John Gormley

  40. Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Defence the relationship between the new EU battle groups and the EU constitution’s permanent structured cooperation; if most of the battle groups will be a part of permanent structured co-operation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17556/05] (more…)

(more…)

111. Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Finance if he supports the proposal of the six net contributors to the EU budget , Britain, France, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden, calling for a spending cap of 1% of gross national income for the 2007-13 period; if he further supports the Commission’s proposal that member states should contribute 1.14%; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13377/05] (more…)

 3. Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Defencethe reason Ireland’s membership of the European Defence Agency was not brought before Dáil Éireann for consideration; the terms of Ireland’s membership of the agency; if membership will require an increase in defence spending; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12589/05]
 
   Mr. O’Dea: A decision to establish an intergovernmental agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments, known as the European Defence Agency, EDA, was formally adopted at the General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting on 12 July, 2004.
  Following an initial start-up phase during 2004, the agency is now operational with its senior management in place and a budget and work programme for 2005, approved by defence Ministers of the participating member states.
  The overall aim of the agency is to assist member states in their efforts to improve European defence capabilities in support of European Security and Defence Policy.  To achieve this, the agency has been ascribed four functions relating to, defence capabilities development, armaments co-operation, the European defence technological and industrial base and defence equipment market and research and technology.
  The agency will be an important forum by which the EU can seek to improve competitiveness and efficiency in the defence equipment sector which has been notable for fragmentation and duplication.  While Ireland is not a major consumer of defence equipment, we should encourage developments which improve market efficiencies or which may yield some economies of scale for equipment procurement for the Defence Forces.
  Against this background, at its meeting on 6 July, 2004, the Government agreed that Ireland would participate in the framework of the agency.  There is no requirement for Dáil approval for participation in the agency, which is an intergovernmental agency within the framework of ESDP.  Participation in the framework of the agency does not impose any specific obligations or commitments on Ireland other than a contribution to the budget of the agency.  Participation in individual projects of the agency will be a matter for national decision on a case-by-case basis.
  National contributions to the budget of the agency are calculated on the basis of the gross national income scale in accordance with Article 28(3) of the Treaty on European Union.  Ireland has paid a contribution of €21,733.07 towards the agency’s initial general budget of €2.4 million for 2004.  The budget for 2005, estimated at €25 million, includes once-off capital provisions for accommodation and infrastructure items, and means that Ireland’s contribution towards the running of the agency will therefore be of the order of €315,000.  It means that Ireland’s contribution towards the running of the agency in 2005 will be in the order of €315,000.
 
   Mr. Gormley: As the Minister knows, the EU constitution has not yet been approved and yet the European Defence Agency is up and running.  Will the Minister indicate on what legal basis it is running or is it in a legal limbo?  He says this was an intergovernmental decision.  Is it not extraordinary that a move of such significance was not debated in this House in any shape or form?  Is this considered to be so unpalatable for many Irish people that it was decided to try to hide it away until such time as the Green Party tried to expose it?
  On the question of spending, as the Minister probably knows, I was on the defence working group of the Convention on the Future of Europe.  It was clear there that the idea behind this was not just to co-ordinate or spend better, but also to spend more.  Will the Minister agree that as a consequence we will have to increase spending?  That is precisely the idea, to make Europe more significant militarily on the international stage.
 
   Mr. O’Dea: I will answer Deputy Gormley’s questions in sequence.  The Government took a decision, as I said in my initial reply, on 6 July 2004, to participate in this agency.  Every other government in Europe is participating with the exception of Denmark, according to my information.  I presume the Attorney General attended that meeting, although it was before my time in Government.  I presume he would have advised the Government if it was doing anything illegal.
  As regards the debate in the House, there is a number of things an Administration can do, without the requirement for a debate in the House.  Sometimes matters which do not warrant debate may be decided on by the Government if there is not sufficient time.  The Deputy can appreciate the pressure of time in the House.  I would respectfully suggest to him that if he wants a debate Private Members’ time is an obvious mechanism to use.
 
