I call the Minister to make his opening statement on the Permanent Structured Co-operation, PESCO, projects, after which we will have questions from Deputies Clarke, Brady and Berry, in that order.
Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) Projects: Motion
The following motion was placed on the Order Paper for Dáil Éireann and was referred to this committee:
That, in accordance with the Programme for Government commitments, Dáil Éireann approves Ireland's participation in four Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) Projects:
i) Cyber Threats and Incident Response Information Sharing Platform,
ii) Deployable Military Disaster Relief Capability Package,
iii) Special Operations Forces Medical Training Centre, and
iv) Maritime (semi) Autonomous Systems for Mine Countermeasures.
In commending the motion to the committee, I will briefly outline the function of PESCO and the background to the projects in which Ireland proposes to participate. Ireland has been a participant in PESCO since its establishment in 2017. It is a process under which groups of member states can usefully come together to develop capabilities in support of Common Security and Defence Policy, CSDP, operations. It represents a further development in EU co-operation in support of international peace and security under CSDP. Participation is voluntary and, to date, 25 EU member states, including Ireland, have joined PESCO. Following the recent decision to revoke its CSDP opt-out, Denmark is very likely to join PESCO projects very soon. That would mean Malta is the only country that is not involved.
The objective of PESCO is to enhance the EU’s defence capabilities for national and multinational missions and operations, to build on the EU’s capacity for international security. and to assist in the protection of EU citizens while maximising defence spending by participating member states. Participation in PESCO will enhance the Defence Forces’ military capabilities for participation in UN-mandated peace support operations, enhance interoperability and, working with our EU partners, ensure our troops are equipped with the latest and best equipment and training. Ireland currently has the lowest participation rate of the member states in PESCO. Ireland is a participant in only one of the 60 agreed PESCO projects - upgrade of maritime surveillance - and is currently an observer on a further nine projects. Four of these projects are the subject of this motion where I propose we move from observer status to participant status. What we are discussing today is the proposal for Ireland becoming full participants in four PESCO projects, on which we currently have observer status. In other words, we know what is going on but we now want to get involved properly in the projects.
This proposal follows a detailed analysis by the Defence Forces and my Department, reflecting on our experience as observers and assessing the added value of becoming full participants. In each case, the conclusion of the analysis and reflection is that full participation would deliver significant benefits to our Defence Forces to support them in their roles and, in particular, their contribution to international crisis management operations and peacekeeping. I will now provide a brief overview of the four projects.
The first is the cyber threats and incident response information sharing platform. The main objective of this project is to strengthen EU member states’ cyber defence capabilities and response to cyber incidents by delivering a cyber threats and incident response information sharing platform alongside an endpoint detection and response solution, in other words, getting better at spotting cyber threats and cyber attacks before they happen and dealing with them when they happen. Ireland, like other EU member states, has an increasing reliance on information and communications technology to support our military operations. Cyber attacks represent a real and increasing threat to our Defence Forces operations, both at home and overseas. The Defence Forces have assessed this project as being of particular value to them given that knowledge transfer relating to cyber threats is often the mitigation of actual attacks to networks. Participation in this project will enhance their cyber capabilities and give them a further means to deal with both known and unknown cyber threats. This is a Greek-led project and the other participating member states are Cyprus, Hungary, Italy, Portugal and Spain.
The second is a deployable military disaster relief capability package.
The objective of this project is to develop a tool to support the EU’s civil protection mechanism response efforts to natural and man-made disasters and humanitarian crises. The tool will provide additional capabilities to the member states' response, resulting in enhanced capability and effectiveness of the overall response to emergencies.
The project has two pillars, which are training and operational. The training pillar will establish a training centre for the conduct and delivery of disaster relief training. The operational pillar will provide a deployable military disaster relief capability task force that could be activated at short notice following a request for assistance. I acknowledge that any deployment of the Defence Forces would require a separate Government decision in accordance with the appropriate legislative requirements. Italy will have the lead on this project and the other member state participants are Austria, Hungary, Greece and Spain.
