Vol. 1051 No. 4
1. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence his position on the adoption of qualified majority voting rather than the current requirement of unanimity on matters relating to defence at the European Council. [13142/24]
Will the Tánaiste outline the Government's position on the increasing calls for qualified majority voting, in other words, moving away from the unanimity principle, on matters of defence at European Council level?
I thank the Deputy for his question. It is important to state that defence and security remain national competences and will continue to require unanimity in EU decision-making. Any decision to alter these arrangements would require a change to the European treaties. Furthermore, the specific character of Ireland's security and defence policy, as set out in the protocols attached to the Lisbon treaty, is well known and respected by our fellow EU member states.
That being said, the EU faces unprecedented foreign and security policy challenges. The invasion of Ukraine and the situation in the Middle East demonstrate the need for the EU to be able to react robustly and rapidly to developments that threaten our interests and values. As a committed member of the European Union, Ireland is open to looking at ways to improve the implementation of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy, CFSP, and the Common Security and Defence Policy, the latter being an integral part of the CFSP. It is important that we continue to explore ways to make the EU run as effectively as possible, delivering benefits and protections for all its citizens.
In certain limited circumstances as outlined in Article 31(2) of the Treaty on European Union, there is scope for the Council to act by QMV in CFSP matters. Ireland sees the potential value of using QMV for decision making in certain limited circumstances where it would make decision making more efficient but, crucially, where the treaties make allowance for it. However, Article 31(3) of the treaty, commonly referred to as the passerelle clause, states that the extension of the use of qualified majority voting on CFSP matters would have to be agreed unanimously by the European Council.
It is crucial that any expanded use of QMV is not seen as a way to avoid debating issues where there is no consensus. It is important that we continue to work to foster solidarity and unanimity among all 27 member states.
Many people will be concerned by that response. The removal of unanimity would itself require unanimity, but once that decision was made, it could only be reversed by the Council. A Government decision that fundamentally undermined Ireland’s position on defence matters could not be overturned by the will of the Irish people at a subsequent election. Therefore, it is crucial that all political parties be upfront and categoric in stating that, on matters of foreign affairs and defence, either Europe must speak with one voice or each member state should be entitled to articulate its own voice. The events in Gaza in recent months have crystallised the need for states like Ireland to be able to pursue independent foreign policies.
In precisely what areas would the Tánaiste countenance the removal of the unanimity principle in foreign affairs and defence matters?
What I articulated in my reply was the factual position currently. Through our work on the Middle East, we have demonstrated that we have an independent foreign policy position and that we are working to bring other member states with us.
The Deputy has discussed the Middle East a great deal in the House, but I will bring something to his attention. At the Foreign Affairs Council, FAC, meeting approximately one month ago, 26 member states were anxious to impose sanctions on violent West Bank settlers, but such a decision would have required unanimity. The Deputy has often been critical of the EU’s failure to adopt sanctions like asset freezes and so on against West Bank settlers. He cannot have it both ways. We favour unanimity, but we should always discuss how to make the EU more efficient if there are countries like, for example, Hungary, which recently has been saying “No” for what do not seem to us to be foreign policy reasons, but for reasons of a broader agenda of leveraging its vote on other issues. That is a cause of concern.
The difficulty is that competences within the EU have been cited as the reason Ireland cannot act on matters of foreign affairs and defence. For example, how many times have propositions been laid before this House for Ireland to take meaningful action only for the response from the Tánaiste or his colleagues to be that we cannot do so because such would require movement at EU level? That is precisely because the EU has competence in these matters. In a while, we will discuss the procurement of Israeli weaponry and the Tánaiste will tell me that EU rules oblige Ireland to allow tenders from Israeli arms manufacturers.
It is important that he and his party make a clear statement. Fianna Fáil MEPs regularly abstain or vote the wrong way on amendments that would enshrine the principle of unanimity. It is important that people be clear about whether this is a principle they are willing to uphold and defend.
I thank the Deputy, but he is way over time.
