Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The point I am making is that we have been training troops for all of the right reasons. The people who are responsible for the coup are at a different level entirely and the Deputy should not be making the connection between the two, given the accusation that comes from that.

In regard to the continuing presence, we are likely to see some changes to that EU training mission but, for now, the view in the EU is that maintaining a presence there is still more beneficial than leaving. There are, of course, real concerns in regard to the presence of the Wagner Group, which is effectively a Russian-backed mercenary group that has huge resources and has a real and corrosive impact in different parts of Africa and, increasingly, in Mali. There is no way we can stand over training troops to operate in parallel with the Wagner Group. Obviously, those considerations are being managed at an EU level at the moment and Ministers are being kept informed. For now, we are there but we will keep that mission under close review.

In terms of the triple lock more generally, what I have said is that I cannot recall a time when the triple lock has prevented us from sending Irish Defence Forces personnel and peacekeepers to a part of the world where we believe they can make a positive contribution and, therefore, it has not not been a big priority for me to change. Theoretically, though, the triple lock is a problem. Are we happy with a situation where, effectively, a member of the permanent five on the Security Council can veto where Ireland chooses to send its Defence Forces personnel, particularly given what is happening at the moment in the context of Russia's aggression in Ukraine?

If, for example, Russia decided not to allow the mandate in Bosnia and Herzegovina to continue just because it did not like it, would that mean that Irish troops would have to leave? These are questions that we have to have an honest discussion around.

I am a big believer in Irish neutrality in the context of military non-alignment. I am not proposing that we change that. However, I am proposing that Irish neutrality - it does not mean political neutrality, by the way - should allow Ireland to decide where and when we send our troops. I do not believe that we should be prevented from doing so by a decision that may be made in the Kremlin or any of the other capitals of the Security Council's permanent five members, P5. That is a potential future problem with the triple lock. It has been a theoretical issue that people have raised at various times in recent years, but it has never been as real a potential blockage as it is now in terms of UN mandates to maintain peacekeeping missions and create new ones, given the tension that there currently is within the Security Council, which makes it difficult to agree anything. The triple lock may become a problem. We have to be open to changing it and honest about how we do that while protecting what we want to protect.

A Government decision, a Dáil decision and some other mechanism that can ensure that our peacekeeping missions are in the spirit of the UN and what it is trying to do around peace support and peacekeeping are important. I hope that, at the start of the next term, we can have a discussion on the matter. This is not about trying to undermine the basis on which we send troops abroad for peacekeeping purposes. Rather, it is about the practicalities of not being vetoed by a country or countries that have a different perspective to us on world affairs in terms of peacekeeping and conflict. I am afraid that we are being reminded of that every day in the images we are seeing from Ukraine.

That is my issue with the triple lock. Most Irish people would say "No" if asked whether they were happy that Russia had a veto over where Irish troops went, but that is effectively what the triple lock could mean if the relationships and difficulties on the Security Council remain as they are.

I believe I have covered most of the questions.