I move amendment No. 1: In page 3, to delete lines 22 to 25 and substitute the following: “ ‘international force’ means the United Nations or an International United Nations Force to which a contingent or a member of the Defence Forces may be assigned to for service outside the State for any purpose specified in section 3 of the Act of 2006;”. The amendment seeks to change the definition of "international force". Let me give an example of other legislation. The Defence (Amendment) Act 2006 contains a definition for…

I note that in the Minister's example he gave there, he spoke of a United Nations force commander, which is one of the examples he gave on Second Stage. The core point is that this may not be a United Nations force commander. I accept there may be some constraints in this framing, and the Minister will note that some of my later amendments explicitly deal with certain areas of secondment but in fact leave and have a separate provision for the humanitarian action. That is an example of where we need to have that fle…

The point is, when you transfer command, there is a very significant consequence. That is why it is very important to know who you are transferring command to, what their criteria will be and what the means and mechanisms as to how you relate to them will be. Any force is simply too wide in this regard. I note the Minister's point on time constraints. I know we have limited time for this debate so I will not extend as far as I might on the issue of the Mediterranean. Amendment No. 2, however, seeks to address the f…

What is the timing for the debate, a Chathaoirligh? I am just keen to ensure we get through all of the amendments.

I thank the Cathaoirleach for the clarification. I do not believe the Minister and I will agree on this so perhaps either or both of us may come back with revised amendments on Report Stage on this matter. I point to that core issue of the fact that "any force" is wider than the definitions we had previously of international organisations or of other groups. I urge the Minister to consider how wide that space is. He has spoken to the time piece and I am not going to respond to him on that because the next amendment…

I move amendment No. 2: In page 4, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following: “(5) A delegation of operational control by the Minister under this Act shall only exceed a period of eight months, where a Minister has laid a motion before, and that motion has been passed by, both Houses of the Oireachtas authorising an extension of such a delegation of operational control.”. I believe the Minister has made the case for amendment No. 2 very strongly in his own speech because the amendment addresses the issue of …

I know the number is increasing, but the core point is that it has been increasing only partially. I believe there is scope in that regard; nonetheless there have to be checks and balances on this. Amendment No. 2 is extremely reasonable. It states that where there has been a delegation of operational control under the Act, that delegation - and this seeks to account for, as the Minister says, when this happens in the summer or over Christmas - should not exceed a period of more than eight months without a proper m…

For clarification, perhaps it was not clear for Senator Ward. I am happy to try to tighten the language if that helps him. Under this amendment, the Minister would be able to delegate operational control but simply not for a period longer than eight months without coming back to the Oireachtas. It was, therefore, specifically trying to address that issue of the emergency action of June or July. Under that action, for example, a Minister may have delegated operational control to a force commander for a six-month per…

Yes, I know there are time restraints.

That is not what is opposed.

I will certainly be happy to bring one but perhaps the Minister would like to bring forward an amendment that clarifies matters with regard to UN missions. I do not believe that is the concern and the Minister will see from my many other amendments that UN missions are not the main concern. I accept that we seek to influence them and we have sought to influence UNIFIL. I believe that Ireland should, for example, continue to engage with and seek to influence the UN mission in Western Sahara at the moment to expand i…

The concern we have is not what we have currently but what we might have. There is a new element in this, which is that the Minister can delegate to any force. It goes back to that phrase "any force", and it is not any force as constrained even by the definition of international organisation in the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006, although I personally think that is quite wide. It is any force and there is a concern in that regard. Yes, checks and balances are put in place in terms of our United Nations missions. Such…

We had a bilateral arrangement with Italy. It was an Irish command and it was not delegating command to the Italian coastguard but working in collaboration with it.

I know that, but that mission was under our direct command, whereas we delegated operational control under Operation Sophia. The nature of the mission changed and that is where circumstances changed. It is good that when it was decided under Operation Sophia to stop doing search and rescue completely, we withdrew ships. However, this amendment would mean that if we had a situation such as Operation Sophia and the force command, to which the power had been transferred, decided to change the focus of the operation, i…

I move amendment No. 3: In page 12, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following: "Amendment of section 1 of Act of 2006 17. Section 1 of the Act of 2006 is amended by the deletion of ", or has participated,".". The Minister has usefully read the definition of "international organisation" into the record, which saves me having to do so. I would note that in the Bill in front of us, it is not "international organisation" that is in the definition section but "international force". It refers to a "United Nations …

Amendment No. 4 also relates to section 3(1)( a ) of the 2006 Act, which lists the different kinds of purposes for which people may be seconded. Section 3(1)( f ) refers to humanitarian tasks and I have no problem with that. Many of the others are also very appropriate although "reconnaissance or fact-finding" could be problematic, depending on what we are doing them for and for whom we are doing them. I will leave that aside for the moment but I may come back to it. Section 3(1)( a ) refers to "carrying out duties…

I appreciate the secondment of individuals and I am very aware that there are some individuals from the Irish armed forces who play very important roles internationally and in some cases have gone on to take on significant UN roles. John Ging is one such individual who has contributed very much in the international sphere. The concern, however, relates to contingents. The Minister referred to the Reserve Defence Force. There was much discussion of the RDF on Second Stage. That is generally widely welcomed. I have n…

But nonetheless, we need to be very clear on where and how we engage. Of course the UN has to engage with NATO, because NATO involves many of the military actors in the world. If Ireland is going to be a champion of peace-building and peacekeeping involving NATO, which is ultimately an alliance of interests and like-minded countries in a particular military pact, we must be clear on the lines where things come in. As the Minister said, NATO may have engaged in activity with the United Nations, but that does not mea…

Nothing in my proposed amendment about the removal of "or has participated" would have precluded the example the Minister gave of Afghanistan. There is a big difference between working with NATO under a UN mandate, which, again, would still be allowed under my proposed change. That would be then a regional force that was operating or participating under a UN-mandated mission. That would be covered by my language that I proposed-----

No, it was in the context that we have worked with NATO under a UN mandate. That does not simply mean that it is always fine to work with NATO.