   Mr. Gormley: We do not get too much of it.
 
   Mr. O’Dea: Deputy Gormley will also be aware that there is severe pressure on Government time.  Every morning on the Order of Business we are asked where this, that or the other piece of legislation is.  Time is not limitless.  However, I would not agree that the objective of this particular agency is to spend more.  It seems to me from what I have read about it, that the whole focus is on better spending and that is why—–
 
   Mr. Gormley: Better and more.
 
   Mr. O’Dea: Better is the primary focus as far as I can see.  I do not believe there is anything particularly sinister about this.  Every country in Europe, with the exception of Denmark, has agreed to participate.  At the moment, we have just agreed to be involved in the framework.  No particular project has been undertaken yet.  For example, a procurement project has not been undertaken and nobody has yet done anything in this regard.  As a sovereign State, Ireland has the right to decide on whether to get involved in any particular project initiated by the agency, on a case by case basis.  All we have done so far is to agree to participate in the framework of the agency, in co-operation with our European partners.
 
(later)
 
  7. Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Defence his views on the 2004 report commissioned by the EU and written by a task force of the EU’s Institute for Security Studies, “European Defence: a Proposal for a White Paper”; if this report has been discussed with the Irish Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12388/05]
 
   Mr. O’Dea: The European Union Institute for Security Studies, EUISS, was created by a Council joint action on 20 July 2001.  It has the status of an autonomous agency that comes under the EU’s second “pillar”, the common foreign and security policy, CFSP.
  Having an autonomous status and intellectual freedom, the EUISS does not represent or defend any particular national interest.  Its aim is to support and contribute to the development of CFSP and European security and defence policy, ESDP.  The institute’s core mission is to provide analyses and recommendations that may be of use and relevance in the continued evolution of ESDP.  While the political and security committee of the EU exercises political supervision over the activities of the institute, it does not impinge on the intellectual independence of the institute in carrying out its research and seminar activities.
  The EUISS contributes to the development of the CFSP by performing three functions: research and debate on the major security and defence issues that are of relevance to the EU; forward looking analysis for the Union’s Council and high representative; development of a transatlantic dialogue on all security issues between the EU on the one hand and Canada and the United States on the other.
  After the terrorist attacks on the US on 11 September 2001, the institute set up an independent task force to address the issue of European capabilities.  In addition, the presidency report on ESDP approved by the European Council in Laeken in December 2001 stated that “the institute will work in particular on a publication on European defence in the framework of the Petersberg Tasks”.  The paper, entitled “European Defence: A Proposal for a White Paper”, was the outcome of the work of this task force.  It should be noted that the paper and the views expressed are those of the members of the task force and have not been endorsed by EU member states.  However, the analyses and publications of EUISS would fall to be considered in formulating the Union’s policy in regard to CFSP and ESDP and would inform the development of that policy, as do many other studies and analyses, not least the views of individual member states.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
  The European security strategy, which was endorsed by all 25 member states in December 2003, sets out the Union’s analysis and recommendations on the development of ESDP.  This, together with the headline goal 2010, sets out the policy direction, objectives and capabilities of the ESDP and rapid response elements for the foreseeable future.
 
   Mr. Eamon Ryan: This institute is, according to the same Council joint action, an integral part of the new structures that support the further development of the European security and defence policy.  Will the Minister confirm that the study published by this institute in October 2004 called for a comprehensive armament programme for the European Union’s world role and, in the course of discussing various scenarios, did not rule out the use of nuclear weapons as part of a European Union defence policy?  Does the Minister believe a White Paper will follow this proposal and are there definite plans to produce such a paper?  What is the Minister’s response to the inclusion of the nuclear option or nuclear scenarios in this proposed White Paper?
 