The third project is a special operations forces, SOF, medical training centre. The objective of this project is to establish a medical training centre that will focus on medical support for special operations. SOF operations occur in high-threat environments without normal access to essential medical services. This training centre will focus on medical education and certified training for medical and non-medical support in SOF operations. This vital training will enhance our Defence Forces capabilities, skills and knowledge in the area of life support, in particular when soldiers are deployed overseas on peacekeeping missions. The project is expected to provide increased access to formalised, structured and appropriate medical courses that are the recognised interoperable standard across the EU special operations communities. Hungary will have the lead on this project and Poland is currently the other member state participant.
The fourth project is maritime, semi-autonomous, systems for mine countermeasures. The objective of this project is to deliver semi-autonomous underwater, surface and aerial technologies and capabilities for maritime mine countermeasures. This system will enhance maritime security by assisting to counter the threat from sea mines and other malign actors in the maritime domain. It will provide Ireland with a flexible, modular, innovative technology, which will enable the Defence Forces to develop an increased level of protection to key national infrastructure, including harbours, critical offshore infrastructure and sea lines of communications. Belgium is the lead on this project and the other participating member states are France, Greece, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania and the Netherlands. There is a lot of interest in that and I suspect there will be increased interest in the context of what is happening in the Black Sea at the moment.
The cost of Ireland’s move to full participation in these projects should not extend beyond travel costs to attend workshops, meetings or participation in or delivery of training. Any such costs can be met from within existing resources within my Department. In the event of a decision to procure any equipment or capability arising from, or developed as part of, these projects would be progressed through the Department’s normal procurement processes under the auspices of the joint high level planning and procurement group.
The enhancement and development of Defence Forces capabilities is essential when considering Ireland’s continued participation in a full range of UN-mandated missions overseas and to respond to the challenges from a defence and security perspective at home. Participation in these projects will further enhance the capability of our Defence Forces to undertake the roles assigned to them by the Government, both at home and overseas. Our participation in PESCO involves no commitment to participate in any CSDP operation or to the development of any form of common military force. Moreover, this is a modest proposal, which increases the number of projects in which we are full participants from one to five, out of a total of 60 agreed projects. Most countries are involved in many more than Ireland already is and will be after this decision.
The Defence Forces and my Department will continue to assess the value of the other projects with a view to possible observer status, during which time a further assessment can be made of the possible added value of progressing to full participation. Any proposal in that regard will only be done on the basis that there is demonstrable added value of full participation. I commend the motion to the committee. This has been a long explanation but hopefully it will assist the committee.
I thank the Minister. The Minister said that most countries are involved in more PESCO projects than Ireland is. This is true-----
All of them are.
It is also safe to say that a lot of those, or most EU countries, are also members of NATO. I just want to put this into context.
That is a very different issue from PESCO. Their training is different.
I believe there is an attempt to obscure the continuous erosion of Ireland's neutrality by attempting to portray the participation in PESCO as benign training and co-operation opportunities for the Defence Forces. It is impossible to separate it away from the stated position and rhetoric from officials within the EU and European parties. The Minister's party is a member of the European People's Party, which fully supports the creation of a European army. It was only last month that Josep Borrell stated that the EU needs to develop military force to give it military strength. It is impossible to look at PESCO without the broader policy that is at the core of thinking within the EU in certain quarters. Federica Mogherini, who was the former representative for EU foreign affairs and security at the time PESCO was launched, said it was about building an EU defence union, one that would complement NATO's security aims. Other EU officials insist that it is not just a bureaucratic co-operation but real investment that will help to develop the EU's defence industry and spur research and development in the military capabilities the bloc needs most. On the face of what is being presented here with the particular scenarios put forward by the Minister, it is impossible to isolate it from the broader views within the EU around the development of an EU military.
