Helen McEntee
Meath East · Fine Gael · Ireland
“There are no new missions, so there is only so much we can partake in. In regard to UN requests over the past ten years, in September 2019, we had 14 Defence Forces personnel deployed to a UN mission in Mali as part of a joint operation with the German armed forces.”
“I thank the Deputy for his continued engagement on this matter. It is appreciated and I reaffirm our shared commitment to truth and justice, not least for Private Rooney, but in particular for his family.”
“I thank the Deputy for raising the matter. I know he is committed to this issue; I am too. I have in recent months spent some time travelling to different barracks and Army bases and meeting with personnel. What I see all over the country is their professionalism, dedication and commitment.”
“I disagree that people are being pushed into the courts. The situation is exactly the opposite. I have said in the Chamber many times since I started taking these questions that the State Claims Agency is there and wants to mediate and work directly with people in order that cases do not go directly to the courts.”
“We are all committed to strengthening recruitment to and supporting retention in the Permanent Defence Force. The military authorities have advised that the strength of the Permanent Defence Force stood at 7,823 personnel on 31 May, the most recent date for which we have a figure available.”
“It is the case that no mission is the same, so it is also a matter for the Defence Forces to assess and scope out the mission and then to decide whether it is a mission we can partake in. A question keeps being asked about what it is we would not be able to be a part of if we were to keep the triple lock.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,132 lines we hold for Helen McEntee, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 43.
“I will not get into specific detail. It is only a short time since we last had defence questions, so while I do not have a huge number of updates for him, I can say, as I did on the previous occasion, that the courts took a number of cases under active case management. I am advised that the State Claims Agency remains open to engagement. It is important that is known in order that we can try to resolve this issue. More recently, what has happened is that agreements have been reached between a number of parties to engage in formal mediation discussions. It is important that we allow mediation to continue and ensure that nothing we say here will impact that. A number of individuals have opted to bring their cases through the personal injuries process.”
“I thank the Deputy for raising the matter. I know he is committed to this issue; I am too. I have in recent months spent some time travelling to different barracks and Army bases and meeting with personnel. What I see all over the country is their professionalism, dedication and commitment. I am proud of that, and I know they are take great pride in the work they do. The health, safety and well-being of our Defence Forces personnel is front and centre in everything that I and the Department do. When we talk about capital investment and investing in equipment, infrastructure and accommodation, and additional finance to improve pay, terms and conditions, it is all with the ambition of ensuring that the health and well-being of our Defence Forces personnel are front and centre. As the Deputy said, there are ongoing litigation challenges.”
“It is a matter for the judge to progress, but I am assured that people are trauma informed. I will take the Deputy's point and go back to my Department on it specifically to ensure that absolutely everybody has received that training.”
“It is my intention to ensure that people know where the supports are and can access them. Unfortunately, the tribunal is independent in the context of what happens before it.”
“I fully agree. For any tribunal or inquiry, particularly where we are talking about such sensitive information and such traumatic experiences, people must be trauma informed. That must absolutely be the case. We have been assured that those who are involved and who are engaged with the tribunal have been trauma informed and trauma trained. The type of training that has been provided was outlined at the public hearing on 16 June. I am committing to ensure that if there are gaps or issues, we will make sure that where the HSE support service that has been set up through the Minister, Deputy Carroll MacNeill, following our engagement, is not getting to people and they feel they only have the lines that were made available at the beginning, we will try to rectify that.”
“I am very conscious of this, so I have asked my Department to reach out and make sure that if there is a gap where information has not been provided or cannot be, it addresses it. There are other supports. There is Lena support by Inspire, which is a 24-hour external confidential helpline and counselling service. This is a matter of referral or appointment. There is both telephone and face-to-face counselling, so there are a number of different options. Separately, there is the Organisation of National Ex-Service Personnel, which is funded through the HSE and includes counselling and a 24-7 service. If there is a gap here, my intention is to address it.”