I have noticed a trend in that the Deputy tends to try to create wedge issues or sow confusion and doubt. Defence and security remain national competences and will continue to require unanimity in EU decision-making. That is the bottom line. Trade, including the conduct of trade agreements, is an EU competence. That has been the case for a considerable time and has been advantageous to Ireland overall. The Deputy is against CETA between Europe and Canada and he has a different view on trade, in that he seems to be against the idea of free trade agreements between Europe and other countries. I am just back from Canada, where our exports in goods alone have increased from €1 billion to €4 billion as a result of CETA and our services exports have increased to €2 billion.
You are running down the clock.
No, I am not.
You can talk about the investor court if you want to. I am asking about defence.
It requires unanimity-----
I am asking about the areas of foreign affairs and defence where you would concede the principle of-----
Through the Chair, please.
I am not conceding anything.
Time is now up.
As far as I am concerned, it requires unanimity. What I would have preferred would have been to be able to do more on Gaza and for 26 member states to count for something.
2. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the specific projects that are being undertaken by Ireland under the EU Common Security and Defence Policy, including Permanent Structured Cooperation, PESCO; his plans for future projects under this programme and the Individually Tailored Partnership Programme, ITPP, through NATO’s Partnership for Peace; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12256/24]
I ask the Tánaiste to set out the specific projects that are being undertaken by Ireland under the EU's CFSP, including Partnership for Peace and PESCO.
I thank the Deputy for tabling this question. To date, Ireland has participated in 14 projects with the European Defence Agency, EDA, six of which are completed and eight are ongoing. These projects include areas such as joint procurement, cyber, military search capability, maritime surveillance and counter-improvised explosive devices. Ireland's participation in EDA projects is underpinned by legislation requiring Government and Dáil approval. In that respect any future projects will also be scrutinised and taken through that legislative requirement before any commitment is made.
Ireland is currently participating in the following four PESCO projects: deployable military disaster relief capability package; upgrade of maritime surveillance; maritime semi-autonomous systems for mine countermeasures; and cyber threats and incident response information sharing platform. My Department and the Defence Forces are regularly assessing PESCO projects against the capability development requirements for our military and remain ambitious to participate in other PESCO projects that can deliver for Ireland. Under the programme for Government Ireland's participation in PESCO projects requires Government and Dáil approval.
As the Deputy will be aware, Ireland has been a member of Partnership for Peace since 1999, which is seen as fundamental to Ireland being able to meet its obligations in providing professional peacekeepers for international crisis management and peacekeeping operations and in enhancing the Defence Forces’ interoperability with other professional military forces.
Ireland’s agreed ITPP for 2024 to 2028 governs the continued co-operation with NATO under Partnership for Peace. It is a voluntary and cooperative framework between NATO and individual partner countries and is partner-led. The ITPP sets out areas for cooperation including, for example, tackling cyber and hybrid threats, enhancing resilience in maritime security, and through the women, peace, and security agenda. It also sets out the military areas where the Defence Forces strive to attain maximum interoperability, enabling of capabilities, and the enhancement of the professionalism of the Defence Forces and its ability to contribute to international peacekeeping operations. There are no specific projects contained in the ITPP. As I have referenced, this is about co-operation, getting access to information, training and education.
I thank the Tánaiste for restating the legal position. I ask him to comment on the letter of invitation issued by the President of the European Council, Mr. Charles Michel, to leaders to today's European Council meeting in which he states "a real paradigm shift in relation to our security and defence" is required. He asserts that "it is high time we take radical and concrete steps to be defence-ready and put the EU’s economy on a “war footing”." and goes on to say that, "Building this strategic security mindset require [s] strong leadership and an acute understanding of the urgency of the threats we face. I expect our European Council to live up to this". What does the Tánaiste expect Ireland's response to that statement and to the discussion today to be?
