Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 12, 43, 48 and 51 together.

I will outline the policy rationale. First, I would mention the electoral commitment. I promised the people of Ireland, when I ran in a general election, that if I were elected to government, I intended to do this and I intend to keep my promises. It was in my party’s manifesto. I think it was in our partner’s party manifesto. It is in the programme for Government and we intend to act on it. We put it before the people as a proposition in our manifesto. We are in government with a mandate from the people and I intend to deliver on that mandate.

Under the UN Charter, the UN Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Shame on the council, by the way, for not being able to even pass a motion on Gaza in recent days. It is not working. It is letting the world down and letting the people of Gaza down. As this House will be aware, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council can use their veto power to prevent the Security Council from taking decisions, including those related to mandates for peace operations. We have seen this illustrated most recently last week, where a UN Security Council resolution simply calling for an unconditional ceasefire in Gaza was vetoed. In practice, even the threat of a veto by a permanent member, rather than its actual use, is often enough to prevent the council from taking action. We have seen this on many occasions in the recent past, including in respect of the conflicts in Ukraine as well as in the Middle East.

This untenable situation has led the Government to the decision that we need to change the legislation that governs how we despatch our Defence Forces overseas. The programme for Government clearly sets out this Government’s intention to reform the triple lock legislation and this is intended to be done while also ensuring that amendments to the legislation are in keeping with our values and policy of military neutrality. I reiterate, as I did earlier, that I want to work with people on that. We have vastly differing views on the triple lock - I respect that difference – but I want the legislation to look at how we can ensure that we are in keeping with our values and policy of military neutrality. It cannot be emphasised enough that we have no desire to alter our policy of military neutrality. The proposed amendments to the legislation are in keeping with Ireland’s values and policy in this regard. As this House is aware, Ireland’s policy of military neutrality is characterised by the non-membership of military alliances or common or mutual defence arrangements. These legislative proposals have no effect on this policy.

Having regard to the current ineffectiveness of the UN Security Council and the outcome of the consultative forum on international security in June 2023, the Government approved the proposals to bring forward the general scheme of the defence (amendment) Bill to govern overseas deployments into the future. The proposed changes will ensure that our legislation is fully up to date and fit for purpose. By making the changes proposed, we will be removing the veto power of Security Council members over Ireland’s international engagement, thereby allowing us to reinforce our sovereignty and have the Government and the Dáil make a decision to despatch the Defence Forces overseas.

To address the question raised by Deputy O’Rourke and to clear up any misconceptions: the Bill proposes to amend the legislation on how Ireland deploys its troops overseas, both on peace operations as part of an international force and overseas for purposes other than as part of an international force. These include, for example, evacuation operations of Irish citizens abroad, which have become sadly more frequent due to the volatile geopolitical situation.

These provisions are separate to the triple lock provisions. There are people in this House who vehemently oppose the removal of the triple lock who are in favour of some of those provisions. I do not wish to conflate them and they should not be conflated. I think they got a little conflated during pre-legislative scrutiny. There are separate provisions here, namely, the triple lock provisions and those providing clarity on, for example, evacuation operations of Irish citizens. I want to be truthful and clear on that.

As I said in response to Deputy Gibney some moments ago, I am open to refining the legislation and want to do so. Pre-legislative scrutiny is not just something to go through to tick a box. It is about how we make this legislation have the safeguards that Members of this House want, how we make sure the UN Charter, which we value, is at the heart of all that we do and how we look at things such as human rights monitoring.

These are all good things that we should do. We have produced guiding principles in the draft legislation around being welcomed by the host country and the likes. We need to determine whether people think such measures are robust enough. A scrutiny process is under way and is expected to last around eight weeks. Following its conclusion, it is intended to draft a Bill to go to Government for approval and I hope to bring it through the various Stages of the Oireachtas.

I will want to provide ample opportunity to scrutinise and debate the content of the Bill and work constructively. No one has done this today, but I ask that we do not reduce every conversation to asking about military neutrality. Quite a number of militarily neutral countries have no triple lock. There are many ways in which a country can be militarily neutral and not have a triple lock. People in Ireland, including me, have a deep love of our military neutrality and want to be militarily unaligned. It is clear that the people of Ireland have an overwhelming desire for that.

However, I also think they understand the need to reform the current structures. As I said, we have troops in Lebanon today doing brilliant and amazing work. It is the longest unbroken commitment to peacekeeping. I am very proud our troops are doing that under a UN mandate. What is the view of those opposed to these changes if that mandate is not renewed this autumn? There is no discussion on this, but hypothetically, if Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin or anybody else decided, for whatever reason, not to renew the mandate at the UN Security Council, is the view that Irish peacekeepers should not continue their excellent work in Lebanon? That is not my view, but is it the view of the House? I say that to be constructive. These are the real-life things we may have to tease our way through in the time ahead.

See this speech in context