   Mr. O’Dea: I have a summary of the study, which I can make available to Deputy Ryan.  My reading of the study is that it is possible to interpret it as including a nuclear option.  However, this is only one of many studies the European Union takes into account when formulating security and defence policy.  The European security strategy, which was endorsed by all 25 member states in December 2003, sets out the European Union’s analysis and recommendations on the development of a European security and defence policy.  It contains nothing about nuclear options, and that is the official European position.
  I do not know what plans there are for the development of a White Paper.  However, regardless of whether a White Paper will be produced on the basis of this study, the study has not been endorsed by any member state.  While this institute operates under the political supervision of the European Union, it has intellectual independence.  It is entitled to write whatever report it wishes.  We contribute approximately €40,000 per annum to the running of the institute.  We are not bound by what it writes.  We will certainly look at it; the European Union looks at such studies when formulating the security and defence policy but it is not bound by them.  This is only one of a number of analyses and presentations the European Union takes into account.
 
   Mr. Eamon Ryan: The Minister appears to be acknowledging the truth that should we proceed as proposed with the European Union common defence, as set out in the proposed EU constitution, we will be joining a defence policy that has a serious nuclear component, given the inclusion of British and French nuclear armaments in their defence capabilities.
 
   Mr. O’Dea: I did not acknowledge that.
 
   Mr. Eamon Ryan: The proposed White Paper, as the Minister said, includes the possibility of a nuclear option or the use of nuclear armaments in defence actions.
 
   Mr. O’Dea: Anybody can write a paper which suggests anything.  That does not mean it will suddenly be accepted policy.  Deputy Ryan is wrong and should withdraw his statement - it was not an imputation - that I accepted that we would be tied into a nuclear option.  I do not accept that.  I have told the Deputy, in clear English and in words of as few syllabi as possible, that this is one of a number of papers and analyses which the European Union takes into account in formulating defence policy.  I also pointed out that, as late as December 2003, the European Union has formulated a security and defence policy.  I can make a copy of it available to the Deputy.  It includes nothing about a nuclear option.
  The European constitution provides for a common defence but Deputy Ryan will be aware of the Seville Declaration, under which Ireland opts out of it.  There will be no participation by Ireland in a common defence unless the people, by way of referendum, decide there should be.
 
   Mr. Eamon Ryan: This report is not from an independent think tank but was commissioned by the European Commission.  The institute has an integrated statutory role within the structures of the European Union security and defence policy.  This is not a think tank; it is the future.
 
   Mr. O’Dea: It is a think tank.  The European Union produced its policy in December 2003.  That is European policy.  The EU took account of everything said by everybody and the analyses of all types of think tanks and produced its policy for the future.  I am happy with that policy.

 
(Written reply)

 
  33. Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Defence if he will report on the informal meeting of EU Defence Ministers on 18 and 19 March 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12387/05]
 
   Minister for Defence (Mr. O’Dea): Unfortunately, due to illness, I was unable to attend the informal meeting of EU Defence Ministers convened by the Luxembourg Presidency and the Secretary General of my Department attended in my place. 
  As previously reported to the House, these meetings provide a useful forum for Ministers to exchange views on the continued development of the European security and defence policy, ESDP, in particular the development of EU capabilities to carry out Petersberg Task operations and to ensure that the work on headline goal 2010 may be completed within the UK Presidency.
  The first item on the agenda was a discussion on the situation in the Western Balkans and Operation Althea. The operational commander gave a brief on the current situation and the Secretary General High Representative Solana expressed satisfaction with the conduct of Operation Althea to date, mentioning, in particular, co-operation with the international tribunal where 11 people had surrendered.
  Discussions then turned to the various aspects of military capabilities development, particularly in relation to the rapid response elements - battle groups - concept. 
  The situation in Sudan and the contribution of the EU to the AU operation in Darfur was also discussed.  Up to one third of the 750 military observers, foreseen as part of the new UN operation that will monitor implementation of the N-S Naivasha Accord, are expected to come from EU member states.  At the same time, the EU will continue to provide support to the AU operation in Darfur. 
  The disaster following the tsunami in South East Asia was then discussed.  Many member states had supplied capabilities on an individual country basis in response to the tsunami.  The challenge now is to see how the EU could respond collectively in a co-ordinated and structure manner.  Secretary General High Representative Solana set out the general parameters for the military role that ESDP could play in the type of scenario presented by the Asian tsunami, in support of the EU’s overall response to such disasters and in support of the civilian emergency disaster response elements.