First, any iteration, change or shift in CSDP within the EU will have to have respect for what we term the "specific characteristics" of policies of certain states including Ireland, Austria and Malta. That statement was made in the context of the Russian threat to the security of Europe. There is a real sense of vulnerability in terms of the war economy that is now, in essence, the driving force of the Russian position. Russia and its economy are on a war footing. Many countries who neighbour or flank Russia are extremely anxious and concerned about their own security situation and they see the war in Ukraine as existential. That is the context.
In terms of our position, we have the Commission on the Defence Forces. We are increasing our own capabilities and have to do so. We have a set programme in terms of procurement in respect of a whole range of issues that have been covered in the commission's report in the context of getting up to level of ambition, LOA, 2. That is the objective we have set ourselves.
I thank the Tánaiste for setting out the rationale for the views expressed so strongly by the European Council President but my question was about our response to it. If that is the mindset of Europe, does the Tánaiste agree that Europe has to put its economy on a war footing? What would that mean for our country? What does the Tánaiste think the contribution of the Government will be to those discussions today and tomorrow?
The essential issue here is European defence capability more broadly in terms of the European defence industry. Concern has been expressed across the EU about its inability to manufacture and develop-----
Should we be part of that?
We are part of the European Defence Agency. We are a militarily neutral state. We are not aligned or part of a mutual defence pact but we do have to enhance our own capability. Certainly, we can be part of joint projects in terms of procurement. There is no issue there; that is allowed for in terms of investment and how we go about that investment. Joint procurement under the EDA is one aspect of that or we can partner with another member state in terms of specific aspects of procurement of certain defence infrastructure or defence capability.
3. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if he will ensure that proposed amendments to the Defence Acts provide for a role for representative associations on the external oversight body, do not infringe on the rights of any Defence Forces personnel to be a member of a representative association and do not excessively prohibit the freedom of expression of members of the Defence Forces. [13143/24]
My question relates to the Defence Acts. The Tánaiste will be aware that we engaged in pre-legislative scrutiny of the defence (amendment) Bill in committee. The representative organisations and members of the committee from across the political spectrum were concerned about suggestions that the Bill would not include a role for representative organisations on the external oversight body. There is also concern that the Bill would infringe on the rights of Defence Forces personnel to be members of representative associations and would prohibit freedom of expression for members of the Defence Forces. Will the Tánaiste ensure that those issues are addressed in the Bill?
I thank the Deputy for his question. The general scheme of the defence (amendment) Bill includes a number of proposed provisions, including provisions relating to the membership of the external oversight body. The provisions fully reflect the recommendations of the independent review group, IRG, report relating to the composition of the membership of the body. The recommendation does not include members of the Permanent Defence Forces representative associations. The general scheme provides that the current members of the interim non-statutory oversight body may be appointed as the initial members of the statutory external oversight body. That is an important point. I have said previously that the oversight body is not a representative body. I have said to the representative bodies that it was never meant to be a representative body; it is meant to be a body that oversees radical reform within our Defence Forces.
Regarding the provisions in the Bill to prohibit certain ranks from becoming members of representative associations, it is important to point out that this has been the case since 23 January 2020. The holder of the post of director of military prosecutions, DMP, cannot be a member of a representative association. This is set out in Defence Force Regulation, DFR, 02/2020, section 4(1) and section 6(2). The general scheme proposes to further include the post of military judge, MJ. The DMP and MJ posts are for all members of the Defence Forces and as such, they must be seen to be wholly independent, by all in carrying out their specific duties. Furthermore, the posts of DMP and MJ are open to the public to apply and the terms and conditions for those posts are set out in legislation.
Regarding the proposals set out in the general scheme to prohibit the Defence Force representative associations from making a public statement or comment concerning a political matter, this is provided for in regulation, namely DFR S.6, which states: “No public statement or comment concerning a political matter shall be made by the Association." This position was also confirmed as part of the terms of the 2022 High Court settlement with the representative associations in connection with temporary associate membership of ICTU.
It is important to note that representative associations are entitled to comment on the impact that a particular policy is having on its members. It is intended that the representative associations will continue to have the right to comment on matters as provided for under existing regulations. Similarly, individual members of the Defence Forces will retain existing rights and obligations provided for under regulations.
