer specialist search and clearance, ESSC, teams’ military search capabilities allow for the teams to protect these civilians to the best of their ability. By no means should Ireland move away from its status as a neutral country but that neutrality must be viewed in a greater context. Joining this project allows the Irish Defence Forces to work capably and safely with other peacekeeping groups where they have been mandated to participate in such missions by the UN.

I am shocked at some of the statements that the Labour Party and Fine Gael are coming out with today. We cannot dress this up any other way. This motion provides more nails for the coffin of Irish neutrality. The Minister of State spoke about the European Defence Agency in the Oireachtas Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Defence. To paraphrase, the Minister of State referred to a force protection programme, a chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear protection programme; enabled Defence Forces; counter improvised explosive device neutralisation manual projects; surveillance networks projects; security levels; cyberresilience; satellite communication aims for Defence Forces and international crisis management operations. I put it to the Minister of State that this does not read as a peaceful organisation. It undermines the whole basis of Irish neutrality, which is being eroded motion by motion as this goes on - as Deputy Ó Snodaigh has said. The Minister of State's party and Government seem to be very happy to go along with the militarisation of the European Union. It is measures such as this motion, PESCO and the EU status of forces agreement, SOFA, that are compromising Irish neutrality.

At a time when people seek more accountability and democracy, the European Union and the Government have given us more militarisation and conflict. This Chamber should conscientiously reject the motion because, no matter what people say, it is the precursor to the European army the EU wants. The supermarket of the European Union needs a European army. We must conscientiously object.

Each time a European Defence Agency project comes forward, the Government and those in supposed opposition who are also in favour say it is not the European army, which they claim they will oppose when it comes to it. They say that, right now, the project is so limited that we will, of course, be involved. It misses the point about mission creep in the development of the European Defence Agency and the interlinking of the Defence Forces with other member state armed forces. It misses what the EDA is all about in reality. The Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe, stated that the purpose of the establishment of the EDA in 2004 was to support the member states and the Council in their efforts to improve European defence capabilities in various fields. More recently, we have had very explicit statements from European leaders. In 2017, Jean-Claude Juncker said we needed a fully-fledged European defence union by 2025. He said "We need it and NATO wants it". Before Christmas, Angela Merkel proposed in the European Parliament a European security council in which important decisions could be prepared more quickly. She said that while major steps had been taken in the field of military co-operation, there was a requirement to work on a vision to establish a real European army one day. The European Defence Agency is an integral part of that. It is the brainchild of the multi-billion euro European arms industry - the purveyors of death for massive profits. That is what it is about.

In the here and now, signing up to such a project is to commit to and participate in that European drive for militarisation. One of the ways in which it is so is that in pooling and sharing resources, even on projects which appear relatively benign, the Irish State and Defence Forces take on responsibilities which free up other armies and their resources for things that are evidently less benign and more overtly imperialistic in nature. I refer to the inter-relationship between the Defence Forces and EU forces. The idea is to make the Irish Defence Forces so interlinked with European armies that it becomes impossible to say "No" when the day comes for the fully-fledged European army Angela Merkel would like to see. We should have nothing to do with the project of European militarisation and nothing to do with the European Defence Agency. Instead, we should join with all those across Europe who oppose this further drive to open militarisation.

I wish to share time with Deputy Pringle.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I follow on from my exchange with the Taoiseach on Leaders' Questions last week. I do not and cannot understand why we are taking this road and jeopardising our good name. It is a good name that came from our neutrality and involvement in UN-mandated peacekeeping mission. It also came from our development voice, which has been non-aligned, impartial and humanitarian-focused. Why are we allowing ourselves to be drawn into this increasing securitisation and militarisation agenda of the EU? Of course, it started with Shannon Airport through which 3 million troops and their military equipment passed and continues with the agenda of PESCO compatibility with NATO and the report, which was overwhelmingly agreed by the EU Parliament, recommending that the EU should be capable of launching autonomous military missions.

The EU army will be a proxy of NATO of which Ireland is not a member. The Taoiseach referred to his visit to Mali but the EU mission there is propping up France's colonial power in its former colony. It is no coincidence that Mali has plentiful uranium deposits which France needs. How are our development work and the respected voice we have in that regard compatible with being part of a European Defence Agency project? The Taoiseach's reply referred to the need for a secure environment for that work to happen. I agree that everyone should be able to live in a conflict-free environment. The Taoiseach saw no conflict between involvement in peacekeeping on the one hand and international development on the other and that is fine. There is no conflict between peacekeeping and development work. However, being part of an EU army is not peacekeeping. PESCO is about enhanced military collaboration and its rationale.

Regarding the cost, we were told there is no extra spending. However, we are also told that future spending in this area may change as capabilities are developed through PESCO projects. NATO's goal is, of course, for member states to spend 2% of GDP on defence and that is where we are heading. A discussion paper prepared by four MEPs from Fine Gael was entitled "Defending our Common European Home." From whom are we defending it? Who is invading us? That paper was certainly about moving Ireland to weaken its policy of neutrality. This is all being done without any real discussion here and certainly without discussion with the electorate.