As I have said, that is a policy position not just of the European People's Party but also of other groupings within the EU. It has been a long-held position of Fine Gael and of previous spokespersons about neutrality and the need to move on from it. We are being told by the Government that the war in Ukraine has accelerated the need for a debate on neutrality. I think back to the invasion of Iraq. At the time, I believe it was Enda Kenny who used that particular war and invasion to question Ireland's neutrality and said it was time to have a discussion around neutrality. The Fine Gael Party certainly seems to be happy to hitch its wagon to any international crisis that will help to accelerate its agenda around the abolition of Ireland's military neutrality. It is impossible to separate-----
With respect-----
-----what is presented in front of us here today with the broader outlook and the broader moves by the European project for a European army, and the jettison of our military neutrality.
The Minister might speak on those broader views within the EU in terms of what I believe PESCO is being used towards. Many would say it is a Trojan horse to develop an EU army. It is impossible not to look at the further cosying up to NATO. It comes at a time when NATO was here in Ireland overseeing a training exercise by one of our artillery regiments in Cork. It is hard not to ask what the bigger picture is.
I will leave it at that. The Minister might touch on some of those major concerns. They are not just my concerns but they are felt by those who hold dear our position of military neutrality and are concerned about what all this is designed to advance.
It is really regrettable that the Deputy has chosen to try to make this discussion party political and that he has been deliberately trying to misinform people. These are serious issues. We have war on our Continent at the moment and we are talking about capability issues and common training exercises where Ireland voluntarily chooses to train with other countries to try and build capacity within our own systems. He chooses to try and twist the presence of NATO, which is here at our request, to try to ensure that we are interoperable and that we meet the standards and benchmarks that we set for ourselves.
We are a neutral country.
No, the Deputy should please listen.
The point is that we are a neutral country.
Deputy Brady has made his submission. I am very keen to give the Minister an opportunity to reply to questions.
I ask Deputy Brady to listen because people need to know the truth here, rather than turning this into some debate around the creation of a European army, which is what the Deputy's party seems to do every time there is a debate on this issue. There is absolutely no move towards a European army or Irish support for one or any political party in Ireland looking to support one. Could the Deputy stop trying to misinform people to make party political points? We should be beyond that, given the seriousness of security debates at the moment in the European Union. What I am trying to do as Minister for Defence, and what I have an obligation to do, is to ensure that our Defence Forces are trained to an international standard that we can stand over. That standard, right across the EU for NATO members and non-NATO members, is the NATO standard. The point is if we are training with, on peacekeeping missions with, or responding to an emergency with other countries in the EU with which we work all the time, we understand how to use similar equipment and have similar training skill sets, capacity and so on. Just because we operate to NATO standards does not mean that we are on a stepping stone to NATO membership. We have been operating on or trying to reach NATO standards for many years now. To try to distort that into something that it is not, given the seriousness of defence right now is just irresponsible. I am sorry if I am pushing back but that is the position.