I met with the representative associations recently.
I have listened to their concerns and given a commitment to consider the points they have made and to come back to them, which I will do shortly.
That commitment might count for more if the Tánaiste had not just spent the preceding two minutes defending the positions as they currently stand. In respect of the external oversight body, if the Secretary General of the Department of Defence can sit on that body in an ex officio capacity, it makes now sense that there would be a reluctance to allow representative bodies to also be represented in the exact same capacity. The changes proposed for the oversight body to oversee depend on the goodwill and buy-in of the representative organisations. The Tánaiste mentioned that the prohibition on certain members becoming members of the Defence Forces is in place since 2020. He did not mention that the Government lost an independent adjudication on that point and is currently appealing. Third, we have to be very clear that any prohibition in terms of political activity or perceived political activity does not in any way prevent representative organisations or their leaders challenging governments on matters pertaining to the rights and entitlements of their members. They are the changes required to ensure a speedy passage and full support for the Bill.
The latter point is provided for. I have made that point. No representative body would be presented in any shape or form from representing their members or articulating on issues pertaining to their members, and indeed they have not been. That is not going to be the position. It is in reference to the broader issues of political commentary that I said I would reflect on the legislation and the points that have been made.
On the external oversight body, it is my view, and I have expressed this clearly and upfront to the representative bodies, that it should be an independent external oversight body, as recommended by the IRG. The Secretary General is there as a conduit, clearly, between the external oversight body and the Department in terms of changes that are going to be recommended by the body. There is a very compelling case for the military judge in terms of the operation of the justice system, any justice system, that the perception must be of absolute separation. In terms of the application of justice, that is the issue there. The military prosecutor and the military judge would not be members of a representative association. That is a reasonable position. RACO does not agree with me. However, it is quite reasonable in terms of how justice is administered.
The Tánaiste is correct that RACO does not agree with him; neither do any of the other representative organisations. Crucially, neither does the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, whose representatives gave evidence to the joint committee that they are unaware of a single other individual in the State who is precluded by legislation from joining a representative organisation. That includes judges, the DPP and everyone else. This would be a new principle established in law where those in a defined category are prevented from joining a representative organisation. Quite frankly, I have not heard a compelling argument. Just to say the Tánaiste does not think they should is not sufficient in that respect.
The oversight body is either going to deliver or it is not. Depending on that will be the actions of Government. If the Tánaiste says it is important to have a conduit with the Department, and I agree there needs to be one, it also stands to reason that there is a conduit to the men and women of the Defence Forces he will be relying on to fulfil all the objectives set out by the oversight body. I urge a rethink on that matter.
The Deputy cannot have it both ways, though. When the independent review was published, he was the first in here asking if I was going to accept its recommendations. I have accepted its recommendations in respect of the external oversight body. There was a very clear communication made to me that previous attempts at this did not work and had not worked. There is no point in coming into the House and condemning all of what was covered by the IRG independent review report and then not acting on what the report has laid out in terms of recommendations. It was a key recommendation that there would be an external oversight body. I have met with the body on a number of occasions. There needs to be a transformation of culture within our Defence Forces. It has to happen. There is a lot of work under way now in terms of doing that. The modus operandi the Deputy proposes would not achieve that.
5. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the reasons his Department facilitated a meeting between an organisation (details supplied) and the EDA’s CEO in September 2023; if he will publish the names of the persons who participated in the meeting between those two organisations; the topics that were discussed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13292/24]
It was a busy day over at Tweedle Dee's yesterday. I would like to ask the reasons the Minister's Department facilitated a meeting between the Irish Defence and Security Association and the European Defence Agency's CEO in September 2023; if he will publish of the names of the people who participated in the meeting; the topics that were discussed; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I thank the Deputy for raising the question. The Irish Defence and Security Association, IDSA, was established in 2021 with a mission "to ensure Ireland develops appropriate, leading-edge and trusted defence and security capabilities in the land, sea, air, space and cyber domains, in order to protect our society, create jobs, drive research and enhance Ireland’s economic growth". That is a quotation from its mission statement. National defence industry associations are the norm in many EU member states, providing support to industry operating in defence markets in a number of ways, by creating networks, disseminating information and assisting contractors to find suitable subcontractors. They are particularly important for small and medium-sized enterprises.
