Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees
Thursday, 29 May 2025
Committee on Defence and National Security
General Scheme of the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2025: Discussion
2:00 am
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Apologies have been received from Deputy Duncan Smith. The joint committee is in public session to commence its pre-legislative scrutiny of the defence (amendment) Bill 2025. On behalf of the committee, I welcome the following officials from the Department of Defence: Ms Bernie Maguire, assistant secretary defence and security policy; Ms Clare Tiernan, assistant secretary defence capability people policy; Ms Carol Burke, principal officer of the Defence Forces personnel policy branch; Mr. Brian O'Meara, principal officer of the international security and defence policy branch; and Mr. Billy Tuohy, principal officer of the legislation branch. They are all welcome.
The officials will provide us with a briefing on the general scheme of the Bill. I will invite Ms Maguire to make an opening statement on behalf of the Department. This will be followed by questions from members of the committee and each member has a seven-minute slot to ask questions and for officials to respond. I advise members of the constitutional requirement that the members must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where they are not adhering to the constitutional requirement. Therefore, a member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask any members partaking via Microsoft Teams that prior to making their contribution to the meeting ,they confirm they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.
Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, I will direct them to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction. As the witnesses will probably be aware, the committee will publish the opening statement on its website following the meeting. The witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in any such way that as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, I will direct them to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction.
Before I invite Ms Maguire to make her opening statement, as Chair I wish to welcome members and witnesses to the first session of this pre-legislative scrutiny on the defence (amendment) Bill 2025. This is important legislation that deserves intensive examination. The importance of the Bill is reflected in the hundreds of emails I have received with regard to its impact and raising many questions about it. I am heartened by this public interest shown in the Bill. As a committee we have a responsibility to ensure that all the questions raised by members of the public are clearly and thoroughly addressed. Throughout the course of this scrutiny, we will hear from witnesses with opposing views. It is our job to ensure that this Bill is examined in a robust and respectful manner. There should be no constraints on enabling us to do this in the most comprehensive manner possible. I invite Ms Maguire to make her opening statement.
Ms Bernie Maguire:
I thank the Cathaoirleach and committee members for the opportunity to discuss the general scheme of the defence (amendment) Bill. I am an assistant secretary in the Department of Defence with responsibility for defence and security policy and legislation. I am joined by colleagues from the Department including Clare Tiernan, an assistant secretary who has responsibility for defence capability people policy. During the discussion to follow, my colleague Ms Tiernan and I will lead on answers for our respective policy areas. The programme for Government sets out the commitment to reform the operation of the triple lock while also ensuring that amendments to the legislation are in keeping with Ireland's values and policy of military neutrality. On 4 March, the Government approved the drafting of a Bill along the lines of the general scheme of the defence (amendment) Bill. The purpose of this Bill, Parts 1 to 3, is to consolidate with amendments the existing provisions in the Defence Acts concerning the overseas dispatch of members of the Defence Forces outside the State. As part of this process, the Bill will repeal the Defence (Amendment) (No.2) Act 1960 and the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006 and will provide for consequential amendments to the Defence Act 1954.
It will provide for the removal of the existing requirement regarding the triple lock in respect of the despatch of the Defence Forces for service outside the State as part of an international force.
Part 4 includes amendments to the Defence Acts to provide for the suspension, in certain circumstances, of a member of the Defence Forces and associated matters that will give effect to recommendations contained within the report prepared and submitted on 7 October last by Mr. Peter Ward SC on the management of members of the Defence Forces charged with or convicted of serious criminal offences. Part 5 of the general scheme relates to the proposed amendment to the Courts-Martial Appeals Act 1983 to clarify the timeframe within which any appeals to the Court of Appeal can be made on a finding made by a court martial or sentence issued by a court martial.
The Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1960 governs the statutory basis for the despatch of Defence Forces personnel to an international United Nations force. This forms the basis for what has in more recent years being referred to as the triple lock which holds that there must be a UN mandate; Government approval is required; and where more than 12 Defence Forces personnel are being despatched overseas as part of an international force, Dáil approval is also required. Therefore, if the Government decides to send one or two military personnel to an international force, it must have a UN mandate. The number 12 is relevant only in respect of the need for Dáil approval if the Government decides to despatch more than 12 military personnel to a UN-mandated mission.
I will now move on to the main provisions of the Bill. Part 1, concerning preliminary and general matters, includes standard sections regarding the Title of the Bill, commencement provisions and definition of key terms. Part 2 is a new Part XIV of the principal Act and concerns definitions and despatch of Defence Forces personnel. This provides for the insertion of a new Part XIV to the Defence A relating to the despatch of members of the Defence Forces outside the State. Head 6 provides for the despatch and deployment of contingents or members of the Defence Forces for service outside the State with an international force. Subhead (1) of that head provides that a contingent of the Defence Forces may be despatched and deployed for service outside the State as a part of an international force only if approved by the Government and, where required by the legislation, a resolution has been passed by Dáil Éireann.
Subhead (3) sets out the circumstances in which a contingent of the Defence Forces may be despatched outside the State for service with an international force without a Dáil Éireann resolution. The circumstances are as follows: the contingent consists of not more than 50 members, or the contingent is being despatched for the purposes of replacing in whole or in part a contingent that was previously approved for despatch under this subhead. Subhead (6) sets out the governing principles that will apply in respect of the despatch and deployment of members of the Defence Forces outside the State as part of an international force. Head 7 provides for the despatch of a contingent or member of the Defence Forces for service outside the State for purposes other than service with an international force. In the main, the purposes reflect the purposes currently set out in section 3 of the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006. In addition, the new legislation will facilitate deployment for the purposes of undertaking civilian evacuation operations and participating in operations to combat illicit drug trafficking by sea and air. Heads 8, 9 and 10 reflect existing legislative provisions.
Turning to Part 3, the purpose of heads 11 to 20, inclusive, is to provide for consequential amendments to the Defence Act 1954 to reflect the new provisions relating to the despatch of members of the Defence Forces for service outside the State and the repeal of the existing legislation. Part 4covers heads 21 to 26, inclusive, and sets out amendments to the Defence Act 1954 to facilitate the implementation of key recommendations of the Ward report. Part 5 provides for an amendment to section 13 the Courts-Martial Appeals Act 1983 to clarify the timeframe within which any appeals to the Court of Appeal can be made from a finding made by a court martial or a sentence issued by a court martial.
In conclusion, I thank committee members for their time. My colleagues and I welcome all questions members may have on the provisions of the general scheme.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Ms Maguire. I will now open the floor to members. Committee members will have the first speaking slots and then non-members are welcome to contribute as well. We will do this by way of indication and I ask members to keep to the time allowed, which is seven minutes. Deputy Stanley is first.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the witnesses and officials for coming in. In her opening statement, Ms Maguire said the programme for Government sets out a commitment to reform the operation of the triple lock while ensuring that the amendments to the legislation are in keeping with Ireland's values and policy of military neutrality. Let us imagine a scenario where a peacekeeping resolution comes before the Security Council and it is vetoed by the permanent members, but the European Union or some other group of countries decides to deploy troops regardless of that. If Ireland participated in that mission, would that not be in conflict with our neutrality, given that we would be taking sides in a global dispute in the context of a veto of the UN Security Council?
Ms Bernie Maguire:
In respect of situations where there is a UN veto, this is the whole purpose of the legislation. At the moment, the power is with what we call the P5, the five standing members of the Security Council that can veto operations. This has called into question why there have not been any new peacekeeping missions for the past 11 years, whereby there is a fear that such a mission will not pass all the five. If we look at the situations that have happened more recently in regard to Gaza and Ukraine, resolutions would not get passed and that is a fact. At least one of the five countries would-----
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There are 11 peacekeeping missions around the world at the moment.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Ireland participates in some of those.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The picture Ms Maguire is painting is that there are almost no peacekeeping missions around the world at the moment.
Ms Bernie Maguire:
There are no new ones. We are participating in the mission in the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL. We still have a number of personnel in the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, UNDOF, and we are also in the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization, UNTSO, and we are in a number of EU- and NATO-led missions. Even in terms of the missions we are in, this is causing a challenge for us at the moment. Even today the UN Security Council is looking at the resolution for Operation Irini, which is an EU mission. There is a doubt about that going through, so what do we do with our people that are serving in that?
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Ms Maguire is missing the point I am making. The point that I am making is that Ireland is then taking sides in a conflict without UN sanction. Is that not correct?