The Deputy has chosen to introduce that element into this discussion unfortunately. We are not talking about a European army here or a defence union either. The Deputy can quote Josep Borrell if he wants or Federica Mogherini if he wants to. Incidentally, Josep Borrell is not a member of the EPP. Deputy Brady seems to be linking the two. He is trying to ensure that the EU has the capacity to respond to crises if needs be and to ensure that countries in the EU which want to work together to build capacity in security and defence can do so. What we are choosing to do here and what we are asking for support for is that Ireland would work with other countries to look at issues such as cyberthreats and to make sure that we have the best protections and infrastructure that we can put in place by learning from other countries and working with them to ensure that if we have to deploy, if Ireland wants to be part of deploying a response to a natural disaster somewhere - mass flooding, an earthquake or tsunami or a post-conflict situation - and if Ireland chooses to be part of a rapid response to that, that Ireland would have trained with other countries that will help us respond to save lives. That, somehow, is supposed to be linked to the creation of a European army. We want to try to double our Army Ranger wing in size over time because it is justified. There is an idea that our special forces training with other countries, specifically in first aid and medical provision in complex, difficult, dangerous operations, is a bad thing because it is somehow linked to PESCO which, in some people's minds is really about the creation of a European army, when it is not. The core issue is that these are all voluntary. If we were being sucked into this, we would not be here debating it. I am effectively asking for support and permission because I think, on the back of the recommendation from our Defence Forces, that our Defence Forces would benefit from these things in terms of being better equipped, better trained, safer in the field and it allowing us more flexibility in terms of collective partnerships. Every time we send our Defence Forces abroad, we are partnering with another country. We are not living in isolation here where we set our own standards militarily and ignore everything going on around us. Every time we send a rotation out to UNIFIL, UNDOF, to Mali or other parts of the world, it is with other countries with which we need to be interoperable. That is predominantly how I see PESCO. It is true that some other countries will describe and see PESCO differently. They will choose to be part of other PESCO projects that we will not choose to be part of to build capacity in other areas. I accept that point. But the whole point of PESCO is that it is designed to accommodate countries like Ireland, Cyprus, Austria and Sweden and Finland, the latter two of which were not members of NATO until now and would not have been were it not for Russian aggression. Looking at those countries, Austria, Finland, Cyprus and Sweden, they are all involved in between five and ten PESCO projects. They are all militarily non-aligned too, or at least they have been until recently. I want to reassure people listening that this is not undermining Irish neutrality or a journey to some kind of European army. It is about capacity and voluntarily responding to training and capacity improvement opportunities that other countries are buying into as well. In all of these, we have chosen to be an observer first, so we are cautious because of some of the issues the Deputy raised and the perceptions around it. In all these, we choose to be an observer first and the military advice to me is that we should move now from observer status into full participation because we will benefit from that. And we can choose to leave whenever we want if we decide that it is no longer appropriate for us. That does not sound like what the Deputy described in terms of the origins of PESCO.
For the record, on names of people outside the House being mentioned, the Minister has clarified the relationship between our party and Mr. Josep Borrell, that is there is none. On the other name mentioned, Signora Mogherini is a member of the socialist group. There is no connection with party political issues.
I never insinuated there was. For correction, I never stated that. I spoke about Josep Borrell in a separate context in relation to comments that he made last month on the need to develop a military force within the EU. The other comments on the European Peoples Party and its stated position in its manifesto is-----
But they are not members.
-----in terms of the development of a European army.
In any event, the Minister has confirmed that this is entirely voluntary.
I very much welcome these proposals, primarily for two reasons. First, the military is very much in favour of them because the skill set will empower them but also personally. In the last 20 years I have benefited enormously from international training in my former line of work. I did multiple courses with the UK Armed Forces.
This was a three month course on live fire. All of the skills I picked up there, I brought back into the Irish Defence Forces. We have never had a single live fire fatality in the Defence Forces as a result because of the excellent skills we are picking up abroad, bringing back and ploughing into our own organisation here.
I have done multiple medical courses to make me a better doctor and multiple courses in hostage rescue which made me a better operator as well. I totally see the value of these courses, workshops and this international training and it protects Ireland more than anything else. It gives us the skills because we do not have the expertise on the island at the moment. Because of our history, thankfully, we have not been involved in major conflicts. Other countries have and have learned many hard lessons. We have the opportunity to pick up these lessons and not to repeat the mistakes that they made.
On the four projects being selected, I believe they have been very carefully chosen, which I acknowledge. The first of these is on cybersecurity and we know what happened in the HSE last year. It could happen again next year and even tonight with our national grid or our transport infrastructure. We need to have the expertise to be able to protect ourselves. That is all about getting information and bringing it back.