“I thank the Deputy. I fully agree. What I want is to make sure that people are proactively engaged with and supported and that they are not handed a list requiring them to go off and try to find support themselves. That is exactly why I met with the Minister for Health and asked that there be something specific and tailored to the tribunal. I have already asked my officials to re-engage to make sure that, if there is information needed by the HSE so that what I have described can happen, and if it is not happening, it should be provided immediately. Like the Deputy, while I am aware that the tribunal is independent, I am very much conscious of what we are seeing in the media every day. We are hearing the testimonies and seeing people having to relive some of the most traumatic times of their lives.”
“There are a number of other supports available to serving and former members of the Defence Forces, and I can touch on them in the next answer.”
“The HSE has said that the service is now set up if there is anybody who wants to engage, and that it is willing to provide this support. This has been relayed. An engagement mechanism and supports are ready. A specific package of counselling measures has been set up for the tribunal once the information that has been requested from the group is received. If there are individuals who feel they are not getting the support they need, there is a mechanism in place. Once we know who they are, we can identify what support is required. I appreciate that they will not necessarily tell me who they want to work with, or who they are engaging with or supporting, but we do have to get that information to be able to pass it on.”
“My intention in meeting the women and listening to their concerns was to put in place whatever supports we could. I thank the women because some of what was said to me at the meeting was very difficult for anybody to have to relay again. We discussed the need to provide counselling supports. Different mechanisms were being put in place but we were asked whether we could do more than that. Following the meeting, I engaged immediately with my colleague Deputy Jennifer Carroll MacNeill, the Minister for Health, and asked her whether she could put in place a structure, similar to what we have had under other types of tribunals or inquiries, that would provide a counselling service to members of the group who have been or will be attending the tribunal. This is separate from some of the things that have been put in place.”
“I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. I have met a number of the women from the Women of Honour. I have met them in my Department and in different manners or at different meetings. I have nothing but respect and admiration for each and every one of them. I fully appreciate and have no doubt that what they are going through now is retraumatising for many of them. I have no doubt that their having to tell their stories and experiences time and again is very traumatic and difficult for them. That is why, when I met them earlier this year, I did so with the ambition of assisting and providing them with whatever support I could before the tribunal started. The Deputy is right that the tribunal is independent. It is important that we allow the process to take its course.”
“The people I speak to do not like the fact that Russia has essentially removed, or will remove in the coming months, all our peacekeeping troops from UNIFIL, where we have been for decades. That is because of the triple lock. That is what we are trying to amend and adjust, not anything else, contrary to what is being suggested here.”
“This is why we need this debate. To be quite frank, we are talking about amending legislation. The triple lock is not in our Constitution. Our treaties are in the Constitution. The triple lock was never part of our Constitution. We were a militarily neutral country before we voted for the treaties and before we introduced the triple lock. We will continue to be a neutral country. The attempt to suggest that we need to have a referendum to change our Constitution for something that is not in our Constitution is trying to thwart what the actual debate is here. We are very clear, and if one looks at the legislation-----”
“There is nothing here to suggest that we are going to start sending troops off to war. It would be under the exact same status as the current peacekeeping missions. Deployment would have to be recommended by our Defence Forces. It would have to be approved by people who are democratically elected in this country, not the likes of Russia or China or anybody who should not have a say in how we deploy our troops.”
“Does he trust them to make that decision? That is how we democratically form a Government here. The triple lock, as amended, would ensure that we have recommendations from Óglaigh na hÉireann, which knows what it is doing and has for decades deployed its troops on peacekeeping missions. These are troops that we respect. We know they are highly trained and well respected across the world. They will continue to make those recommendations under the amended legislation. It would then be put to this House for us to decide, as democratically elected people who form Governments in a democratic way, unlike in certain other countries, including Russia, that currently have a say in how we deploy our troops. We would then make the decision and there would be oversight.”
“-----to make a recommendation, because that will still be included in this, they will make a recommendation to the Government and will assess the type of mission we are talking about in the way they currently do. Does the Deputy trust the people of this country to elect the people they want to be elected?”