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
So we put our faith in that. Is that what Ms Maguire is saying? That it is okay. I am not trying to be combative. I am trying to explore where this could go.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There is an inherent risk there by virtue of the fact that we are participating in a conflict zone without a UN mandate, which means that we are going to sidestep the international norm that has operated heretofore.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Up until now we have been seen as impartial. For example, as Ms Maguire correctly said in respect of our peacekeeping troops in the Lebanon, we are not seen to be taking sides in a conflict. The fundamental change here is that when we disregard the requirement for a UN mandate, regardless of one's position on the veto of the Security Council, we are then taking sides. We are no longer taking a neutral position regarding a geopolitical conflict. That is the point I am making.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I want to come to that. The Nice treaty, roughly speaking as I recall it, was rejected by two thirds of voters and passed by one third of voters. It failed the first time. There was a lot of back and forth. In fairness to the Government at the time, it put the triple lock in place and that was the guarantee. That is when it went the other way and the two thirds against and one third for swung the other way in the next vote in 2001. People were satisfied with that. That was a guarantee given.
This is now a fundamental change to that. The triple lock was the guarantee. Regardless of who is in government, the double lock means the Government will decide because the Government always has a majority in the Dáil. A Dáil vote will count for nothing. That is window dressing. Regardless of who is in government, whether it is those of us who are in opposition now or those who are in government, the Government of the day will carry it. As the legislation was framed, it completely disregards the will of the Irish people.
In relation to the veto, the UN General Assembly can also pass a resolution. While I am aware it is not legally binding, it carries a certain amount of political clout. It would be very difficult to ignore it as I think there are 190 countries in the UN General Assembly. Could Ms Maguire address that?
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It would be very hard to ignore it though, would it not?
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The big shift with this Bill is that we are moving away from the seven-year norm where we accepted the global order as ordained by the UN. We are now going to participate in regional forces.
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In the briefing note for the Oireachtas Committee on Defence and National Security, it says the purpose of this defence (amendment) Bill is the reform of the triple lock. It also mentions the modification of the triple lock. In Ms Maguire's opening statement, she mentioned reform. Is it not the case that this is the removal of the triple lock? I do not see a new lock. What is the new lock? If it is a simple Government majority, that is not a lock at all. I want Ms Maguire to confirm for the committee that this involves the removal of the triple lock. If so, could we stop referring to modification of or alteration of the triple lock?
Can Ms Maguire tell me what is the largest military formation that the Defence Forces can deploy overseas at the moment? Is it a platoon, a company or a brigade? What is it? Can Ms Maguire tell me why the arbitrary number of 50 has been chosen as an increase on the number of 12 to be dispatched without Dáil approval? In answering that question, she might bear in mind that 12 is section strength, 30 is platoon strength and 120 is roughly company strength, give or take. Where did this number of 50 come from? It has no military significance or meaning that I can ascertain. I would like to know the knowledge behind that.
The precedent has been that when the Government has had an opportunity to send the maximum number of 12 troops without Dáil or Oireachtas approval, it has consistently used that to the maximum. For example, from 2002 to 2016, we dispatched 12 troops to the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. Based on that precedent, does it not therefore mean that the Government could send up to 50 troops to a NATO-led force if this was enacted?
Ms Maguire mentioned in her answers to Deputy Stanley that all EU and NATO missions are conducted in a manner that is consistent with the principles of international law, the UN Charter and so on and so forth. Is it Ms Maguire's understanding that this was the case with the invasion of Iraq? It certainly is not my understanding.
On service outside the State, which Ms Maguire mentioned, there is a repetition in the discussion here of the phrase "peacekeeping". Is it not the case that 27 years ago, Ireland did one thing for one international agency? We did peacekeeping for the United Nations 25 years ago, but is it not the case that we now do peacekeeping and peace enforcement for the United Nations and for the European Union? In fact, we led the first expeditionary force outside of Europe's borders to Chad and the Central African Republic, which was a peace enforcement mission - not peacekeeping. Let us be really clear here; peace enforcement involves the full spectrum of combat operations. That is what we have committed to.
We have also participated in peace enforcement missions in Afghanistan, Kosovo and to the best of my recollection on the continent of Africa in Somalia and also I think in Liberia. When she talks about the dispatch of our troops, is Ms Maguire saying that with the removal of the triple lock - I want an answer to this - any future Government can send any number of Irish troops to any conflict in the world at any time? If this is not a modification of the triple lock, this is a removal of the triple lock.
Finally, it has been repeated over and over again that there is no connection whatsoever between the triple lock and our militarily non-aligned neutral status. You could also say there is no connection between the steering wheel of a car and the brakes but they are linked as a functional whole. On what basis is it said that the removal of the triple lock will have no impact whatsoever on our militarily non-aligned neutral status? I thank the witness.
Ms Bernie Maguire:
I will do my best here and I ask the Senator to come back in if I miss any of the questions.
On the question of whether it is a removal or modification, it is a change. You could call it a removal of the triple lock and if you want to agree that, it is fine. However, I emphasise it is with safeguards. As I said previously to Deputy Stanley, that is around ensuring that it adheres to the principles of international law and the UN Charter. We are not throwing out everything. We are ensuring there will be safeguards in the Bill.
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not see a safeguard. On that, does that mean any future Government can send any number of Irish troops to any conflict anywhere in the world? By a simple majority?
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
By Government majority, any future Government can send any number of Irish troops to any conflict anywhere in the world.
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
So with a simple Government majority, it can send any number of Irish troops anywhere in the world?
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is a yes. So Ms Maguire is saying yes, it is a removal of the triple lock and yes, any future Government could send any number of Irish troops anywhere in the world at any time for any purpose such as peacekeeping, peace enforcement and full combat operations.
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The safeguards are notional. They are hypothetical.
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We are talking about the future. When you remove the triple lock, there is no safeguard in law other than the understanding that any future Government can send any number of Irish troops anywhere in the world for peace enforcement - full combat operations - on the basis of a simple Government majority.
That, to my understanding, is not a safeguard. It is the complete removal of any safeguard and there will be no safeguard in law. What is the largest military formation the Defence Forces can deploy overseas now?
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
No, what is the largest formation that can be deployed overseas now?
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
No, what is the largest unit the Defence Forces are capable of sending overseas?
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What component of that unit do we comprise?
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What is the logic of increasing the number from 12 troops to 50 troops? What is the significance of the number 50? What is the strategic or military thinking informing such a number?
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Senator Clonan's time is up, but this is an important question for Ms Maguire to address.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I ask Ms Maguire to respond to only this question. It will be possible to come back in again during the second round of questions.
Ms Bernie Maguire:
The Senator might recall that this number came out of the consultative forum on international security policy. As part of her report, Dame Richardson commented on the restrictive nature of the number 12. Additionally, as part of that process, we received more than 800 submissions relating to broader security and defence issues. However, some were also concerned the triple lock and the number 12 and-----
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There is, therefore, no military context. It is purely a notional figure.
Ms Bernie Maguire:
No. If the Senator will give me a minute, I will address that point. As the Senator referred to, the number 50 relates to the normal platoon size of between 30 and 33 troops. The Senator will also know that supports go with a unit, including medical, communications and combat, for example. The number 50 allows us the flexibility to bring that platoon size up to under 50 troops. This is based on military advice I received and discussed with my military colleagues. It was not picked out of the air. There is a basis for it. The difficulty is the number 12 never had a basis. It was just the number of the smallest subunit that the military would have-----
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Finally, based on the precedent of sending 12 troops to Afghanistan, if this change were enacted, would it mean that the Government, the Cabinet, at any point, without Dáil approval, could send 50 troops to any mission anywhere in the world?
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am conscious I allowed extra time so that the topic could be developed. Other may wish to take up similar questions. I call Deputy Brabazon.
Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome Ms Maguire and thank her for the presentation. One obvious question has in some ways been answered as part of the responses to the questions Senator Clonan posed, but is it believed the Bill fundamentally undermines military neutrality? In the absence of a UN Security Council mandated peacekeeping mission, for example, is there another UN mechanism available to the State to deploy troops to a peacekeeping mission? Are there concrete examples Ms Maguire might have as to where the triple lock may have been an obstacle to the deployment of troops on, for example, a UN mission?