Second, from a special forces and medical point of view, I would be concerned about the medical backup for the Defence Forces at the moment. We have been very fortunate that we have not experienced any major casualties overseas so we have not been tested. This is an opportunity where, for example, if there is a hostage situation in Dublin airport if an aircraft is hijacked, and if the Army Ranger Wing has to go in and take that aircraft down, that it knows it has the edge on the terrorists and that it has the best medical backup in equipment, knowledge and expertise that it needs.
The disaster relief project is of great importance for our Engineer Corps and for Ireland also. We know climate change is coming down the tracks and that flood relief is going to be a big issue. It is very important that our Engineer Corps has the expertise and the equipment on site and available to intervene and look after the public as best as possible in disaster relief, without even mentioning overseas service.
Finally, from a mine clearance point of view, this is very topical in the Black Sea at the moment where there are 20 million tonnes of grain and there are serious discussions going on as to whether there should be an international coalition of the willing to go in with escort vessels to bring merchant vessels out with the grain on board. The Naval Service has almost no expertise in mine clearance and it is very important that it does, particularly in respect of undersea cables etc.
The military are completely in favour of it and I am completely in favour of the projects that have been selected. It is very prudent to move from observer to participant status.
To sum up, politically, we engage beyond this island and diplomatically we engage with our peers abroad, which is even the case from a scientific point of view. It is completely appropriate that our armed forces are able to engage and learn the lessons from abroad and bring them back to this island to make us a better group. There is a phrase going around where the accountant says to the CEO what if we train all of these people and they just leave. The CEO then says what if we do not train them and they stay. That is the situation which the Defence Forces are in at the moment which is that we do not have access to this expertise. We have to go abroad to learn the expertise, bring it back and make our military the best it can possibly be so that in the event of us having to operate independently to protect our own island, we have the capacity to do so. I am totally in favour of these four projects and I look forward to supporting them.
That was more of a statement than it was questions for the Minister but I invite the Minister to make a brief response and then I will call Deputy Brady.
I am glad that Deputy Berry has been as positive about these projects as he has because I have a great deal of respect for his own experience within the Defence Forces and indeed within the Army Ranger Wing, which is part of this package. We need to see partnership as a positive thing when it comes to defence not as a risk to our independence, our sovereignty or our neutrality. There are, of course, parameters to that and I completely accept that but it is the norm for European countries to train and compete together. Our Army Ranger Wing tends to do very well in international competitions with special forces from other countries, including some NATO countries in respect of the standards it sets. We need to maintain that and ensure that the equipment we are using, our capacity and skill set can then be turned into a partnership when called upon to make an intervention.
Deputy Brady referred to Josep Borrel talking about the need for defence capacity, which he did. One of the things in the Strategic Compass for Security and Defence - which is what all of the EU countries have agreed and is the policy template for taking forward common security and defence issues across the EU for the next decade - is that there would be a rapid response capacity. That is, that the EU could respond if there was a massive tragedy in north Africa that needed an EU response because it is in our neighbourhood where, if we needed to make an intervention to save people in the case of a natural disaster, a post-conflict situation, or whatever, that we would have the actual capacity to do that.
I was referring to Josep Borrell speaking on the development of military strength not humanitarian assistance.
If I may make the point, please, Mr. Borrell is talking about a 5,000 strong force to respond, should they be needed, to make an intervention. Even in those kinds of interventions, Ireland has never been forced to respond to them. We will decide and that is our position, if we will be involved or if we will not. If we have not trained with other countries, however, or are not interoperable with them, we will then not have the choice to go even if we want to. We will not be wanted because we will not be able to operate properly in partnership with others.
We will commit, for example, from 2025 onwards to be part of a joint training project which is called a battle group in Germany. We have done that before in Finland and in Germany. Again this is about interoperability and it has in fact never been called upon. It is an unfortunate name because it is actually about a peace intervention, in real terms. This is about training, capacity and ensuring that our skill set is where it needs to be to keep our people safe and to be able to make interventions should they be needed and should we make the political decision ourselves to make those interventions.