“I would ask the Deputy a number of questions. First, does he trust Óglaigh na hÉireann? Does he trust our Defence Forces? If he does, then he trusts them to make the decision. The triple lock, as amended, will ensure-----”
“It is the Government's view, and very much my view as well, as I have outlined previously and am again happy to do so today, that the current arrangements allow the permanent members of the UN Security Council - the UK, Russia, China, the US and France - to effectively veto any new mission or potentially close down a mission, as has been the case. I do not believe that any other country should have the ability to constrain Ireland's sovereign decision-making through the use of a veto or the threat of a veto.”
“Obviously, we are on the last sitting day, but my intention is that we would bring it to the House as early as possible in the new term. While the precise timeline will depend on the schedule, my intention remains to see the legislation enacted and commenced at the earliest opportunity. We had said initially it would be by the end of this year, but I intend and hope to move it as quickly as possible. The principal reform proposed in the Bill is the removal of the requirement for a United Nations Security Council mandate as part of the existing triple lock mechanism. The two other elements are a Government decision and the approval of Dáil Éireann, so it is not just for any Government and would require the approval of Dáil Éireann. That will remain in place.”
“As a Government, we are very clear that the purpose is to adjust and amend the Defence Act so we can continue to either dispatch our Defence Forces personnel for service outside of the State, or make sure they stay part of the peacekeeping missions they are currently part of. We know that is being impacted at the moment because of the triple lock. This is not to remove our military neutrality or to align us with any other military force. This is to make sure that we can continue to deploy our service personnel, our men and women of Óglaigh na hÉireann, overseas for peacekeeping missions. Government approval for the text of the Defence (Amendment) Bill was received on 9 June. The Bill was published on the Oireachtas website and will be progressed through the Houses of the Oireachtas as quickly as possible.”
“I appreciate that we have had these discussions on a number of occasions. I look forward to debating this as the legislation comes through the Houses. It is important that we have these discussions, and that we have a debate as to what exactly is in the Bill, what is not in the Bill and what the intention of it is. I appreciate that there are very strongly held views on this matter, so I appreciate this opportunity to discuss it prior to the Bill moving forward. I want to be clear on what the Bill does not intend to do. It is not to remove Ireland's military neutrality.”
“Apologies, I spoke to this on the previous amendment. It is the case already that any of the documents relating to this are on the Department’s website. Once the legislation is enacted all the details will be there for people to see but also will be on the Revenue website. With the passage of the legislation, it can be certain that it will be known that it has passed so, through our website and the Revenue website, people will be able to see the details of the Bill. Most importantly, work has already started on the details needed for implementation. Once the legislation has been signed by the President, I intend we will enact it immediately and that detail will be posted on our website as well. How Revenue intends to implement it will also be posted. Those details will be there, which is the ambition of the amendment.”
“This might be on the second amendment relating to advertising, but there is already relevant information from this Bill on our website at the moment and Revenue will also have to put that information on its website. Therefore, the information will be there and will be accessible. Beyond the normal reporting of a Bill what we are focused on is implementing it and making sure its focus is on implementing it and making sure the resources are there. There will be information that is required. If it is sought through the authorities it can be provided to the Senators or anyone who seeks it. For that reason, I will not accept the amendment.”
“There are standing orders in relation to post-enactment reporting which will, of course, be complied with. Standing Order 204 of the Dáil states: Twelve months following the enactment of a Bill, save in the case of the Finance Bill and the Appropriation Bill, the member of the Government or Minister of State who is officially responsible for implementation of the Act shall provide a report which shall review the functioning of the Act and which shall be laid in the Parliamentary Library. The amendment would add new and expansive reporting requirements but also requirements that are there for Revenue and the authorities. The authorities will be providing any relevant statistics that can be shared with Senators in relation to the implementation of the Bill.”
“The relevant penalties for this Bill are already set out in the Customs Act. They are on the Statute Book. The amendment proposes the creation of separate penalties, because there are a number of elements to this, only applicable to the Bill which would be different to the penalties already existing under the Customs Act. It is important we adhere to the Customs Act already on the Statute Book. For the avoidance of doubt, section 21 of the Customs Act also provides for proceedings to be brought against a body corporate and-or a director or other officer of a body corporate where there was such consent or conveyance to an offence committed under the Customs Act. Therefore what the amendment seeks to achieve is under the Customs Act already.”