Ms Bernie Maguire:
I thank the Deputy. Regarding the question of neutrality, if we look back to the genesis of the 1960 legislation, we can see it was put in place following a request from the UN Secretary General for Ireland to deploy troops to the Congo. We had no legislative basis to do that. It would always at that time have been a UN mission. There was no other show in town, as such. It was always going to be a UN mission and it was always going to have Government approval. Additionally, there was the Dáil safeguard if we were deploying more than 12 troops. That is the genesis of how this legislation came about in the first place. The issue of neutrality was not a part of that discussion. We define our neutrality as non-military. We are not militarily aligned and we do not join any military alliance such as NATO or anything else. To us, this is where there is the disconnect between neutrality and what we are trying to do in this Bill.
Turning to the question on the UN Security Council and if there is another UN mechanism, we spoke earlier during the interaction with Deputy Stanley in relation to the role of the UN General Assembly. It does have a power to recommend a particular action. It has not been used since the 1960s. I think that was the last time it was used. It is not enforceable and has no legal basis. Only the Security Council mandate can force countries to implement a decision.
On where the triple lock has caused obstacles, there are practical examples now with regard to our current continuation in some missions. These include Operation Irini. The mandate for that mission is being discussed today in the UN. There are challenges concerning whether it will be renewed. Many negotiations are going on in the background to get the approval of those countries that have indicated they are not going to support it. This is a real-life example happening today. If that mandate is not renewed, the four personnel we have deployed as part of Operation Irini will be coming home. That is just a practical example. There are also challenges regarding other missions. The UNIFIL mandate is also going to be difficult this year. Again, many negotiations are going on. France is the main negotiator on behalf of the UN. We have also had difficulties with Operation Althea, where it was in the past indicated that one of the members of the Security Council was not going to approve it. These examples have real-life impacts. If we did not have a UN mandate for those operations, we would have to withdraw.
Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Can Ms Maguire expand a little on the difficulties encountered in respect of the renewal of the UNIFIL mandate? I am curious to know, for example, how any member of the Security Council has proved to be an obstacle to the renewal of the UNIFIL mandate.
Ms Bernie Maguire:
As we know, Lebanon has gone through a very difficult time in the last year. Questions have been asked about whether the UNIFIL mandate is appropriate. A question has also been asked about whether the mandate is being fully enforced. These are the kinds of questions being posed in the background in relation to whether the mandate - which expires in August - will be changed or if there will an insistence on the full enforcement of the mandate. These are things our military colleagues, the Department and the Minister will have to examine.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputy Brabazon is happy with the response. I call Senator Seán Kyne.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome Ms Maguire and the team from the Department. I am thankful for the presentation on this extremely important matter. The crux of this issue - in my view, it is always the crux in respect of the United Nations - has been the five permanent members, the P5, of the Security Council and the veto. In the context of the UN mandate, can the aspect of the P5 versus the General Assembly be explained? I ask this question because it is an issue that has been highlighted and used. I refer to the General Assembly being able to allow and sanction peacekeeping forces. Ms Maguire said the General Assembly can give a view.
Ms Maguire also said it is not legally binding. Will she please elaborate?
Ms Bernie Maguire:
Articles 24 and 25 of the UN Charter unequivocally set out the primacy of the UN Security Council with regard to all matters relating to international peace and security. In practice, peace support operations are only ever deployed on the basis of mandates from the Security Council. While the General Assembly can make recommendations to member states, resolutions of the General Assembly cannot compel action. Only once in history has the General Assembly invoked a resolution and that was the "uniting for peace" resolution. This happened in 1956, when it established the first UN emergency force in the Middle East. However, the context in which the General Assembly made its recommendation was unique. The peacekeeping operation had, at that time, the consent, and this is very important, of the parties involved, namely, Egypt, France, Israel and the UK. The recommendation was in line with the priorities of four permanent members of the Security Council. There was a particular circumstance, therefore, at a particular moment in time, with everybody on board and that particular General Assembly worked. I am not sure those conditions prevail today.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
How many existing peacekeeping missions have been approved by the UN? When was the last one denied by the UN?
Ms Bernie Maguire:
The last one was in 2014. I am not aware of the last one that was denied. The possibility is that none have been proposed because we know they would be vetoed. Whether that has prevented missions that would have got off the ground in better circumstances is difficult to prove.
For the Department, there can be delays in the UN sanctioning. Operation Sophia was the UN mission in the Mediterranean in 2015. Ireland was interested in participating but there were difficulties over a UN mandate being negotiated at that time. It was only in 2016 that they managed to get it over the line and Ireland was able to join.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
If one of the permanent members had an issue with an existing peacekeeping mission, would it result in us having to withdraw? Is there a renewal on a yearly basis? How does it work in practice?
Ms Bernie Maguire:
There is a renewal on a yearly basis. Earlier I gave the example of Operation Irini, which is happening today. That is one of those. Again, at the EU mission Operation Althea, there have been difficulties with mandate renewal. If the renewal does not come through, different countries, depending on their own rules, may still be able to participate but for Ireland it would cause a difficulty.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Senator Clonan has mentioned that if we removed the triple lock, the Government and the Dáil majority would be able to send any number of people anywhere. Is it not true that with the triple lock the Government can only send people somewhere as long as Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump believes it to be in their interest? That is the reality.
Ms Bernie Maguire:
That is the power of the P5. Interestingly, research shows that when we were joining the UN in 1946, the same discussions we are having today, about the power of the P5. were had then. Eamon de Valera was concerned that we were joining an organisation where five large countries did not adhere to the rule of law and could prevent peacekeeping operations.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is it true that the General Assembly can recommend and debate but cannot compel a peacekeeping force without agreement by the P5?
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
All members have to be in agreement. People who have issues with this have suggested that the General Assembly has that power. Has this aspect of the General Assembly been debated at UN level? Do other countries have doubts about this matter? Is it being debated elsewhere that the General Assembly can do these things or is it peculiarly an issue in this country?
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Am I correct that any existing peacekeeping mission in which Ireland participates is subject to the approval of the P5 at the moment?
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome Ms Maguire and her team and thank them for being here. I also thank Ms Maguire for her comprehensive report.
I will start by saying that the Chair declared that our work here today is extremely important. I respectfully suggest that this is a complete red herring. We have an air force that cannot fly, a Naval Service that can only put one ship to sea, and the entire Defence Forces are falling apart around us. There are 31 recommendations for the Air Corps, dating back to 2021, so we should have invited the Director of the Air Corps, the Secretary General of the Department and the Minister here today to find out who is culpable for allowing the collapse of the Air Corps.
In 2026, Ireland will take the Presidency of the Council of the European Union and any Prime Minister flying into Ireland will not be able to fly into Baldonnel. We spent a €250,000 each on aircraft for sea patrols. They cannot now fly from Baldonnel and must go to Shannon Airport. Today's debate is a complete red herring. It is unlikely we will have troops to send anywhere, and instead we should be discussing bread and butter issues and not this goddamn triple lock. I am indifferent to the triple lock one way or the other. I have always seen it as a nonsense.
With respect to the veto, a number of my colleagues have mentioned the power of the United Nations Security Council versus that of the General Assembly. Has the Department got legal advice with respect to the role and functionality of the Security Council versus what can be done by the General Assembly? Has it sought advice from the United Nations? Do we have a copy of the United Nations peacekeeping and peace enforcement policy? If so, can that copy be made available to the committee? I ask because a lot of really good points have been made here today with respect to the number of troops that can be deployed in the event of the abolition of the triple lock. My colleague Senator Clonan is right. It is not a change; it is the abolition of the triple lock.
My next question is on the triple lock. It may be an unfair question to ask Ms Maguire but she can tell me that in her reply. Is any other professional body in the State of Ireland subject to the same ludicrous rules as the triple lock? For example, can we only send 12 teachers abroad? Should we send no more than 12 politicians abroad on St. Patrick's weekend? Why have the Defence Forces been singled out for this type of treatment? I will discuss the Ward report in the second iteration and that needs to be done.
It was mentioned in the documentation supplied by the Department that there are three criteria for troops to be sent abroad, namely, the evacuation of Irish citizens, military close-protection operations and the deployment of Defence Forces personnel in support of international operations. What about port visits for the Naval Service? What about counter-terrorism operations? Let us say an Aer Lingus or Ryanair jet is hijacked and brought to a country that does not have special forces and is unable to carry out a counter-terrorist operation. Should the Irish Government be asked to deploy special forces to recover that aircraft? Are they going to be able to do that? What about hostage recovery? What about the rescue of EU colleagues' citizens abroad? If we are going to do away with this, the statement needs to be much broader to cover all sorts of eventualities. We are talking about legislation here that will see me into the grave and maybe a number of the younger committee members as well, so we need that legislation to broad.