Since we made the decision in principle on the mine clearance issue, the war in Ukraine has obviously evolved and we can see now the practicalities around some of these training mechanisms. If we were called upon to be part of helping to get millions of tonnes of grain out of Odessa, or ports around that city, one would like to be in the position to have at least the option to respond in the affirmative. We need to be meeting these standards and, whether people like it or not, the benchmarks in standards by and large around interoperability and skill sets with the EU countries with which we will be partnering are predominantly NATO benchmarks.
I thank the Minister and call Deputy Clarke.
I take the Minister’s point on a co-ordinated response to a potential event of significant humanitarian impact in Africa, which he gave as an example. My response is that the third paragraph of the Minister’s statement refers to developing military crisis management: not humanitarian response crisis management but military. This is the final sentence in the third paragraph of his statement.
We are talking about the Defence Forces here. They are military.
The Minister gave the impression that this was all humanitarian.
They are not humanitarians; they are military personnel.
That was the example given by the Minister, not by me. When reading the statement it refers to: “existing security and defence arrangements”, “enhanced military capabilities”, ensuring that our troops are equipped and then there is a reference about reflecting modular innovative technology, none of which I believe anybody would have an issue with. However, my first question for the Minister is why now. We should be dealing with all of these issues for our Defence Forces from the perspective of the Commission on the Defence Forces report. The Minister himself said earlier that this report would be brought to the Government before the recess. Why is this motion then brought before the committee now? Should this not have come after that report was brought to Government and agreed upon by Cabinet?
Second, I have a very specific question again. In the Minister's statement, the fourth paragraph talks about the triple-lock system that is in place in respect of UN-mandated missions, where the Minister had previously said that he would like to see this amended. Does that also apply to what the Minister has outlined in this report because it goes on to speak of: “any deployment of the Defence Forces would require a separate Government decision”?
What is that? How is it triggered? How is it activated? What does it look like?
My final question is in relation to the cybersecurity aspect of this. We spoke of the National Cyber Security Centre earlier. When the Minister speaks of cyber in this, is he referring to the National Cyber Security Centre, or to cybersecurity experts from the Defence Forces alone? I ask this because there are other people who are not from the Defence Forces who are seconded to the National Cyber Security Centre.
These are very fair questions. I will clarify what we are talking about here in terms of cybersecurity. It is cybersecurity threats to Defence Forces infrastructure. This is therefore not the National Cyber Security Centre that we are talking about. PESCO is about co-operation on projects that are of a military capacity. This is about ensuring that our Defence Forces are upskilled to the greatest extent possible in areas where we choose to be part of training that we believe will enhance our skill set. This may relate to the Army Ranger Wing, in the area of first aid and medical training. It may relate to dealing with mines, which would predominantly be the Naval Service but probably other elements of the Defence Forces as well. Likewise, it may relate to cyberthreats. We are looking to build a cyber command within the Defence Forces that is bigger and stronger than the one we have now-----
But, does that then-----
That is separate, although it is complementary to the National Cyber Security Centre, which deals with everyday cyberthreats to our health system, to the private sector, to data breaches, etc.-----
To bring us back on track again, that then goes back to my question of why now, before the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces has gone to Cabinet?
Regardless of what we do on the report, the case is being made. We have already been observers on these projects, in some cases for a number of years. The recommendation has come back to me. These things take a while. I got these recommendations ages ago. Now it is going through the process of political accountability. However, the recommendations have come to me to say we would now benefit from moving from an observer status to full participation in these projects. It is hard to disagree, when one looks at the four projects that we are talking about.
I have to emphasise that it was premature to bring this before the committee before Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces had gone to Cabinet-----
I do not think so, because-----
We think that-----
Sorry-----
(Interruptions).
You have made that point on a number of occasions.
We disagree on the position or time-----
Can I say-----
-----but I want to emphasise that point. It appears that the cart has been put before the horse in this regard.
