Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Go raibh maith agaibh. First, I thank the witnesses for their service over many years. While I do not agree with everything contained in their statements their contributions were very considerable and quite remarkable. They have clearly led very distinguished careers and the committee is very grateful.

There is a bit of a talking point, more generally, about whether the triple lock is or is not a threat to neutrality. Some people have tried to dismiss this entirely and say the triple lock is irrelevant to military neutrality. That is very clearly not the case. The triple lock is legislation that governs the deployment of troops into the future. It is a different statement to say that ultimately the triple lock is not a threat because that is a question of whether in the final estimation of the institutions, the decisions are taken and so on.

I do think it is valid to suggest that it is not the removal of the triple lock. If the triple lock was to be removed in the morning, Irish neutrality would occupy much the same place. The issue is the question of what missions could conceivably then be deployed and what implications would the deployment of such missions have for military neutrality. It is not the action itself, it is the door it opens. It was made very clear by officials from the Department of Defence that had there not been a triple lock and had not the Government of the time been so-minded - and they were not so-minded, obviously - to deploy troops to Iraq, for example, it would have been possible to do so. It is very clear that there is a very wide scope to this.

Even people who have supported the removal of the triple lock on this committee, such as Professor Ben Tonra and Dr. Edward Burke, have suggested that even with the removal of the triple lock, they would be concerned there are not adequate safeguards. For example, the figure of 50 is not subject to enough scrutiny. Professor Tonra made the point, which I think is interesting, that missions can change in scope and nature. Consequently, if there is no potential for review of the permission further down the line, once given, the nature of the mission could potentially change. Even though I accept the witnesses all support removing the triple lock, do they have any reservations about the lack of safeguards? For example, some people suggested legal review and different forms of scrutiny in the absence of the triple lock protection.