This motion is timely. While the motion may not in isolation appear to provide for ongoing militarisation, we must consider everything that is happening across Europe. The motion is timely given the fact that the 55th Munich security conference was held on Friday, 15 February last. More than 600 politicians, including three Heads of State and Government and more than 80 Ministers attended along with high-ranking military officials and representatives from business, science and international organisations. They met this weekend in Bavaria's capital to discuss international security and defence policy in Europe. Chillingly, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice President of the EU Commission was quoted as saying to our "soft power" we are "finally adding ... hard power". The Franco-German treaty signed last month represented what Angela Merkel described as a step towards the creation of a future European army. The language of war is getting coarser and Europe is no longer attempting to disguise its intent. It means we are at a terrifying impasse. War is being normalised. Angela Merkel said of the Franco-German pact that it solidified the common military culture of the two countries. That military culture has been normalised by governments like that of Ireland, which participate in and legitimise military projects like PESCO using language of denial to mask the reality of the violence it is intended to inflict. The Government has allowed our own terms of neutrality and peacekeeping to be exploited in its name.

The proposal put forward today seeks further approval for Ireland to participate in military search capability building. The Minister of State has confirmed that the Defence Forces have engaged extensively in specialised military search operations dealing with unexploded ordnance, improvised explosive devices and ensuring a so-called "safe and secure operating environment for military operations." Whose are the military operations the safety of which they were ensuring? Ireland can no longer bury its head in the sand. We are already neck-deep in the common military culture as dictated by France and Germany. Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil have already signed Ireland up - the Labour Party is now part of it too I see - to become a pawn in a lucrative chess game; more so since the Brexit negotiations took place. Ireland will continue to justify and contribute to the European Defence Agency in exchange for EU support through the Brexit negotiations. Franco-German military interests want to develop their defence industries further to control EU defence policy while globally competing with US and Russian defence companies. Global security will, in turn, secure Franco-German influence at home in Europe. Let us not forget how this undermines democracy. Militarisation, EU defence integration and the overall global militarisation agenda is being pushed and shaped by private sector interests. Ireland can be sure that it will pay for the privilege financially and politically for some time to come.

No one in the House would wish to deprive our Irish military of real capabilities around search, unexploded ordnance and improvised explosive devices. Clearly, we want to protect our troops and ensure they have the best training, advice and skills in respect of those critical military capabilities. The Green Party supports our troops strongly and wants them to have those resources and capabilities. However, we cannot ignore the wider question about the future of Europe. The proposal before us to avail of the European Defence Agency as the vehicle to develop those skills raises real concerns.

We do not believe the future of the European Union is in stronger military integration, as some other national leaders and governments are presenting it. We do not believe the European people are clamouring for a European army or that it would serve the interests of the people in addressing the challenges we face. Yes, we should and must maintain the skills of our military personnel and do what we can to ensure that, but we must also be careful not to sacrifice the real strength of our country in terms of military intervention, which comes from our neutrality and peacekeeping experience and expertise. That is needed as well as having the ability to cope with unexploded ordnance or knowing how to clear a route of improvised explosive devices.

That is a concern we have raised on every occasion in the development of PESCO and in wider debates about the European Defence Agency. I repeat it today even on a subject where nobody would disagree we must have skills. We cannot ignore the wider strategic developments that are taking place. The forthcoming European election will be a critical election for the future of Europe. My Green Party colleagues in Europe, like our position at home, will be seeking to have strong Green Party representation from all countries in Europe. All of them are standing on the position that the defence agency project, the armaments projects and the big European army projects that certain parties and countries are leading are not the way forward. I am proud to stand in that tradition. I recognise the need to give our troops skills, but the constant use of the European Defence Agency as a mechanism to do that raises wider concerns that we cannot ignore.

This matter was discussed in the foreign affairs committee and I expressed my concerns there. I will continue to express concerns about the direction in which we seem to be getting pushed. I did not sign up to a European army. I did not sign up to the European Union joining with other states eventually to have a European army. We have our Defence Forces, of which all of us are very proud. I am proud that I am a former Minister for Defence. I saw at first hand the great work our people have done in peacekeeping. I emphasise that it was peacekeeping. I do not want to join the big boys and be part of a European army that gets involved in all sorts of crisis management and many other things that are doubtful. I want our Defence Forces to be fully equipped and available to serve in peacekeeping missions.

I rejected the Deputy from Fianna Fáil having his usual smart go at me because I happen to be a member of Fine Gael. I will speak my mind on these issues.

How will the Deputy vote?

I am not signing up to a European Defence Agency. I did not sign up to it in the first place, and I have no intention of doing it now.

Is the Deputy going to vote for it?

The Deputy had his turn to speak, and he read very well. I do not know if he wrote the speech but he read it very well.