“Customs have to implement this and there have to be strict oversight mechanisms. That is within the EU but also within Customs and Excise here as well. Beyond this legislation, we need to make sure that we are doing everything in our power to ensure the rules of origin are applied appropriately. Where we can, and where checks and balances need to be improved, we should do that as well.”
“The concept of origin and rules of origin for the purpose of the EU-Israel trading relationship are laid down in protocol 4 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. To depart from the rules of origin within the association agreement which we are complying with here would render the Bill legally unworkable. This point was raised at the last committee hearing. We have engaged with other colleagues, in the Netherlands most recently, and they are very clear with us that the rules of origin they are setting out are in line with the association agreement. It is to make sure that we are working to the same agreement. Set out in that, there is a certain percentage and that has to be complied with in terms of where the components, ingredients or items have come from. It is important to come back to the fact that this now has to be implemented.”
“Unfortunately, we are seeing the complete destruction of many of the olive trees across the occupied territories but I fully appreciate what the Senators are saying about the objective of the Bill. From a legal perspective, it is important for us to make sure that the Bill aligns with the association agreement so that we can implement it. Again, it comes back to making sure that we have a Bill that we can implement, that is legally enforceable. The decision based on the location of the origin of a given good is a strict legal term and is a benchmark for ascertaining the economic nationality of goods for the purpose of international trade agreements globally. Rules of origin are requirements that are carefully devised between parties to a trade agreement and agreed to in that trade agreement.”
“Without opening up the previous debate, while it is not a full ban on trade in services, it is obviously partial. For the reasons I have outlined in the previous debate, we will not accept the amendment.”
“We are trying to enact this before the summer and the amendment essentially brings the Bill back to its original state. It just counters the initial amendment that said this must be done within three months.”
“I fully appreciate amendment No. 3, with which the Senator has responded to the discussion and debate we had in the committee, where I outlined that the amendment saying "shall, within 3 months" potentially meant that any changes could not be included after those three months. The words "and may thereafter" has now been included to counter that issue. This may leave us back where we started. The legislation states: "The Minister may, by order, designate as a postal code". This allows for the Minister to include additional postal codes at any time without the constraint of a certain time period. The amendment adds "shall, within 3 months" but, to prevent that becoming a cut-off point, also adds "may thereafter", again leaving it open-ended. We are kind of cancelling each other out in the legislation.”
“When we talk about services more broadly, as I referenced previously, we are talking about a number of different sectors of services and global trade. There are 12 separate sectors and 150 sub-sectors and there is the World Trade Organization's agreement. There is far more than what was implemented in Spain. However, we want to be ambitious and at the same time compliant.”
“Although we all agree the settlements are illegal and that the actions by the Israeli Government are not appropriate and we all want to work towards a two-state solution - that is the objective of everyone in the European Parliament - we are not able to reach a consensus. We have to work and build a consensus. This will assist. There are countries that have not said so publicly but are looking to make progress on legislation and to see how we can move together on that. Spain has specifically introduced a targeted amendment to its consumer protection law to prohibit the advertisement in Spain of services provided in the illegal settlements. It is specific to one company in how it is being applied. We have to see whether it will go further, but it is specific to one company and one piece of legislation.”
“I echo the sentiments of Senator Ahearn that we all need to make sure we are engaging with our colleagues at a European level. That includes my party colleagues, among whom there are different views for different reasons, historical or otherwise. We must continue to advocate and have the difficult conversations. Even the countries that are clearly choosing a different path and voting in different ways all fully agree with us that what is happening is wrong, that it is not compliant with international law and that the ICJ ruling applies to every illegal settlement in the occupied territories. That is why it is frustrating being at the European Council where there is not full agreement.”