Well, can I answer that? We have Defence Forces personnel in the field right now-----
The Minister has had the report on the Defence Forces since early in the year.
Yes.
We can argue back and forth all day.
Sorry, our Defence Forces are operating every day, commission or no commission. We need to make sure they are trained to the standards that we expect of them and that they also demand in terms of international best practice. That is what this is about.
We may well be coming back in a number of months’ time to look to join more. We will have this discussion and I will have to justify it, if we choose to do that. We may well look to become observers on other PESCO missions to explore if there are other areas we would like to explore. The case for these four training projects stands up in its own right, regardless of whether there is a commission report coming forward or not. When the Deputy sees how we respond to the commission, she will see there are dozens of issues that we are trying to deal with. However, these are four specific areas where we believe we could add to the skill sets of the Defence Forces by participating with other partner countries in the EU, which are clearly benefiting from it. That is not only a hunch. We have been observers in these projects. We have watched how they are working. The recommendation has come back to me to say that these projects are worth investing our time in. That is what we are doing. As a civilian and as a Minister, it is not for me to question the ask from the military side, if they believe that this will add to the skill sets they are looking for. That addresses that point-----
Just, in terms of-----
No, let me answer the other questions, if I can.
I will come back to Deputy Clarke for a new question and not for the same question again.
No, I have a point of clarity to make. The Minister has said that these are four training projects but they are not. Two of them are capability development projects. Two of them are training projects.
Can I come in?
The Minister cannot say something different to the committee than he said in his opening statement. He is directly contradicting-----
Sorry-----
Nobody is disputing the fact that we have members of the Defence Forces-----
We have to improve skill sets in order to increase capability.
-----in the field. Nobody is disputing that. However, if you had known, as Minister, that this report was coming before this committee before the end of this term, surely that would have put a greater onus on the Minister to bring forward the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces to Cabinet earlier. Again, I go back to the point about the cart before the horse.
On the training.
With respect, the Deputy is attaching significance to these four projects-----
I am not.
-----as if they are going to fundamentally change the Defence Forces.
This is about upskilling in obvious areas where our Defence Forces would benefit. We should be doing this regardless of whether a commission report is coming through.
They are intrinsically linked.
Linked to what?
It clearly makes reference to existing security defence arrangements, military capabilities to ensure that our troops are equipped. This is language that is repeated throughout the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces.
What point is the Deputy making?
Why would the Minister not bring to this committee that Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces after it had gone to the Government to be signed off and the decision was made, before bringing this?
If we did that, we would be delaying involvement in these projects until the autumn and I am not willing to that. We should be involved in them now.
-----the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces----
That is a matter for the Government, with respect.
The Minister said himself that it has not gone to Cabinet.
Exactly.
He said that earlier on. So why did he not bring that up first?
I am not going to delay something that is self-evidently beneficial to the Defence Forces any longer, because we do not need to do that. We do need to delay a bit longer until we get Government agreement on the commission on the future of the Defence Forces, which is about something much more fundamental than these projects.
It is much wider than this-----
Which we will have within days.
- and should have been given much higher priority in terms of going to the Government and to this committee before this. We are probably going to disagree until the end of time on this issue. I do believe that the Minister has made a mistake in bringing this forward at this time without that other piece of work being done in advance.
I do not agree.
Are there any further questions from Deputy Clarke?
I appreciate both sides of the argument here. I would say the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces will go to the Government on Tuesday week, supposedly. After that, there will be a full Dáil debate on it. There also is to be a full Dáil debate on these four PESCO projects as well.
Yes.
I do appreciate what Deputy Clarke has said. A lot of groundwork and preparatory work has been done but the real debate happens in the Dáil anyway. It will be subsequent to today and to the Cabinet’s decision. I will make one final-----
Both of these issue are outside of the remit of this committee, in any event.