We are talking about an international force, and we are talking about the proposed defence (amendment) Bill. It would be the type of international force in existence in 1960. Is it not true that in the 1950s there was a UN-mandated operation under Chapter 8? That was in Korea, if I am not mistaken. Ms Maguire said that the United Nations Security Council alone that holds the power to take decisions, which member states are then obliged to implement. I agree wholeheartedly on that point, but I suggest that the statement is incomplete in that a member state is obligated to implement a United Nations Security Council resolution that confirms either a mandate or an authorisation. We are steering away from the word "NATO" when we are talking about authorisation. Several missions have proceeded under the United Nations authorisation that were led by NATO entities. We talk about the EU and all the other nice little things, but we do not talk about NATO. It is a fact that Irish troops have served under NATO command under UN authorisation. The witnesses might deal with that.
A number of colleagues mentioned Ireland's policy on military neutrality. This is bandied about all the time. Do the witnesses agree that neutrality is codified in customary international law that dictates practice over time? Neither in the Hague Convention of 1907 nor anywhere in these conventions is any subdivision of neutrality referred to. A state is either neutral or it is not. I constantly hear the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and Members of the Houses refer to Ireland's military neutrality and political neutrality. Where is the legislation? Where is the authority to use these terms? I cannot find in customary international law anything to do with political neutrality or military neutrality. We will be trying to get to the bottom of Ireland's position with respect to neutrality or military non-alignment, and we will be trying to understand why these terms are conflated with the triple lock. We are looking at the triple lock. We are not looking at anything else, but they are all being conflated. We need to do that.
I will hold on that for a few seconds. I have a few seconds left. I apologise to Ms Maguire because there is a lot of stuff there.
Ms Bernie Maguire:
I thank the Senator. Going back to the role of the Security Council, the Senator asked about legal advice. Anything we are doing is part of drafting the heads of the Bill. As we get into the text of the Bill, it is done with the support and advice of the Attorney General. That is where we are getting that advice, as well as our own research into it. There is also the full peacekeeping charter with the relevant pieces of chapters 6, 7 and 8, which we would be very happy to supply to the committee as part of its work.
On the dispatching of personnel overseas where their deployment is not as part of an international force and the other circumstances the Senator referred to, the type of examples given are covered or will be covered under the 2006 Act. The evacuation of citizens is one. The Senator spoke of a hijacked aircraft or an emergency situation. There is a list of circumstances where the military would be dispatched to assist.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will interrupt for second if I may. If there is a list, it needs to be made available to this committee.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It needs to be made available immediately.
Ms Bernie Maguire:
Yes. It is under the head of the Bill that updates section 3 of the 2006 Act. All the circumstances are listed there. We are trying to broaden out as much as possible, and especially in light of what has changed since 2006. A lot of the language was around humanitarian issues, in the event of crises overseas and where there might have been a disaster or an emergency. Unfortunately, they are coming more into the kind of sharper secure security space. We wanted to be very clear, for example, with the type of situations like the evacuation of citizens from Kabul, where members of the Army Ranger Wing are part of an emergency civil assist team going out and evacuating citizens. We are trying to make it as exhaustive as possible. If there is language we are missing, however, we would very much welcome the committee's input on that, and we will be sure to include it.
The Senator mentioned the definition of military neutrality. He is right that the practice in government is that Ireland's policy of military neutrality means that we do not participate in military alliances or any common defence arrangement. When it comes to a situation like that in Ukraine, however, we are not neutral. This reflects the position that we should assist with Ukrainian people. We have welcomed Ukrainian-----
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I need to interrupt Ms Maguire on this, I am sorry Chair-----
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am just keeping an eye on time. I have allowed the Senator extra time.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The issue of Ukraine is one of serious contention for me. We are talking about a situation - and my colleague Senator Tom Clonan made the point - where a Government majority can do anything it wants. In the case of Ukraine, a Minister, without ever coming to the Oireachtas, made a statement to the effect that in the case of Ukraine, we are not neutral. That committed this entire country, not just our Defence Forces but the entire country, to be involved in a conflict. I 100% support Ukraine, but what is the Oireachtas here for if such decisions are not brought before it? These are the dangers we are opening ourselves up to unless we have very clear parameters as to what is and is not allowed.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is important, but I have allowed the Senator extra time. In the interests of fairness, I want to move on.
Maeve O'Connell (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I echo the comments of everybody in thanking the witnesses for coming here to talk to us and give us some background on this proposed legislation. I have a number of questions that I will run through.
Does the term "triple lock" have any basis in law or is this some sort of vernacular language we have adopted? It would be very helpful to understand that, specifically in the context of what we are really talking about and what we are proposing to change.
Does the proposed legislation mention anything about joining any military, defence or security alliance? Do other countries require UN Security Council approval before they can deploy peacekeeping forces? What other countries have what we are debating here?
I would like some clarity from the witnesses. Perhaps they could summarise if they can. Numbers of individuals were mentioned by several people here, namely one member of the Defence Forces, 12 members of the Defence Forces and 50 members of the Defence Forces. What is the situation now in terms of sending one, 12 or 50 as opposed to if the proposed legislation is passed. What is required to send those numbers of people?
In the context of UN Security Council approval for peacekeeping missions in the past, I was looking at research in an attempt to get some numbers. Maybe the witnesses will clarify this, if not today then maybe at a future point. I found that between 1947 and 2014 - a period of 67 years - there were 73 peacekeeping missions approved by the Security Council but that since 2014, a period of 11 years, there have been zero missions. This clearly illustrates that it is no longer functioning for the purposes of deploying peacekeeping forces, potentially undermining peace in the world. That has brought us to the point where we cannot effectively continue to play our role as a country, aligning with those we want to align with and who share our values because, unfortunately, one part of that global organisation no longer fully shares our values or, certainly, a number of member states definitely do not share our values. Some clarity on the number of UN Security Council-approved peacekeeping missions over the years would be quite helpful for us in order that we might understand the position.
Ms Bernie Maguire:
The term "triple lock" is not in any defence legislation. It is not in the Constitution. It is a mechanism that emerged during the 2000s with the Lisbon and Nice treaties. That is where it emerged from. As I said, the legislative provision was put in place because we were asked to provide personnel to a UN mission in the Congo in 1960. A legislative framework to provide for that was needed.
Head 9, an important head that has been brought forward from previous legislation, which the committee should be aware of, states: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as thereby authorising the State to become a member of an international organisation of which it is not already a member." Again, when we talk about safeguards, we are not talking about moving into NATO or anything like that. The Government has been very clear on that, but we are in a NATO mission at the moment. We are in Kosovo with a NATO-led mission. That is a fact to, hopefully, give reassurance to the committee.
The Deputy asked about numbers. At present, if we want to send one member of the Defence Forces to an international force - that is, peacekeeping or peace enforcement that is either UN approved or UN mandated - it has to have a UN mandate. A Dáil resolution is not needed. Government approval is needed, as is a UN mandate. If the number is more than 12, that needs to have Dáil approval as well. That is the current situation. The heads include a proposal that the Dáil would be asked for a resolution in the event that more than 50 were being deployed.
Maeve O'Connell (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have another couple of questions.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy has a bit more time.
Maeve O'Connell (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Do any other countries require UN Security Council approval?
Ms Bernie Maguire:
No. We are the only country that requires it. Austria, for example, has only deployed two UN-approved missions, but it is only Ireland I am aware of. Likewise, Germany is currently changing its rules for how and where it deploys. Those would be the only ones I am aware of. There have been instances for other countries. Several EU countries were prevented from joining missions because of their parliaments. Despite what you might think, the power of parliament is there, which has stopped different missions over the years in progressing.
Maeve O'Connell (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
To clarify, at the moment we cannot even send one person without UN Security Council approval-----
Ms Bernie Maguire:
To an international force. There has been confusion about this in the past, but we can send them to an emergency civil assist team, like what we did in Kabul, which requires Government approval. There is no limit to the numbers we can send to that, but that is not an international force. When we talk about one, 12 or 50, that is only in relation to an international force.
Maeve O'Connell (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Surely, it must get muddied a bit in periods of conflict. Does this get muddied?
Maeve O'Connell (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What would happen if it turned combative while they were there?
Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I extend a very warm welcome to Ms Maguire and her team for this very important discussion. I understand today is international peacekeeping day. I take this opportunity to thank sincerely the members of the Defence Forces for the work they have done and continue to do on behalf of the State. It is important that we say we are all extremely proud of the work they do.