1075. Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if his Department has examined the possibility of reforming the electoral system so that Irish citizens living abroad will be able to vote in referendums and general elections; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10235/05] (more…)

 1070. Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if his attention has been drawn to illegal dumping taking place in Somalia; if he has raised the issue at European Union level; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10135/05]

   Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. Roche): There is ongoing concern within the United Nations environment programme about the possibility of large scale illegal dumping of toxic materials in Somalia.  I understand that the programme is undertaking further investigations following the recent tsunami which is reported to have uncovered evidence of such materials.  As parties to the Basel Convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous waste, for which the UN programme is responsible, Ireland, the EU Commission and other member states are committed to the regulation of waste transhipments in an environmentally responsible way.
  All exports of waste from the EU to African states are prohibited under article 18 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 259/93, which gives effect to the Basel Convention.  Regular inspections take place under corresponding Irish regulations to ensure compliance with all requirements of the EU waste transhipment regulation.  Ireland, through its participation together with its EU partners in the Basel Convention and its ongoing and increased support of the UN programme, will continue to support the objective of full compliance with agreed protocols in this important matter.

128. Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Defence if he will report on the terms under which Ireland joined the European Defence Agency; the reason membership of the agency was not referred to in Dáil Éireann; and if he will clarify the budget 2005 allocation of €315,000 to the European Defence Agency. [6747/05] (more…)

  91. Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Defence if he plans to abandon the triple lock, amend the Defence Acts or seek amendment of the Constitution to facilitate Ireland’s participation in the EU battle groups or other military arrangements; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1763/05]
 
   Minister for Defence (Mr. O’Dea): I propose to take Questions Nos. 89, 91 and 93 together.
  I refer Deputies to my reply to the House on this subject on 17 November 2004.  The position remains as I outlined at that time.  The background to the rapid response elements concept, commonly referred to as battle groups, is that at the European Council in Helsinki in 1999, member states set themselves a headline goal that “by the year 2003, cooperating together and voluntarily, they will be able to deploy rapidly and then sustain forces capable of the full range of Petersberg Tasks as set out in the Amsterdam Treaty”.  In short, they are humanitarian, rescue, peacekeeping and crisis management operations, including peacemaking.  This included, inter alia, a capability to provide “rapid response elements available and deployable at very high readiness”.  The ambition of the EU to be able to respond rapidly to emerging crises has and continues to be a key objective of the development of the European security and defence policy.
  The EU has learned from historical experience in the Balkans and Africa and wants to be able to react more quickly when crises develop.  This was effectively illustrated last year by the EU’s first autonomous military operation which was conducted in the Democratic Republic of Congo.  The operation, undertaken at the request of the United Nations Secretary General and which deployed in rapid circumstances, was successful in contributing to the stabilisation of the security environment and the improvement of humanitarian conditions in the Democratic Republic of Congo.  Deputies will recall that during his visit to Dublin in October 2004, the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, stressed the importance of battle groups and requested Ireland’s support for them.
  As I indicated in my reply to the House on 17 November, at the Cabinet meeting of 16 November, the Government agreed that I should advise my EU counterparts of Ireland’s preparedness to enter into consultations with partners with a view to potential participation in rapid response elements.  A military capabilities commitment conference was held on 22 November 2004 at which member states committed up to 13 battle group formations which will be available to deploy to crisis situations within a five to ten-day period from 2005 onwards.  The five to ten day period begins from the date of a decision by the European Council to launch an operation.  However, it is to be expected that a crisis would normally have a longer gestation period during which the UN Security Council would have sufficient opportunity to decide on a UN mandate.
  To fully assess the implications associated with such participation, I have established an interdepartmental group which includes representatives of my Department, the Defence Forces, the Taoiseach’s Department, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Attorney General’s office.  This group met in December and has established three sub-groups to address the policy, legislative and operational issues arising.  The work of these sub-groups will span some months because the rapid response elements concept is still evolving and a complete picture of all other member states’ proposed involvement is not yet available.  Following completion of the necessary analysis I intend returning to Government with proposals regarding the level of any proposed participation by Ireland.
  The House must bear in mind the Defence Forces are in Liberia in a UN operation, in Kosovo in a NATO-led operation and in Bosnia in a EU-led operation, and that rapid response elements are but one aspect of EU capabilities to assist in crisis management.  The rapid response concept raises many issues, not alone for Ireland but also for other EU member states.  I again stress that the question of Ireland’s participation in rapid response elements will remain subject to the usual requirements of a Government decision, Dáil approval and UN authorisation and I have no plans to change this.
 