“It is Article 24(2) of the 2015 regulation. There is no equivalent for services and, where there have been references to Articles 52 and 62, they are specific to the freedom of movement of persons, services and capital within the EU's Single Market, which is the internal market. We are talking about external services and trade more broadly. For this reason, we are taking a two-pronged approach. It is not that I am saying we have finished and this is all we want to do, that we are happy with being partially compliant and only going a certain way. I am saying clearly that, for all the reasons I have outlined, we are taking this two-pronged approach. It is not straightforward and it is not easy. I wish the EU were doing more.”
“I will come back on two points. In terms of our obligations, I am not saying one takes precedence over the other. The international court made it clear that there is a legal obligation on Europe to comply. However, under European treaties, we have legal obligations and international legal obligations within them. The Union has exclusive competence in external trade. For the reasons I have outlined, we have to comply with that. It is appropriate we comply with our international legal obligations under the International Court of Justice, but at the same time, within our international legal obligations as set out in the European treaties, which we also signed up to. It is clear that the exclusive competence for external trade rests with the Union. We have the public policy exemption in respect of goods. I have set this out.”
“I thank Senators for the points they made and I appreciate that there may be a difference of views and opinions on this issue. However, we want to achieve the same objective and goal here, which is to effect change and, most importantly, to support the Palestinian people and those who need us most.”
“This is the Government, Opposition, Government parties and public opinion moving together, whether it is recognising Palestine or bringing forward this legislation. I acknowledge Senator Black and those who have worked on this, and the ambassador. Whether it is the work we do in providing for humanitarian support on the ground, advocating for the support of agencies on the ground or advocating for a consensus at a European level, we do all of this because it is the right thing to do, people need our support and assistance and we want to effect change. While we are a small country, I believe we have an opportunity to do that here. At the same time, we have to balance all these different obligations and implications, which is why we are bringing forward this Bill.”
“If we were simply listening to the US, we would not be bringing forward any legislation and we would not be doing anything in this regard at all. I fully understand the depth of feeling here and I agree with the Senator. We all want to do more, we all want to change the actions of the Israeli Government. I believe the tide is turning. I do believe genuinely that, in other countries, including the US, public opinion has shifted, and that can only be welcomed. It is a good thing. I also believe we need to make sure we can effect and bring about change. Where we have moved collectively with other member states in the past, it has helped create a domino effect. I do not say "we" to take credit as a Government. This is Ireland Inc.”
“I have seen that over the last number of years, where the EU has been absolutely united in responding to make sure that these types of institutions are protected. We will have to do that again if this is the route that is being taken, and have no doubt as to where Ireland lies when it comes to the ICC more broadly. On the potential implications here, I stressed in the committee that this was a factor. It is not the sole factor, to be honest, but as a Government we do have to take into consideration implications for people at home. That has to be the case, no matter what we do. We have to support people and take them into consideration. The US ambassador was clear that any legislation would not be welcomed by the US.”
“We have to stand up for those European values of protecting basic human rights, human dignity, the rule of law, respect for international bodies, and respect for the multilateral rules-based system that favours everybody, particularly small member states like Ireland. That is why it is one of our three priorities. We will always stand up for international law. We will always stand up for the International Criminal Court. It is the most important international and independent body that we have. We will stand up for it no matter what. I believe that, when these types of things have come to the fore, when challenges have been put forward, be it by the US or others, the EU as a whole has actually been stronger than it has ever been.”
“This is our Government Bill that has been introduced, and the view is that it is now legally compliant for the reasons I have just outlined. Again I will just get clarity that this is my interpretation in terms of the previous element. On international law being under attack, one of the reasons we chose values as one of our three priorities for our Presidency is that we as a country feel that it is absolutely essential, now more than ever when institutions are being attacked and when money is being taken away from those who are providing support to those need it most, including UNRWA and Irish organisations on the ground in Gaza, the West Bank and beyond, to show that our European values are the very basis of everything we do.”
“It is about how we square that circle and make sure we are compliant with international law, as we always strive to be, achieve our objectives while at the same time adhering to our own legal parameters. In response to some of the specific questions, both the EU institutions and individual member states deal with the law as it is. That is how we interpret it and the position that we find ourselves in now. It is not as we would like it to be but as the law is. This is how we are interpreting it. The Senator might correct me but my understanding in respect of the money message previously was that it was based on the previous Bill and on the basis that we would be breaching our obligations and that there could be fines. That was where the money message was at the time.”