I am conscious of those who may be tuning in and trying to follow and keep up with this debate. Up to this point, even the term "triple lock" gave a certain amount of security to people regarding when we sent our troops abroad. However, it is fair to say that it is dysfunctional. It has been 11 years-plus since we last deployed and got the Security Council to speak with one voice. The world today is a different place than it was a number of years back, unfortunately. If we are depending on the thumbs up, if you like, from people such as Mr. Putin, or the Chinese or Mr. Trump, then we will be waiting. What we replace this with is the big issue, and its replacement with something about which people can have confidence that we are not taking sides, as such. That is the difficult part. Going back to Mr. and Mrs. Bloggs tuning in and trying to follow this, they are looking for clarity on any future mechanism we might employ. That is not easy. It is difficult to get that.
It is fair to say that the current system clearly is not working. That has been outlined this morning. There is nothing on the horizon to say that will change anytime soon. Its replacement with something that will be acceptable to the vast majority is the challenge that we face. The officials have come forward today and some of the questions I was going to ask have already been answered. On Europe and getting a mandate from the Security Council, will that be difficult considering the way the world is going? I am thinking of the EU's response to what is going on in Gaza. Europe has been found out a little on that in that we are not speaking with one voice there. What kind of a scenario would develop where we would have the thumbs up, if I can use that expression, to send a peacekeeping number abroad? I am not 100% clear on the criteria that we have to follow in order to get the thumbs up to do that. What would the officials say to those who say that we are waving goodbye to our neutrality? Does what we are talking about this morning have anything at all whatsoever to do with our neutrality? Will they give us a little clarity on that?
Ms Bernie Maguire:
I will address what we are replacing this with. We do not have plans lined up to dispatch our military to a number of other types of missions. If there were further UN missions, we would of course be considering those. This is not about turning our back on the UN. The UN is very much part of our foreign policy. We are very much committed to that and there is no change. It is the beholden bit and the power of the veto that determines whether we stay or participate in a mission. That is the piece. It is not about looking at all these different types of activities. We are already involved in EU missions, EU battlegroups and NATO missions. When a request comes in to join one of these missions, they are carefully considered by the Government, the Minister of the day and our military colleagues as to what this means, including whether we are satisfied with the legal framework we are entering into and with the rules of engagement. That scrutiny happens, to reassure the people who will be listening today, as the Senator said.
There are no hidden plans to head off in a direction that we have not already been in.
Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Who gives the Department that information that enables it to make its mind up? Who supplies that information that satisfies it on whether this is a good thing or not?
Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What about the neutrality bit?
Ms Bernie Maguire:
We had some discussion already on this. The Government has been clear that this is not about changing Ireland's policy on military neutrality. There is no intention to authorise the State to become a member of an international organisation that we are not already a member of. We already discussed the genesis of where this legislation came from. It was nothing to do with our neutrality. It was around the framework as to how we can deploy to the UN. That is where it originated from. The safeguard we are going to ensure will be in our legislation is that it will remain fully consistent with the principles of the UN Charter and international law. The detail will be in the Bill as to how the Minister of the day and the Government of the day can be reassured of that.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Ms Maguire. It is Deputy Ó Laoghaire next, followed by Deputy O'Meara.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not agree with everything Senator Craughwell said, but the issues relating to the Air Corps are extremely urgent and need to be addressed. As a committee we should be looking at that. I hope the witnesses will return to discuss that with us. I echo the point made by Senator Clonan. It is clear that this is the end of the triple lock. I have not heard any rebuttal of that point. There is no other lock. There is no amendment of the triple lock. There is no adjustment. Ultimately, if the Bill is passed a Government with a majority in the Dáil will be able deploy troops to wherever it wishes. I believe the witnesses have confirmed that. The triple lock is gone and it is some sort of Simon Harris lock that is left. That has been clearly borne out.
The 1960 Act and the subsequent Act refer frequently to an international force. The first question that arises is about other international forces beyond the UN. We talk about UN mandates from the Security Council or the General Assembly. Without that mandate there is no UN mission. The UN mission is not there. When we talk about international forces, are we talking about the EU, in effect? Are we considering anyone else?
Ms Bernie Maguire:
Yes, it is the EU. As I said earlier, we are in a NATO-led force now in Kosovo. I am not sure if there are going to be any more NATO-led forces but the fact is that we are in a NATO mission as well as EU. Going back to the commentary regarding a decision being made by a Government with a majority in the Dáil, under Article 28 of the Constitution the Dáil has the power to declare war on another state. That decision can be made with the support of 51% of the Dáil. That power of the Dáil is already there. We are asking for a lesser threshold for deploying to a peacekeeping or peace enforcement measure.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is clear with regard to an international force. The legislation and the triple lock govern how troops are deployed in the context of international forces and the initiative in respect of an Irish-only deployment is a different matter. Is that fair to say?
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The example has been given frequently of humanitarian evacuation and that it is somehow is prevented. If that is not happening as part of an international force - in some instances perhaps it does - but is exclusively Irish-led, how is that prevented by the triple lock?
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Okay, very well. It is in the same legislation. Is Ms Maguire saying the triple lock does not prevent Irish Defence Forces personnel being deployed in a humanitarian evacuation?
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is the legal position. At present, there are no obstacles to that being done.
That brings me back to the point that the argument frequently being made on the triple lock by the Government is that change is needed for the reason of humanitarian evacuation and drug interdiction missions. Why do the Department and the Minister not simply bring forward a Bill to dealt with that rather than changing the criteria for peacekeeping missions?
Ms Bernie Maguire:
What the Government had instructed was a change to the triple lock on the basis of deployments to international force, given the power of the Security Council. That was the primary reason for this legislation. In addition, a number of issues have arisen over the years where there was a lack of clarity in how we deploy our Defence Forces to other types of operations that are not part of an international force. We wanted to take advantage of this legislation to bring clarity to those as well.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
If we were debating legislation like that I am not sure it would be terribly controversial. There would be broad support for legislation that clarifies the entitlement of Ireland. I am not sure, in some instances, it is entirely necessarily. If it was believed to be necessary in the context of humanitarian rescue, drug interdiction and related matters, that would receive broad support. Unfortunately, for many of the reasons that Senator Clonan and other have articulated, there is a concern.
Ms Maguire has made clear the scope and decisions being subject to support of a Government majority. I acknowledge the point on safeguards but safeguards are a piece of paper. They have no legal standing as such. Who will be the arbiter of whether that safeguard is met? It will be the self-same Government that intends to deploy troops. I am not sure many people will take a lot of succour from that. The other element of it is that situations arise and, unfortunately, the nature of international politics is that pressure can come on smaller countries. Pressure may come on to co-operate with or participate in a certain initiative. Has the Department evaluated whether, strategically, Ireland is exposing itself to further risk of pressure to deploy by removing a clear safeguard that exists? That safeguard is grounded in multilateralism and international law. It is a gold standard in as much as possible with regard to human rights and international law. We are removing an objective safeguard that can be pointed to in the instance of pressure from other countries. Are we not potentially exposing ourselves to further risk? Is that not a strategic risk of this potential change in legislation?
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The witnesses may answer that question and we will then move on to the next speaker.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Government will be the arbiter.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is the same Government that wants to deploy.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am not totally satisfied regarding the assessment of the risk that Ireland is being potentially exposed to in terms of international pressure. Has that been part of the conversation within the Department or with the Minister?
Ms Bernie Maguire:
It is the nature of the requests coming in. It is not the traditional infantry type of contribution that we made in the past to UN peacekeeping forces. Those types of requests may be made again in the future, but what we are seeing now is more of the crisis management type of situations, like what happened in Kabul.
Again, with the EU and the battlegroups, there might be a crisis in a particular country where they could be deployed. They are the types of things that happen because it is a different security dynamic in play at present.
Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I want to start with neutrality. Senator Craughwell touched on it already and the Chair mentioned something along these lines at the outset about the number of emails members are getting on the triple lock. People are talking about neutrality and how this will destroy our neutrality and that we no longer will be a neutral country. I also get a lot of emails on Gaza, rightly so, and Ukraine, possibly sometimes from the same people.
What does it mean to be neutral? Do we know that? In what way are we neutral? Is it contradictory to state that we are taking away neutrality with this but at the same time we should not be neutral on other conflicts around the world? If the triple lock is removed, will Ireland no longer be a neutral country? Do we even know what it means when we say Ireland is a neutral country at the moment? Can Ms Maguire provide examples over the past 11 years where we have been prevented from sending peacekeepers because of the triple lock and the veto within the Security Council? Are there certain conflict areas around the world that we would like to send peacekeepers, but we know there is no point even attempting because of the veto?