Let us be clear on what we are doing here. This is a creepy-crawly, step-by-step situation where we want to be among the big boys. The work the Army does as peacekeepers, and has done over the years, has been respected. When I went abroad as a Minister I saw the respect in which our troops were held. They integrated into the local community and became part of it. They were not outside as army people but part of the community. I do not understand why we want to join the big boys. Our Army can do far more by staying on the road it is on and in which it has been very successful. When we joined the European Union we did not join a European army or obligations in that area. It is very easy to be sucked in because one wishes to be among the big boys. We must stand up and say we are in favour of peacekeepers and that we are proud of the peacekeeping work the Irish Defence Forces have done over the years in various parts of the world.

People who get the opportunity should go and see how they operate. They do not arrive with modern equipment and armed to the teeth. They arrive with groups of people who have been trained on how to integrate into the local community, to become trusted by that community and to bring about a peaceful solution. I have no wish to see Ireland as part of a European army. I did not sign up to that. I reckon I am a good European but being a good European does not necessarily mean one must be part of a European army. There are enough people available in the world to create trouble. There are very few, and the number is decreasing, who sign up to try and bring peace. I am of the latter brigade. I want the Irish Defence Forces to engage in genuine peacekeeping.

I find this very difficult to understand. It is clearly stated that the European Defence Agency is a defence agency to support the member states and the Council in their efforts to improve European defence capabilities. It is about European defence capabilities. Rather than being pushed into something, I would prefer a proper and wide debate on where we are going, where our Defence Forces are expected to go and what we are going to do about participating in various missions.

I thank all the Deputies for their contributions to this important debate. The primary function of training and educating members of the Defence Forces is to develop and maintain capabilities necessary to enable the personnel to fulfil the roles laid down by the Government. Deputies have highlighted the importance of supporting the Defence Forces in capability development, and it is my responsibility to ensure they are afforded the opportunity to keep abreast of best practice among defence forces. The debate this evening surprised me. Members have high regard for members of the Defence Forces, and nobody questions anybody's high regard for Defence Forces personnel, but when they say they should not participate in this project they are really saying we should send our personnel overseas but not give them the proper training.

Deputy Brendan Ryan of the Labour Party said something very important, which is that the modern techniques and skills required of the Defence Forces and military personnel today are totally different from those required many years ago and the threat we face today is very different from the threat we faced years ago. I commend the Deputy on what he said in the debate. As I said earlier, the Defence Forces specialist search and clearance teams are regularly deployed at home in support of An Garda Síochána and overseas in UNIFIL and UNDOF where they predominantly conduct route searches and area clearances in advance of vehicle or foot patrols.

These projects in which we are participating are linked to the work that our Defence Forces do day in, day out on peacekeeping missions overseas. This project, for example, will develop an advanced capability that has the potential to protect our personnel on overseas missions. This is the type of training and day-to-day stuff in which the Defence Forces engage during peacekeeping operations.

As stated in the Government's White Paper on Defence, published in August 2015, Ireland will continue to identify opportunities to participate in multinational capability deployment projects within the framework of the European Defence Agency and in support of the Defence Forces' operation capacity and capability. I have detailed how the European Defence Agency is focused on assisting member states in capability development, obtaining better value for existing spending levels, improving competitiveness and securing greater efficiency, particularly in the area of research technology and procurement of defence capabilities.

Day in, day out, whether in this House, in committee or in a general debate about defence matters, I am accused of leading the way to a European army. To all the Deputies who have questioned my stance on this I say I do not believe there will ever be a European army. I am not changing our defence policy on neutrality. If that policy ever is changed, whoever will be standing in this position, it will not be by me. It will be the Members and the general public who have the final say on a European army. If Deputies read the provisions within the Lisbon treaty, they would see that they clearly set out this policy. I ask Members to read those provisions. Deputy Ó Snodaigh said this person, that person and the other person were talking about a European army. I have known the Deputy for a long number of years. He does not always believe what I say, so he should not believe what everyone else says either. I ask him to take that on board.

I could go on for the next 20 minutes.

The Minister of State cannot because I am afraid he is out of time.

The Minister of State has talked a load of rubbish for the past five minutes.

There is one issue on which I want to offer assurance. Deputy Jack Chambers spoke about the pay and conditions of members of the Defence Forces. This project has the full support of military management. Perhaps the Deputy will go back and read also that military management fully supported the joint submission-----

From the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform?

-----made by both the Department of Defence-----

And the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

-----and military management. The Chief of Staff-----

What about the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform?

-----is on the record as saying that the submission-----

What about the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform?

-----that went into the pay commission was robust. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform did not have anything to do-----

We cannot get into this now.

It did not support the cuts in the first place.

The time is up.

-----with the joint submission made by military management-----

To the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

-----and by the Department of Defence to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

What happened then?

I thank the Minister of State. The time is up.

This was fully supported by-----

What happened after that?

-----management on the civil side and the military side.

This will have to be a dispute for another day.

Question put.

In accordance with Standing Order 70(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time on Thursday, 21 February 2019.

Barr
Roinn