Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I commend the Minister on the very welcome publication of the paper. I also welcome the fact that he is consulting the Dáil before bringing his proposals to the Cabinet. I wish to raise two aspects of the paper, namely, funding and the triple lock. Recently, a Member of the House put forward a neutrality Bill which we debated here. During the debate, a Member welcomed the fact that defence spending in Europe was decreasing. The point was made from an anti-war stance, which is a valid and appropriate point of view, given that no one is in favour of war. The Member was probably also speaking as someone who was against the perceived American military complex or war-mongering machine, which is also a valid point of view for those who hold it. If one holds this point of view, however, the decrease in defence spending in Europe is a bad thing in that it makes us more dependent on others, such as the US, for our defence and less able to influence what they do in the name of our defence and in what they perceive to be our defence. From recent history, we know how often such perceptions can be wrong.

Europe and Ireland should spend more on defence such that we can decide how best to deal with the challenges and threats that are emerging in our continent and beyond. This requires responsibility on our part. The challenges we see today require defence spending, the kind of spending that buys boats and helicopters, such as those that are doing such good work in the Mediterranean to save lives. I commend the crew of the LE Eithnewho are doing such brave work. It is fantastic the Taoiseach and Minister sent these personnel abroad on our behalf to do such good work for the people there. We must recognise our responsibilities in the world and in our continent and allocate our resources appropriately. It is good to know the increase in spending in 2015 for our Defence Forces compared with 2014. Perhaps, this level of funding will stabilise at an even higher level. Deputy Heydon referred to it. I do not know the appropriate amount of defence spending for a country of our size that is as active abroad in peacekeeping and other missions as we are. I assume it is higher, and I hope the Minister can work towards a higher figure in the years to come.

Some contributors have questioned whether we need the Defence Forces. We can no longer submit to the free rider problem in our security. We must make investments, have policy and recognise we have a responsibility regarding traditional threats. There are threats on the eastern borders of Europe to our friends, allies and neighbours in which we might have to share in the responsibility of dealing with them, one hopes politically. We do not know what will happen in the future or what it might mean. The advantage of geography is no longer meaningful. The first line of defence no longer stands against traditional threats or asymmetric threats such as cyberterrorism or terrorism by groups that do not recognise state borders or governments. It is encouraging that the White Paper recognises all this and makes commitments on it.

We have had discussions on the triple lock and I tabled parliamentary questions last year and since we were elected. We should end the triple lock. It is not a responsible position to take as an independent country. It is not about wanting to go off on unilateral adventures abroad. It is about recognising that there may be missions in Europe or close to Europe that are justified and in which we have a responsibility to engage but which certain members of the Security Council may veto. Given that the Security Council is not a democratic body, I do not understand why we would outsource our foreign policy to it. We must take ownership of it once more. It would not prohibit us from being involved in UN-led missions or leading them. However, I do not agree that we should not participate in missions, perhaps in the EU, without the consent of the Security Council which could be blocked by one of the members.

It is great to see the expertise we employ abroad, particularly in conflict zones and in relation to improvised explosive devices, and it should be continued and encouraged. I support all the plans in that regard. I mentioned neutrality, as did other speakers. The concept of active neutrality is a complete nonsense. Ireland should jettison any pretence of neutrality, as I have previously said in the House. It is meaningless as a concept, I cannot find any previous example in history in which it has worked, and it is not a responsible position to take in the modern world.

See this speech in context