Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

4. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if he is satisfied that the Defence Forces, specifically the military intelligence branch, are appropriately resourced in terms of personnel, training and technology to effectively address the increasing demands of counter-espionage operations; and the plans in place to enhance these capabilities in light of evolving threats to national security. [42293/24]

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Tánaiste satisfied that the Defence Forces, specifically the military intelligence branch, are appropriately resourced in terms of personnel, training and technology to effectively address the increasing demands of counter-espionage operations, and the plans in place to enhance these capabilities in light of evolving threats to national security?

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter, as it allows me to touch, on a high level, on the role of intelligence gathering for and on behalf of the State. As the Deputy will appreciate given the sensitive nature of such matters, I will not be commenting on recent media reports nor would it be appropriate for me to disclose the various briefings I receive as the Minister for Defence from the military authorities. The current focus of Defence Force intelligence functions, is to ensure: the safety and security of members of the Defence Forces operating at home and abroad; the defence and security of the State, its sovereign territory and its citizens; and the safeguarding of the State's national strategic interests at home and abroad.

The Defence Forces intelligence main function within the State's intelligence architecture is to provide its key stakeholders, the Government, the Taoiseach, the Minister for Defence, the national security committee and the Chief of Staff, with independently collected and analysed intelligence at the strategic, national and military levels.

The Defence Forces work closely with An Garda Síochána and other relevant State bodies in respect of any threats identified that may have adverse implications for the security of the State. In response to the persistent and emerging threats and challenges highlighted in the security environment assessment carried our as part of the recent Defence policy review, military intelligence will continue to develop, grow and enhance its capabilities, including counter-intelligence.

The Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces and the subsequent detailed implementation plan identified the strengthening of military as a priority. An evaluation is under way regarding the role and functions of military intelligence, which is also examining the requirement to underpin military intelligence by appropriate legislation. The detailed implementation plan also identified the strengthening of military intelligence capabilities and the establishment of a joint military intelligence service in the context of a revised mandate.

Work is progressing on implementing the commission’s recommendations in respect of military intelligence in line with the timelines laid down within the detailed implementation plan.

I want to make it clear that the Defence Forces intelligence functions are adequately resourced and, with the developments I have outlined above, will be future-proofed in the years ahead to meet emerging threats and robust enough to meet future challenges.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I appreciate that the Tánaiste cannot comment in detail on specific incidents but, looking at some incidents over the last four or five years, we seem to have a very cavalier approach to counter-intelligence and threats to the State. The Tánaiste obviously cannot comment on the recent example of Cobalt, although he did comment in the media. He said he was not briefed although a previous Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, said he had been briefed. That presented an image of nobody really knowing what was going on unless they had access to some whispers in the corridor. The HSE cyberattack was another example. When that attack happened and decimated our HSE, we looked to the Minister for Defence for information, and then it was the Minister for Justice. All of a sudden it was discovered that it was the responsibility of the Minister of State, Deputy Ossian Smyth, in the Department of communications. There are other examples such as munitions being flown through our airspace and nobody knowing what is or is not inside the planes. Changes in policy have happened in the past 18 months. It is the Minister for Transport, Deputy Eamon Ryan, asking about munitions being transferred using our airspace. In a collective sense, who knows what is going on in terms of threats to our national security or infringements of our sovereignty? I understand there are different Departments but there does not seem to by any single line going through them.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is a national security committee which co-ordinates all of the work. I think there are issues in terms of an accountability chain to the Oireachtas and the Government of the day. That is why there is an examination under way. There needs to be work done on ensuring a proper accountability chain and a framework governing both military intelligence and intelligence activities more generally. An Garda Síochána has a key role in domestic intelligence. Military intelligence is important in terms of external factors and anything which threatens the security of the State. I was not happy with the precise manner in which that article ended up on the front pages. I do not think it is satisfactory, to be frank. There comes a time when you need to be honest with the Oireachtas and say these things, which might be uncomfortable for some, but I believe in the formulation of a developing policy for how we work in the future. We have to take a more substantive and mature role. It is a vital area for the protection of the State. We need to know the guard rails that should surround a proper intelligence function within the State and behave responsibly as a consequence of that.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Tánaiste might give us some timelines in respect of the evaluation that he spoke of. It is important that this is not used as a political football and that we approach it in a mature way. There are some examples that take us by surprise. Last month, my constituency colleague seemed to come under some sort of misinformation attack from outside the State. A report came in that the Minister for public expenditure, Deputy Donohoe, had given assurances to the Israeli State in 2019 in respect of the occupied territories Bill. I found that very shocking, as did many people in Irish society. Paschal Donohoe rightly said he did not have that meeting. Does that not raise more questions than answers? Who did have the meeting, then? This was a high-level meeting. The Israeli department of justice said it had been given assurances. Are we not going to ask what happened there? At a time when our election process is about to get under way, we have a Minister for public expenditure who had to answer questions from the media. Have we had diplomatic engagements with the Israeli Government asking why such a false statement exists in its archives? In any other State this would be taken more seriously than it was here.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have good quality intelligence networks in the country. An Garda Síochána does a very good job, as does military intelligence. The Commission on the Defence Forces outlined significant reforms in respect of military intelligence and the majority of its recommendations were accepted by Government. These include strengthening military intelligence capabilities; the establishment of a joint military intelligence service in the context of a revised mandate underpinned by new legislation, which is being progressed; the establishment of an intelligence school with shared programmes which would facilitate and enhance co-operation and joint training opportunities between military intelligence and its Garda counterparts, which was accepted in principle; for the role and functions of the military intelligence bureau to be clarified and underpinned by appropriate legislation within the context of a coherent national intelligence architecture, which is being further evaluated and will have to happen; and the overarching legal and governance framework to ensure optimum co-ordination and collaboration between the Defence Forces and An Garda Síochána on intelligence matters. That was accepted by the Government along with several further recommendations. All of these issues are monitored, as the Deputy noted. When reports like that emerge in respect of the alleged phone call, which did not happen, between Paschal Donohoe and others, none of us should jump to conclusions. There is a tendency for people to jump to conclusions and accept everything that is asserted.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have not accepted it. I am wondering why the State is not pursuing it.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not saying the Deputy has but, generally, people did in the beginning. People actually did. I was questioned in the Dáil as if it was a fact.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As you should be.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It was not a fact.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is about your pursuance of it.