I will make my last point, and everyone here might not agree with me on this, but the farm boy inside me is speaking. PESCO to the military is really what Europol is to An Garda Síochána. An Garda Síochána interacts with Europol. It gets excellent information and it gets excellent training. It ploughs that back and makes Ireland a safer place.
I see the four projects here purely through an Irish prism. We need to enhance our cybersecurity. This is definitely the case. We do not know when the next attack is coming and how severe it is going to be. We need to improve our medical training in the Defence Forces because we do not know when the next casualty will be. We want to prevent our next casualty from becoming our next fatality. Disaster relief was mentioned, as was flooding, which is due to hit in six months’ time and we need to be ready for it.
As for the issue of mine clearance, we need to have expertise to protect our own territorial waters. That is the way that I would see it, for what it is worth.
The final question goes to Deputy Brady.
Nobody would argue against those points. Our Defence Forces need all of that. Yet, this is a matter of the vehicle in which it is being used and where the final destination will be. That is the issue of concern.
I have two points. The Minister spoke about the benchmarks that we have to adhere to in order to be of NATO standard. Of course, there has been much focus on NATO. I therefore have two specific questions, the first of which is whether the Minister thinks that the Irish Defence Forces should sign up to NATO at any point. Second, the Taoiseach has stated he believes that a referendum would be required if we were to look at joining NATO. I seek the Minister’s own views in that regard. First, does he think that we should join NATO? Second, should there be a referendum on our neutrality and on the issue of joining NATO?
These are big questions and-----
They are big questions but-----
-----I am not sure of the extent to which the Minister can answer them.
------I think they are core questions.
These are issues for Government. They may well be issues for the people. In any event, perhaps the Minister might make a brief comment in response.
I am not proposing that Ireland joins NATO. What I have said is that Ireland needs-----
The question was do you think we should at any stage.
Will you let me answer the question? I have said that in the context of war on our Continent, Ireland needs to look in an honest way at how we both invest in and plan for the defence of our State, with respect to the protection of our own sovereignty and how we contribute to the collective security of the EU of which we are part. We need to have that debate in the months ahead, which I think the Taoiseach has also suggested we do. The answer to that for me is more partnership, more willingness to work and train with other countries so we are interoperable should we need to be and more investment in our Defence Forces so we can increase our own capacity rather than having a reliance on others with core defence issues. What we need is less isolation and more partnership. Do I believe we need to join a formal defence alliance? No, I am not proposing that. However, we should certainly be open to more co-operation, more partnership and ensuring Ireland plays its part in the collective security of the EU, which unfortunately is under threat right now from Russian aggression in Ukraine, and of course threats to EU members states are also coming from Moscow at the moment.
Okay.
Consequently, we must have that discussion and we must recognise there are serious capacity issues with our own defence. That has been exposed very bluntly in the commission report and we should not brush that under the carpet. We must respond to it. We need more capacity, larger Defence Forces and increased resources for defence in Ireland. That is not about capacity for going to war or anything like that but about core defence and the ability for Ireland to contribute to international peace and security. I hope the Government will be able to make decisions to support that approach, as I said, over the next two weeks, and I am pretty confident it will.
I thank the Minister. That is a reasonable note upon which to conclude our deliberations. Both the Taoiseach and senior Ministers, including the present Minister, have said in recent months, having regard to the context of all these debates, which is war in Europe, that we must be having a national conversation. However, while we are talking about having a national conversation, we see what is happening in other countries such as Finland and Sweden, for example. Most particularly from an Irish perspective, we should be looking very closely at what has happened in Denmark, where the Danish people have, by way of referendum, voted positively towards opting in over a range of common security and defence issues within the EU, whereas up to now the Danish people and Government have relied exclusively on NATO. These are, therefore, issues of great import and ones we will undoubtedly be coming back to at this committee, especially with reference to the report on the Defence Forces and issues mentioned by the Minister.
I thank the Minister and his officials for attending.