Earlier she mentioned that we would be governed or guided by principles within the Treaty on European Union possibly around the rule of law, democracy, etc. Can she expand on those and what their role would be in the event that this legislation is passed? The argument was made earlier - it is the extreme in this debate - that a simple Dáil majority could send any number of Irish troops anywhere in the world at any point in time. I believe that argument comes with the contention it would be unacceptable. Does the logic not follow from this that we should retain the triple lock? This logic suggests it is a bad thing to trust our politicians in this country, regardless of whether there is any precedent about trusting them when it comes to peacekeeping. It also suggests that we should instead allow our country to continue to be hamstrung when it comes to peacekeeping missions by the likes of Putin, Trump or Xi Jinping.
Ms Bernie Maguire:
I will start with that past 11 years and what has been prevented. The Deputy can come back in if I have missed some of the questions. We mentioned earlier that in 2015 there was an EU operation, Operation Sophia, relating to the Mediterranean and the humanitarian crisis that was happening there. We were interested in participating in that but we could not because there was no UN Mandate. We put in place a bilateral mission with Italy. It was difficult. It was challenging at the time. It did not have any legislative basis other than it was an agreement with Italy. We had to wait until there was a UN Mandate in 2016 and we then joined that mission. That is an example. In 2017, the then head of the MAOC (N), which is the Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre for Narcotics in Lisbon, was the former Garda assistant commissioner, Michael O'Sullivan. He asked us to consider engaging the Naval Service in operations with the agency. We did not get further than saying sorry, that is not permitted under our current legislative framework. They are just two recent ones. We spoke earlier about the current difficulties we have in the missions we are already in.
Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Are there areas in the world where we probably would be sending troops but we are not even attempting to so do? Are there areas where we are asking what is the point because we know we will not succeed and not that we are attempting and failing?
Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Will we no longer be a neutral country if we remove the triple lock?
Ms Bernie Maguire:
I do not believe our neutrality is impacted. As we discussed earlier, we are not going to become a member of an international organisation that we are not already a member of. That is already in our legislation and we are bringing it forward to consolidate it in this legislation. The Government has reiterated repeatedly that we are not changing our policy of military neutrality, which is non-aligned, it is non-military alliance.
Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Does the triple lock prevent us from joining some of those other organisations Ms Maguire said we would not be joining by removing the triple lock?
Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
When I asked if we would no longer be a neutral country, the witness mentioned that this legislation would not result in us joining other international organisations whatever ones they might be. Would the triple lock, as it currently stands, prevent us from joining any of those other organisations?
Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The witness mentioned earlier about how the principles of the Treaty on the European Union would guide where we would be sending peacekeepers in the event of no longer having the triple lock.
Ms Bernie Maguire:
These are democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law. That is already part of how the Union considers any EU operations. It is fundamentally part of that.
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I wish to mention, just as Senator Gallagher did, about today being the day the United Nations marks the international day of UN peacekeepers. It is a day that honours the dedication, bravery and sacrifice of any UN peacekeeper. I wish to pay tribute to our Irish men and women who are currently serving and who have served in the past at home and abroad. They brought honour and integrity to the reputation of Irish peacekeepers overseas. This year's theme of the international day of the peacekeeper is the future of peacekeeping. It reflects the evolving nature of peace operations in a complex world. With that in mind, I have a few questions. Will the proposed changes to the triple lock apply only to peacekeepers or to peace enforcing missions also?
Ms Bernie Maguire:
That would apply to both. What is known as chapter 6, is peacekeeping under the UN Charter and chapter 7 is peace enforcement. There is a generic term of peacekeeping we use. We have peacekeepers. They are out in Lebanon peacekeeping. Within that, chapter 6 is the peacekeeping element and there is also peace enforcement. We have participated in several peace enforcement missions over the years, the most recent one being in Mali with MINUSMA in 2023.
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The witness mentioned that if this proposed legislation goes through, all deployments will have to be in accordance with international law. What principles of international law relate specifically to peacekeepers and do they differ from peace enforcers? When we consider the deployment of our troops, do we look at peacekeepers and enforcers in the same way?
Ms Bernie Maguire:
The principles of international law refer to the consent of the parties. Peacekeeping missions must operate within the consent of the host nation and conflicting parties ensuring the legitimacy and support of the mission. Impartiality is also a principle. Peacekeepers are required to remain neutral, unbiased and to engage in activities that do not favour one side or the other.
As for the use of force, peacekeeping forces should primarily engage in peacekeeping operations and should only use force in self-defence or to protect civilians against imminent threat. With peace enforcement, there is not always the consent of the parties. That is the key difference. Where the lives of civilians are at stake, the UN or the EU will make a decision that a peace-enforcement mission should be launched.
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Any deployment of our troops will be fully in line with this. There seems to be an idea on the part of the general public that if we disband or remove the triple lock, our young people will be deployed overseas into war-like situations. That view has been expressed to me, and not just in emails. To be very clear, if the triple lock is removed, any missions our troops partake in will be fully in accordance with international law. If it is a peacekeeping role, the mission will be with the agreement of all the parties involved with us. If it is an enforcement role, while that may change the situation slightly, it will still be in accordance with the strictest aspects of international law. Is that correct?
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Ms Maguire. To follow up on what Deputy O'Meara said, neutrality seems to get conflated all the time. To confirm very clearly, will the removal of the triple lock remove our military neutrality as a State?
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Some people might question why we are rushing through this proposed legislation.
Ms Bernie Maguire:
There is not a rush, as such. This has been ongoing since 2023, when the then Tánaiste and current Taoiseach, Deputy Martin, instructed officials to start looking at this issue. Both the triple lock and the numbers we can deploy overseas were a big focus during the consultative forum on international security policy in June 2023. Those two matters were included in the report by Professor Dame Louise Richardson. The then Tánaiste, when he brought this matter before the Dáil in late 2023, agreed that he would bring forward changes to the triple lock. The work has been ongoing. There is no rush, as such.
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What I take from that is that there has been prolonged, careful consideration of this proposed legislation.
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is there a plan to join an EU army? That question has been levelled at me. What is Ms Maguire’s response to that question?
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Changing or removing the triple lock does not mean we are sleepwalking into joining an EU army or anything like that.
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
All of my questions have been answered. I thank Ms Maguire.
Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Like colleagues, I welcome Ms Maguire and her team. I thank them for their input so far. Most of the questions I wished to ask have already been answered.
I would like to begin by acknowledging, as Senator Gallagher and Deputy Callaghan did, that today is International Day of United Nations Peacekeepers. It is worth noting that since 1958, Ireland is the only country that has had a continuous involvement in United Nations-mandated missions. I would like that to continue for the foreseeable future.
I am seeking clarification regarding the triple lock. Is a simple Government majority all that is required to send up to 50 soldiers abroad if the triple lock is removed? Is that correct?
Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is a simple majority. A majority of one is all that would be required.
Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
As a Member of the Seanad, I would like to see the Seanad involved in any such decision. Is there a constitutional difficulty with that?
Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I would be very much proposing that Seanad Éireann has an input into any decision to deploy troops overseas if the triple lock is changed in any way. I look forward to more detailed discussion on this matter. Later, we will be discussing various people to bring before the committee. In another part of the general scheme, there is a proposal to change to the court martial process. Is that what Ms Maguire said?
Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This relates to the suspension or dismissal of members of the Defence Forces who are convicted of serious crimes. Can Ms Maguire enlighten the committee further on these proposals?
Ms Clare Tiernan:
I thank the Senator. The general scheme contains a proposal to introduce powers of suspension into the Defence Forces. Those powers currently are not there. This is something the Chief of Staff has sought. It has come about through the Ward report as well, which was published last December. The heads of the Bill set out the broad principles of suspension. The criteria that will apply will be set out in regulations. It provides regulation-making powers. In respect of the court martial, the purpose of that head is to provide timelines. It sets out clearly that if someone is appealing a court martial, the timeline is 28 days. It is a process matter rather than a substantive change.
Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Have the representative bodies been consulted about these proposed changes?
Ms Clare Tiernan:
Both matters are in the disciplinary space, which is outside the scope of representation. We kept the representative associations informed that the general scheme had been published. We will keep them informed as the process develops. It is in the disciplinary space, however. It is outside the scope of representation.
Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Will Ms Maguire indicate if the representative bodies or any entities outside the Department have been consulted regarding the proposed changes to the triple lock?
Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is very much internal governmental and departmental consultation.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Now I will take three minutes from each of the non-members before we go into the second round from the members. I just ask you to be conscious of the time you have been allocated. I do value and welcome your interest in the subject we are talking about. I will start with Deputy Gibney.
Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I really appreciate the opportunity, and many thanks to the witnesses for their contributions this morning. I have a few specific questions but I will start by picking up on comments Ms Maguire has made about that connection between neutrality and the triple lock. In her answers to Deputy O'Meara, she said that it is not impacted. Is that really the Department's line, that neutrality will not be at all impacted should we remove the triple lock? I appreciate there are policy position differences between what I would see as an integral relationship, but does Ms Maguire really think there is no impact to be made on our neutrality as a State by removing the triple lock?
Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Because I have only two minutes, could Ms Maguire answer just that specific question?
Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
She does not see that it is impacted at all. Okay.
According to the 2006 defence Act:
" International United Nations Force " means an international force or body established, mandated, authorised, endorsed, supported, approved or otherwise sanctioned by a resolution of the Security Council or the General Assembly ...
In light of that, Ms Maguire has said that the GA mandates are not legally binding to compel actions. However, it is clear from the provisions of the 2006 Act that they can satisfy the mandate requirement for a UN mission or another mission that we want to participate in with UN sanction. Can Ms Maguire simply clarify that the Department is aware that this is the case?
Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Great. The draft Bill says that any international force needs to be for peacekeeping, conflict prevention or strengthening international security - I have a few questions about this - and to be "consistent with the principles of the United Nations Charter". Can Ms Maguire define what it means to strengthen international security, and who interprets that?
Ms Bernie Maguire:
We have had a discussion here about the principles of international law, and those principles will form part of the text of the Bill in order that they will be there in legislation for current and future governments and Members of Parliament to refer to so they will be embedded in our legislation.
Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
"Strengthening international security" is the specific phrase I want a definition on. Perhaps that is something Ms Maguire can follow up on.
My final two questions on that point are as follows. Why does it say "consistent with the principles of the UN Charter" and not "consistent with the UN Charter"? Is it because under the Charter the Security Council and the GA are the competent bodies to sanction international forces and international military interventions? Can Ms Maguire offer any independent, objective benchmarks on that definition?
Ms Bernie Maguire:
My understanding is that it is because there is the UN Charter as a whole and then within it there are peacekeeping principles as well, so when we refer to those principles, we are referring to the consent of the parties, the impartiality and the non-use of force. There are principles around that.
Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
"The UN Charter" could work, essentially. Is it because that does not allow for us to remove the triple lock? I suppose that is essentially what I am asking.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will have to cut it at that - sorry - but we will take up those very involved questions. I call Senator Alice-Mary Higgins.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It just strikes me that the phrase we have been hearing consistently is that it does not impact neutrality, but from a very narrow definition of neutrality, which, as I understand, seems to be simply that we would not join an international organisation we are not already members of. I do not think that is the understanding of neutrality that many would have. I was surprised by the phrase "not neutral on Ukraine". I have also heard "not neutral on the International Criminal Court". We precisely are neutral, and that is why we support Ukraine when they are being impacted by breaches of international law. We support the International Criminal Court in its universal application. Neutrality is not a counterpoint to action; neutrality, in fact, is the basis on which we have been acting effectively in fulfilling that other part of our Constitution. We have had a lot of discussion of the power to declare war, and I am surprised to hear that this whole Bill is envisaged as flowing from that, whereas, actually, Article 39 is about the specific settlement of international disputes. People are genuinely concerned that that impetus from our Constitution may be compromised in its efficacy or in its spirit by the proposals here. When we talk about neutrality, that is something I see as part of our neutrality, not simply non-membership.
Perhaps Ms Maguire can confirm a number of things. She referred to non-membership. She has envisaged that we would be participating potentially in NATO-led forces. She mentioned that. Is it the case that if there were a future "coalition of the willing", which is of course not an organisation, either of those would fall under and be allowed under this Bill?
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
With a UN mandate, but a NATO-led mission without a UN mandate would be possible under this.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
And a "coalition of the willing", such as we have seen in the past, could be-----
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I suppose that is where we are looking because we do not see a legal framework in the Bill. Ms Maguire mentioned strengthening international security. As regards the enforcement and that question of a legal framework, if any individual is concerned that action is taking place in breach of international law, what is it within the Bill that will allow them to take action on it? How is it enforced?
I am concerned. I have two further questions here. First, Ms Maguire mentioned that, in terms of ensuring applicability of international law, we might look to the leaders of a mission, be it the EU or NATO. Similarly, we know there is the legislation from 2021, brought through by the then Minister, Mr. Coveney, which allows for Irish forces to be commanded by other things. That was very interesting in terms of the idea of 50. Fifty means we would be beyond 33, which is a brigade, and we would be into the space of a company, where you would have, for example, 50 soldiers potentially being part of 120 company commanded by someone else. Again, it is not clear. Where will the determinations around compatability with international law be assessed not just at the beginning but on an ongoing basis? We know-----
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have to cut you off. I am sorry.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This is just a final thing. We know with a UN mission that there is a process in terms of a special committee on peacekeeping operations that monitors. There is an assessment beforehand. What is the equivalent of that in this scenario?
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Sorry. I am afraid I have to cut you off from there. I ask you to maybe provide a written answer to Senator Higgins's question. I am conscious of time. I want to get in Deputy Paul Murphy for his three minutes before we go to the second round.
Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Ms Maguire for the presentation.
If this were the legal framework in place in 2003, could the Irish Government, if it wanted to and it had the support of a majority in the Dáil, have sent troops to Iraq?
Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context
No, I am asking, could it have sent troops to Iraq?
Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context
No. Exactly. That is the point.
Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not want a future government to be able to send Irish troops abroad in a "coalition of the willing", in an imperialist invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan or any other country. I think that is a reason many people will oppose this.
Second, to follow up on Deputy Gibney's question, can Ms Maguire confirm that under the current legal framework, even though a UN General Assembly resolution is not legally binding, it does satisfy our requirements for the triple lock?
Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Was Ms Maguire in the Department in 2006 when the legislation was changed?
Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Of course. Can she outline the rationale for that 2006 amendment? The arguments now being used to abolish the triple lock were used then with the Defence (Amendment) Act. It explicitly was so that the UN General Assembly could be used because of the veto.
Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It was dealing with the veto.
Ms Bernie Maguire:
Yes, and that is legally provided for, but the practice is very different, fortunately. Again, we referred to this earlier. I think 1956 was the year of the last General Assembly when that was used - a different environment - and where you had the P5 on board.
The environment provided for it.
Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The point about the principles of the UN Charter is significant. It means Article 2 rather than the UN Charter as a whole. Ms Maguire said earlier it is about peacekeeping. Is she saying that the UN Charter does then not cover anything? We are not bound by the UN Charter, if we are sending troops for "strengthening international security"?
Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is not the principles of international law; it is the principles of the UN Charter.
Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is just a reference.
Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Ms Maguire said earlier it is about peacekeeping. This provides for sending troops abroad not on peacekeeping missions but on international security missions.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We have to move to the permanent members. First on the list is Senator Craughwell. If we can keep it to two minutes and one question, if at all possible.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I want to move away from the triple lock and turn to the Ward report. The Peter Ward report has clearly exonerated a fine military officer who was forced to go to court in Limerick to give a report on the Crotty case. Senior politicians in this House criticised and damned that officer to hell. I see in the heads of Bill we are talking-----
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is not relevant to the discussion today.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is when I come on to the suspension issue, which is part of the Bill we are discussing today.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Well, maybe just talk to the Bill rather than whatever.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Who or what will be suspending authority? Will the legislation make provisions to safeguard natural justice for alleged wrongdoing? I noted one of the things referred to is the best interests of the Defence Forces. Who decides those questions? As for fair procedures for someone alleged of wrongdoing, will they be taken care off? Will the Department's representatives confirm that local leave will no longer be used inappropriately or erroneously to deal with issues similar to the Crotty case?
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
They are rather lengthy questions. The Department might submit a written answer to the committee on those as well. Ms. Tiernan can refer to them in the time allotted and then submit a written answer.