“Obviously the first two, as far as I am concerned, legitimise trade in the occupied territories so we made very clear going for them is not an option. The third option is something I have advocated would be put forward as a formal proposal by the Commission and that we would move on this. Again, it does not go far enough. That is why we need to continue to advocate at EU level so that we do ensure we are fully compliant. This is not a matter of picking and choosing or saying we are only going to do so much because that is all we feel we can do. We have an obligation. We have signed our treaties of accession. There are international legal obligations set out in those treaties.”
“It is very clear that there is not consensus or an overall majority to vote for the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. That is why we have advocated through the common commercial policy, which would allow qualified majority voting, QMV, that we would vote on a ban on trade. The paper the Commission presented to us had three options, and this is what we discussed at the Council on Monday. The first is a tightening of what is currently in place through the technical agreement I referred to earlier. This is preferential and non-preferential treatment of Israeli settlements depending on where they were. The second focuses essentially on higher tariffs for goods that are already coming in, and the third is a ban on goods.”
“What I am also doing at EU level is advocating that we move at that level as well, so that we can be fully compliant and Europe is fully compliant. On that basis, there has been movement. We are not where we want to be yet. We just had a Foreign Affairs Council on Monday. What we have seen and what I have seen since coming into this role in November was, at the outset, a handful of countries that supported any movement against Israel. I have said this before, but it was maybe three or four countries - ourselves, Spain and Slovenia - at the time. Now we have quite a significant number of countries that are advocating for change. They are advocating for a ban on services, goods, and trade. Some are advocating, as we are, for the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement.”
“Yes, we want to send a message, but I also want to introduce legislation that we can implement, that is legally sound and is not going to be open to challenge, and that sends a very clear message that we as a Government do not support the actions of the Israeli Government. I cannot be any clearer than that. Some Senators have said that this is about courage and having the gumption to bring it forward, and that we are afraid of others. I do not accept that for a second. The Government and I as Minister have been in this House bringing forward legislation that was not supported, that perhaps did not have the support of the House. Sometimes you are successful and sometimes you are not, but you do it for the right reason. That is exactly why the Government is bringing forward this legislation, because it is the right thing to do.”
“Doing so knowing the legal basis is not strong is not the approach that Government tends to take and I do not think it would encourage others to move forward. On how it is implemented, people said that I would say it is like Crimea and that this is an EU-wide response, but there is a difference in all member states moving forward to implement and to ban services and what that means for companies and individual member states as opposed to one country moving on its own. That is not the sole reason but there is a challenge. People say we should do it anyway and it is just sending a message, but they also say that what we are doing here now is not good enough and it only sends a message.”
“That is the Internal Market. We are talking about external goods and services that are coming from outside the EU. Absolutely, as the Senator said on Second Stage, any legislation is open to challenge. I am sure legislation I have introduced in this House before has been challenged. To knowingly introduce legislation, as a Minister, that does not have a strong legal basis is not something that Government tends to do. We want other countries to follow suit, to set a precedent and show there can be movement at EU level, as we are seeing now in respect of the Netherlands. I know Slovenia has moved back but had been moving forward. There is Belgium and Norway, and other countries are now talking to us about legislation that have not said it publicly. Others are looking to move to introduce legislation.”
“On the actual legal basis, I have been very clear on what the Attorney General has said, and indeed the Senator has said that it is a decision for Government to take based on the advice. It is not that we have received something from the Attorney General that says we absolutely cannot and must not. The advice is very clear also that the legal basis for moving in goods is different from what applies in respect of services. There have been a number of different articles referenced. The public policy exemption we are focused on here in respect of goods is Article 24.2 of the regulation of 2015 on the importation of goods. There is no equivalent for services. Articles 52 and 62, which were referenced here today and in the committee, deal with the freedom of movement of persons, services and capital within the EU Single Market.”