Brian Stanley demands clarity on committee's national security remit
Brian Stanley challenged the committee's remit, arguing it must be clearly defined and not unduly restricted on matters of national security and defence. He urged an open, short debate to determine whether the committee holds a full national security remit and to identify any limits on its powers.
He congratulated Cahirloch on his elevation, said he looked forward to working with him, and signalled his agreement with parts of Cahirloch's opening remarks.
Stanley said the committee is important and that there has already been public commentary and debate about its remit. He argued the role must be clear - either the committee has a remit for national security and defence or it does not, and it should not be restricted to only part of national security.
He asked who would set limits on the committee's remit - the government, the civil service, or the security services - and warned that the public and new committee members do not currently know where the boundaries lie. He cautioned that starting off without clarity could leave the committee restricted in who it can call and what it can discuss.
Speaking from a position of wanting to protect national security, Stanley said he wants members of the defence forces fully resourced, properly looked after and fit for purpose. He specifically noted that the Army Reserve nearly needs to be dealt with and should be addressed as part of resourcing.
He called for a very honest, short and open discussion to clarify the committee's remit and to determine exactly where the committee is going. He closed by wishing Coyle Lock well and expressing his desire to see clarity established.
Opening remarks
He congratulated Cahirloch on his elevation, said he looked forward to working with him, and signalled his agreement with parts of Cahirloch's opening remarks.
Committee remit concerns
Stanley said the committee is important and that there has already been public commentary and debate about its remit. He argued the role must be clear - either the committee has a remit for national security and defence or it does not, and it should not be restricted to only part of national security.
Questions on limits and transparency
He asked who would set limits on the committee's remit - the government, the civil service, or the security services - and warned that the public and new committee members do not currently know where the boundaries lie. He cautioned that starting off without clarity could leave the committee restricted in who it can call and what it can discuss.
Defence forces and Army Reserve
Speaking from a position of wanting to protect national security, Stanley said he wants members of the defence forces fully resourced, properly looked after and fit for purpose. He specifically noted that the Army Reserve nearly needs to be dealt with and should be addressed as part of resourcing.
Call for clarification and next steps
He called for a very honest, short and open discussion to clarify the committee's remit and to determine exactly where the committee is going. He closed by wishing Coyle Lock well and expressing his desire to see clarity established.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Other speeches
Tego samego dnia All speeches from this day →
Rose Conway-Walsh
Rose Conway-Walsh: Calls to probe neutrality and the triple lock
Gerard P. Craughwell
Gerard P. Craughwell on AIB buyback and distressed mortgages
Sharon Keogan
Sharon Keogan questions Ireland's nuclear ban as interconnector nears
Rose Conway-Walsh
Rose Conway-Walsh on women farmers, CAP delays and IT failures
Gerard P. Craughwell
Gerard P. Craughwell Urges Expert Review of Triple Lock
Gerard P. Craughwell
Gerard P. Craughwell urges clear stance on neutrality and triple lock
Transcript
Thanks, Cahirloch, and congratulate you on your elevation as Cahirloch, and wish you well in it. Look forward to working with you, and, you know, I want to corral as well with a lot of what you said in your opening remarks. Just in relation to the disappear of the committee, and in terms of the remit of the committee, I have concerns about it because, obviously, there has been some debate about it. It is a very important committee. There has been some commentary. There has been some exchanges about it in the public realm. And I just think that we need to be able to clearly define what the role of this committee is. Like the previous speaker, you know, it's either a committee with a remit in terms of national security and defence, or it's not. You know, national security is national security. And you can't, you know, this committee should not be restricted to one part of that. Or, you know, and maybe we need to, maybe we need a very honest debate, a very short discussion, an open discussion, a short discussion around how we deal with this. Because if it's defence of national security, as I said, it's defence of national security, who is putting the limit on that? Is it the government? Is it the civil service? Is it the security services? I don't know, as a new member of this committee. The public doesn't know. But I think that we need to be clear because if we start off, if we start off blind in this, and we find that we're restricted here and there and everywhere in terms of what we can discuss here, and who we can call in before this committee, well, the committee has spanced from day one. And I think we need to be absolutely clear about it. And I'm saying that as somebody who wants to protect our national security, like yourself, Coyle Lock, I want to see the members of our defence forces fully resourced and looked after properly and fit for purpose, and particularly the Army Reserve as well, I think it nearly needs to be dealt with. So I think it would be useful if we had that clarified and that we find out exactly where we're going with this. So I wish you well, Coyle Lock. Thank you, Deputy Stanley. Thank you. Thank you.