My Department was supportive of the establishment of the IDSA and welcomed its role in providing a conduit for information to defence and dual-use industry and research institutions and academia. Prior to the visit by the chief executive of the European Defence Agency, Mr. Jirí Šedivý, to Ireland in September 2023, the Department was asked by the EDA to facilitate a meeting between the EDA chief executive and Irish industry. The Department passed this request to the IDSA. The meeting was chaired by Mr. Šedivý. The chair of the IDSA, Mr. Pat O'Connor was in attendance with a number of representatives from the association. In his role as chief executive, Mr. Šedivý has regular dialogue with the participating member states of the EDA, which includes national defence industry associations, to discuss opportunities within the agency for industry and academia.
We are talking about the arms industry here and an emerging Irish arms industry. It seems to me that this is quite a shadowy organisation. It is unlike any other representative organisation that I know of. They do not say who their affiliates are. We are told there are 15 Irish-based SMEs, two research organisations and two multinational corporations. We are told that Mr. Pat O'Connor is the chair, Ms Caitríona Heinl is head of policy and Ben Tonra, the UCD professor, is involved as well. We are not told who all the other affiliates, organisations and individuals are or who attended this meeting, other than the one person the Tánaiste mentioned. Why is there so much secrecy around this group?
This group is not under the aegis of my Department. The Department believes and I believe that there are similar groups all over member states. There is an arms industry out there. We purchase weaponry. To engage in peacekeeping, it is necessary to procure weaponry. I met with the EDA chief executive. Our participation in it is fairly low-key. The role of the EDA in the broader context of the EU is fairly low-key as well. The level of operation very much depends on the degree to which states want to co-operate with it or engage its services. The Deputy made a declaration that this is the arms industry. We do have defence forces.
We have procurement challenges. We are going to enter into the most significant era of defence procurement in the Defence Forces since the foundation of the State over the next number of years. We need expertise around procurement. Obviously, public procurement has to abide by all of the rules in respect of the European Union's rules around procurement. I do not hold any remit for this organisation.
The Tánaiste mentioned that similar organisations exist in other European Union countries. I do not doubt him for a moment on that. The arms industry is shadowy. Are other EU countries as shadowy as what we have here? I imagine that in many other European countries the affiliates of a defence association are on the public record, but that is not the case here.
The Tánaiste said this does not come under the aegis of his Department, and that is true. However, it is also true that the Department set up a meeting for this association with the CEO of the European defence association. If it is to set up meetings of that kind, the least the Department can do is come clean and be public about who attended the meetings and who the affiliates of the defence association he has spoken about are. The Tánaiste is correct to say that the arms industry is on the rise in Europe. I do not think we should be part of that, but I would like to get the answers to my questions.
How does the Deputy think we should procure weapons? Does he think we should procure weapons at all? It seems to me that his position is that we should not and that we should have no arms industry at all. That is what he has suggested.
Who is involved?
I am asking a straight question. Does the Deputy think we should have an arms industry?
I asked the Tánaiste a straight question. I am asking the questions here. Who is involved?
I do not have responsibility for this organisation, but I will seek further information for the Deputy.
The Tánaiste set up meetings for it.
The Deputy already had the information. He named names. He asked a question to which he already had the answer.
No. It was a minority of the names involved. Who are the other names?
The Deputy made declaratory statements about an arms industry. It seems to me that his position is that we should not procure any weapons and the arms industry is a shadowy operation. I do not know how we are going to defend ourselves-----
Who is involved?
-----if we do not buy any guns, ships, airplanes or anything like that.
Stop bluffing. Who is involved?