(later)
 
   Mr. Gormley: Does the Minister agree that the United Nations is not so much a comfort blanket as the basis of international law?  On what legal basis is the triple lock founded?  Does the Minister agree that section 2(1) of the Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1960 does not state that service outside the State by Defence Forces contingents can only be with a United Nations force but stipulates instead that service with a United Nations force can only be pursuant to a resolution of the Dáil?  Will the Minister be clear on this?  While I support the triple lock, I want to know its legal basis and the legal advice available to the Minister on it.
  With regard to the implications of the new EU constitution, Article 40.2 is clear.  It states:
The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy.  This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council,
acting unanimously, so decides.
That is one aspect.  The crucial point, however, is the clear statement in Article 40.7 that: “Until such time as the European Council has acted in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article, closer cooperation shall be established, in the Union framework, as regards mutual defence.”  Is it not clear that involvement in closer co-operation as regards mutual defence is not compatible with the triple lock the Minister claims he does not want to abandon?
 
   Mr. O’Dea: I agree with the Deputy’s sentiments regarding the United Nations.  With regard to the legal basis of the triple lock, my advice from the Attorney General is that this is contained in the corpus of defence legislation, namely, the relevant Defence Acts.  I do not have the detailed legal advice to hand but I undertake to the Deputy to obtain it and forward it to him.
  As the campaign on the draft EU constitution has not yet started, Deputy Gormley has started his early.
 
   Mr. Gormley: I am simply asking a question.
 
   Mr. O’Dea: There is no doubt the advice I have received will be debated in various fora throughout the country.  A  Cabinet sub-committee on European affairs is examining the terms of the draft EU constitution.  The advice we have is that the triple lock is perfectly consistent with signing up to the section of the draft EU constitution containing the concept of common or mutual defence.  Deputy Gormley probably does not accept it but that will be a subject for debate during the campaign on the EU constitution. 
 
(later)
 
   Mr. Gormley: The Minister must agree that the days when we made our own foreign policy are long gone, given that we have long since been part of a common foreign and security policy.  That is fact.  The Minister made an interesting distinction between mutual defence and common defence in his reply.  If we are part of a mutual defence arrangement under Article 40.7, the Minister must agree that it would be strange for us to say to an EU partner which is the victim of armed aggression that we cannot go to its assistance, although we are part of a mutual defence pact, because we do not have a UN mandate as required by procedure in our country.  Although I support the triple-lock mechanism, does the Minister agree that it seems to be incompatible with that provision in the long term?
 
   Mr. O’Dea: I understand that but I do not agree.  This is a debate we will have over a long period.  Second, I reject Deputy Gormley’s assertion that there is something lacking in the independence of Ireland’s foreign policy.  We are part of the EU and have certain responsibilities and obligations in this regard.  However, by and large, Ireland controls its own foreign policy.
 

39. Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the progress he has made in the timely and correct implementation as well as proper application of EU environmental legislation since assuming office. [27590/04] (more…)

99. Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the reason Ireland is not participating in the Council directive laying down minimum standards on the reception of applicants for asylum in member states whose Article 13 proposes that EU member states be required to put in place rules that do not exclude the access of applicants for asylum and their accompanying family members from the labour market six months after they have lodged their application. [27280/04] (more…)