Ms Clare Tiernan:
With regard to the questions on the suspending authority, best interests, and fair procedures, the Senator can see from the head that the procedures that are going to apply will be set out in regulations. They will be set out in detail and the Bill is very much about fair procedures and ensuring fair procedures for all involved. The suspending authority will also be set out in regulation. It will take account of who it will be and the length of time that the person can be suspended for, as well as the escalation mechanism-----
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Has the Department engaged with RACO and PDFORRA on this at this stage.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The witnesses may submit a written answer to the rest of the question.
Maeve O'Connell (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will ask a couple of questions on the Ward report, which is quite extensive. First, has the Department engaged with the relevant representative bodies on it? I have a specific question on the change in reporting requirements whereby all offences that normally are required to be reported to An Garda Síochána will be required to be reported to An Garda Síochána going forward. I seek clarity on who carries out that reporting. Is it only the commanding officer? Must a serving person now report to the commanding officer and then the commanding officer reports to the Garda? What would be the consequences were an individual serving member to report something that is required to be reported directly to the Garda?
Ms Clare Tiernan:
On reporting to the Garda, certain offences were already set out in legislation introduced in 2024. These are in the rape, sexual assault and serious sexual assault space. That is already provided for in legislation. If we are talking about an individual notifying his or her commanding officer that he or she is under investigation or charged or before the courts, it is to his or her commanding officer that he or she will be reporting. The heads, as set out here, also make regulation enabling provisions so that the specifics of how that is managed, while ensuring fair procedures, are set out in regulation. It is very clear for a commanding officer if something is reported to him or her what his or her options are, how he or she addresses it, and how he or she takes it forward.
Maeve O'Connell (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There is no option for an individual to report?
Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the witnesses for all the answers they have provided. Some of the questions have been difficult but they have been clear in their answers. I agree with Senator Kyne to an extent that there are elements of the triple lock that are problematic for now. However, this is not modifying the triple lock; it is simply removing it. Deputy Ryan O'Meara asked if politicians should always be trusted without a safeguard. Ideally, yes, but without any malice, we have had Governments engage in disastrous decisions, during the Celtic tiger and during the austerity years. Government can make mistakes. Is there a safeguard in the amendment that replaces the triple lock that gives us some kind of barrier against that risk?
Finally, Ms Maguire mentioned each mission would be assessed on the principles of international law and that there is a community of decision-makers and experts between the Departments of Defence and foreign affairs, the Department of the Taoiseach or whoever. Are they not the community of decisions-makers that has overseen the complete and utter collapse of our defence in the maritime, air, cyber and ground domains? How can we rely on that community of decision-makers, given the state the Defence Forces are in? We are Europe's weakest link with regards to our maritime, air, ground and cyber security. This is not personal to the witnesses. It is a situation they have inherited, unfortunately. With that type of decision-making, is there anything in this legislation that replaces the safeguards, however faulty they are, that are contained in the triple lock?
Ms Bernie Maguire:
The safeguards are as we spoke about in respect of international law and the UN Charter and out into the legislation. We are only at the heads stage here. We have a long way to go before we have a Bill going through the Houses. If there are safeguards the Senator thinks would be worth including, we would be interested in seeing them.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I had intended to raise the issue of air traffic control and the Air Corps but it probably is outside the remit. Nevertheless, I would appreciate the witnesses coming back before us to address it in the short term. I have two quick questions. First, is this urgent legislation in the Department’s view?
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Important and urgent are maybe slightly different things. I also wanted to ask about the Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre, Narcotics. I think we all support the reform of the Defence Forces and having adequate safeguards in terms of drug interdiction missions. In my view, it is primarily a justice and home affairs type of issue but military personnel may be needed from a security point of view.
I am not clear on why the triple lock interferes with that. Could Ms Maguire articulate that for me?
Ms Bernie Maguire:
Currently, as it stands, if we were asked to send personnel or a ship, that would have to come under the triple lock. We have no means of doing it in any other way. At the moment, members of the Naval Service go out to the centre in Lisbon but we are not deploying assets or a contingent as we would for a UN peacekeeping mission. It is the same principle. We do not have another legislative basis to provide for it.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
So that may be an area that requires legislative amendment. In this legislation, is that happening separate to the change to the triple lock or is it just assumed that the change to the triple lock will address it?
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is appropriate. It is what this Bill should have been about.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Ms Maguire. Could she follow up with a written answer to any of the questions that have not been answered fully?
I call on Deputies Stanley and Brabazon.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I support the view put forward on building up the Defence Forces. Unfortunately, they are in a poor shape and we must build up their capability if we are going to be a neutral country.
I wish to go back again to the mandate of the UN General Assembly. Ms Maguire indicated in reply to some questions that it would satisfy the rules on deployment. Could she clarify that? She seemed to indicate that very strongly on two occasions.
As far as I am concerned, a solemn declaration was made to the Irish people. We were given a commitment 23 or 24 years ago that the triple lock was a guarantee. From a political point of view, that causes problems for us. I feel betrayed by what is currently being proposed. Has there been much discussion at departmental or interdepartmental level or with Ministers on whether this legislation may be challenged and require a referendum to pass? What is Ms Maguire's view on that? What is the situation at official level in that regard?
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is okay, but it is there.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Or if we decided to push it and use it - if Ireland proposes that we use it, which we have not done.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is a judgment. What about the other question on the referendum?
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The time is up. Perhaps again Ms Maguire could submit a written response.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Could I have just 20 seconds for a response?
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The adoption of the Constitution in the 1930s was a political decision.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Okay. I thank Deputy Stanley. I call Deputy Brabazon.
Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have a couple of supplementary questions that arise from the information Ms Maguire has given us this morning.
Would it be possible for the Government to arrange for five or six separate approvals, as opposed to one, for example, to send up to 50 troops abroad?
I have mocked up a type of wording in a completely hypothetical way. For example, if the Constitution states that the State shall be militarily neutral and it shall not be lawful for the State to join any military alliance, alignment or force, save peacekeeping or security missions mandated by the United Nations, would the current proposal to abolish the triple lock offend such a provision of the Constitution?
I was concerned on reading through the Ward report on that part of the legislation about the point that a statutory obligation is imposed on a member of the Defence Forces to inform his or her commanding officer of charges in the civil courts in respect of certain criminal matters. The phrase, ignorance of the law does not excuse, comes to mind, but it does not mean people are not ignorant of the legal provisions. Perhaps we should impose a duty on An Garda Síochána, the DPP or the Courts Service to inform commanders in the Defence Forces that a charge has been proffered against one of their members. That would be an important step to deal with the gap that exists.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Deputy Brabazon for his contribution. Within the two minutes there is not time to get a response. Ms Maguire might again address it in writing.
I will take Senator Kyne before I allow for closing remarks.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am interested in Senator Clonan's points about safeguarding. Is there any other mechanism, formula or process within the UN whereby there could be a form of safeguarding to maintain some protection or satisfaction so that the UN has a role?
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am just trying to tease it out. The issue here is the P5 veto. Is there any other mechanism or "safeguard" to use Senator Clonan's words, that could be incorporated in the Bill whereby there is a resolution that is supported by a supermajority? If a particular mission is being debated at the United Nations and everyone other than Russia is supportive, is there any safeguarding that could be suggested in such a scenario?
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is there an intermediary proposal that would give some comfort and ensure the UN has a role? We all support the principles of the United Nations but not the veto. Is there any intermediary?
Ms Bernie Maguire:
If it does not have the full approval of the Security Council, it is not an approved mission. Perhaps this could be explored further in the work the committee will do in the coming weeks, including with the UN. I do not know how there could be a mission without the support of the Security Council.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Or a motion of the General Assembly.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
For accuracy, a General Assembly resolution satisfies our interpretation.
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am stressing this for accuracy.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
These issues are all very important. I thank everybody for their contributions. There are some written responses required to questions that some members did not get to put today. I ask the witnesses to answer them in writing. Senators Craughwell and Higgins in particular had questions. We may have to invite the departmental officials in again as more questions will arise when we have other witnesses in.
I acknowledge that today is International Day of United Nations Peacekeepers. Like others, I pay tribute to the defence services, who play a vital role overseas.
Very important questions have been asked here today on the urgency of the legislation and about the numbers and the impact on neutrality. That is the Government's official stance on its impact. There are inconsistencies with the principles of the UN Charter. If this legislation is brought forward, we could be in a situation whereby, retrospectively, we could have sent troops to Iraq. Is that the case? If the decision had been made, could we have sent troops to Iraq? That is quite alarming.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am very conscious that the meeting was to be for two hours. I thank Mr. O'Meara, Ms Maguire, Ms Tiernan and Ms Burke very much for their contributions today. We will now go into private session.