Gerard P. Craughwell Challenges SAFE Fund Use and Neutrality Policy

Thank you, Coyle. Thank you to the witnesses for being here. Something I need to clear up very quickly is you mentioned the Constitution and neutrality. There is nothing in our Constitution about neutrality, nor is there any law. Am I right? The Constitution reference is to do with Common Defence, Article 29. Sorry, Senator, I jumped in before you finished your question. I know that at a previous committee hearing, I recall you raising this question and seeking a paper on it from our colleagues in the Department of Foreign Affairs, which I think was subsequently provided, but you are correct on that. Okay, that's fine. The SAFE Fund, we're the most defenceless country in Europe. There was £150 billion available to draw down funds to help this country. Who prevented it? Who stopped us applying? I might take that question first, Senator, and then pass to Brendan. A decision was made not to apply because ultimately the loan rate provided under SAFE was more than Ireland could get borrowing on the open market. So it wouldn't have been efficient from a national exchequer point of view, were we to borrow under SAFE. Brendan? Sorry. No, that's a correct assessment. What we are looking for from applying SAFE to Ireland is the opportunity for joint procurement. And the European Defence Industry Programme and SAFE allow for a very important piece, which is the ability for a member state to open up its framework contracts. So in our case, we're looking to procure body armour, based on the defence procurement directive, you would be, if a number of member states wanted to join us and wanted the same product, they'd have to go back to the market and do further tenderings, which delays the process and slows down procurement. And that's the very thing we're trying to address here. We're trying to speed up procurement, make it easier, remove the administrative burden and remove those obstacles to obtain equipment that is urgently required by all member states, including our defence forces. And this particular aspect, we are opening up our body armour procurement contracts to other member states who wish to join us. If that happens, and I do hope it does, we will benefit from the economy to scale, we'll benefit from perhaps prolonged contracts rather than maybe 20 years, might be a possibility, for example, to extend or to having to re-tender again. So there are more administrative benefits here to the department and to the defence forces. But it doesn't mean, because of what, again, what's going on in Ukraine, all industry, across the full ecosystem that is defence industry, including body armour and uniforms, they are, a small country like Ireland, when we come to put in our orders, we are at the bottom of the list. So if we can get others to join us, it will certainly help us to get access to that equipment quicker. Okay, you mentioned Ukraine and the support we provide to Ukraine. The definition of neutrality is that if there's two belligerents having a barney, like what's going on between Russia and Ukraine, then to be a neutral, you take no side. So how do you square that circle with providing training? Not that I disagree with providing the training, I think it's a really good thing to be doing, but how do you square the circle of neutrality or militarily non-aligned, whichever you want to define us under, we're in breach either way. Thank you, Senator, and I'm happy to set out the position on this. I mean, the Taoiseach, the Taoiseach government has repeatedly stated that though militarily neutral, we're not politically neutral, and our support for Ukraine is taking part. Our support for Ukraine follows that principle, and our support covers a range of approaches, whether it's participation in the EU's military assistance mission in Ukraine, where the Defence Force's colleagues have trained members of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in a range of modules, such as combat life-saving care, basic drill instruction, counter-IED, mine flail training. We also have provided a range of material donations. Essentially, you're helping one belligerent. Isn't that right? Well, Ireland, yes, Ireland is, and the Defence Forces are helping one belligerent, but the policy has set out extensively elsewhere, and which we are executing, essentially based on the fact that a democracy on the borders of Europe was invaded by its neighbour, and the European Union and democracies around the world have come to its aid. And our democracy requires that a change of policy, which places this country in peril, should have come before the Parliament. It was never debated before Parliament. It was simply announced. I don't want to spend too long on this, but at the end of the day, we're either neutral or we're militarily non-aligned, but if we're helping one belligerent, and by the way, I believe we should be honestly helping them and providing them with what ammunitions we can and other supports we can, but at the end of the day, we can't play both sides of this coin. We just simply can't do that. So I'm somewhat concerned about the mixed message that's coming out here. The policy of the state has changed, and that policy changed, Chair, and this is an important issue. Policy has changed without debate in the Parliament, and it is the Parliament that rules this country, not individual ministers, as far as I'm aware. So from that point of view, it needs to be debated. Not your problem. You've got to implement what's given to you, and you do that, but I do feel that a point has to be made. There are other questions I have, but I assume we'll have a second round, Chair. We have 35 seconds left. Well, I'll go for one of them. You referred to military mobility on a number of occasions in your statement. What specific mobility are you referring to? Armoured fighting vehicles? Armoured reconnaissance vehicles? Air transport, lift capacity, or something else? I'm referring specifically to a military mobility proposal, which is essentially to ease the transport of member states, military, generally ground, it can be air also, but generally via road, etc., throughout continental Europe, but also available to ourselves in Cyprus. But in terms of the bulk relevance of that proposal, it's largely continental Europe-based. Okay, focus. Now, your time's up.