Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to talk today about the State's approach to international security. This is my first time to address the House in detail on the outcome of the Consultative Forum on International Security Policy since it took place in June this year. I thank the many colleagues who participated in the sessions, particularly those from the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. I also pay tribute to the many members of the public who took the time to attend, watch online or to submit views in writing. It was my intention when launching this process to start a national conversation and I believe we successfully did so.

The forum was ably chaired by Professor Louise Richardson, who brought her extensive academic expertise to bear and managed the proceedings over the four days with grace and skill. Professor Richardson's report was published a number of weeks ago. Having reflected on its findings, I wish to address the future direction of our international security policy.

When I first addressed the Dáil on the subject of a consultative forum last May, I set out the security landscape that we face, focusing on the implications of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia, for European security more broadly, as well as for our own security in Ireland. In the intervening period, the situation in Israel and Gaza, in the aftermath of the heinous terror attack by Hamas on 7 October, is bringing untold suffering to far too many civilians, including children, and has ramifications across the region and beyond.

Although the subject of today's discussion is not the Middle East, I want to outline the core principles underlying the Government's position. The Middle East peace process has long been close to the hearts of the Irish people. However, it is also striking how the current situation has touched us so directly. We tragically lost one of our own citizens, Kim Damti, in the attack on 7 October. Emily Hand, an Irish-Israeli nine-year old, whose father Tom and sister Natali I met in Dublin last week, is still a hostage in Gaza. The Department of Foreign Affairs has been working tirelessly to support Irish citizens in Gaza, and my own visit to Egypt, Israel and Palestine last week saw the exit of just over 50 citizens and dependants through the Rafah crossing. They are now back in Ireland and my Department will continue to support the small number of citizens and immediate dependents remaining. Members of our Defence Forces also continue to bravely contribute, in increasingly challenging circumstances, to peacekeeping efforts in the region, particularly on the border between Israel and Lebanon.

Across the world, including in Ireland, instances of hate speech, disinformation, Islamophobia and antisemitism have been increasing, especially online. There is no doubt that the Government's response to this crisis has been shaped, and indeed aided, by many of the areas highlighted during the forum. I refer to our commitment to promoting international law and ensuring accountability. I also refer to our commitment to the United Nations and multilateralism and our commitment to humanitarianism and peacekeeping. These are the values that underpin our response to this crisis. Moreover, these are the values that we apply equally to all crises. I assure the House that this has been acknowledged and appreciated by our partners in the region during my intensive engagement over the past six weeks.

These events also offer a clear illustration, if illustration were needed, of the importance of a strong and independent Irish foreign policy. Professor Richardson's report makes clear that there is a striking degree of consensus on many aspects of Ireland's international engagement. This is important. It is too easy to highlight divisions, encourage polarisation and play politics with foreign, security and defence policy issues, but these issues, at this time, are far too important for that, so let us start with what we agree on.

First, a theme that came though very strongly in the forum was that Ireland should continue to be active in the maintenance of international peace and security by supporting the global multilateral system, with the UN Charter at its heart, and by continuing to vocally defend international law, particularly international humanitarian law, and human rights.

Our contribution to peacebuilding has meant that we engage for the long term and that our commitment to countries affected by conflict and injustice, and to those trying to rebuild after active conflict had ended, is one that is serious and sustained. Sometimes our work is public and recognised; more often, it is below the radar. We link what we do on the ground with what we say around decision-making tables in New York, Brussels and Geneva and vice versaand we put our money where our mouth is, by investing in peace and security, and by focusing on those most vulnerable to conflict and extreme poverty.

Our engagement internationally reflects our own experience of building peace on this island. One example of this is our engagement in the peace process in Colombia, which mirrors the importance of the international support we secured for the peace process in Northern Ireland. This week, as we mark the seventh anniversary of the signing of the 2016 peace agreement with the FARC, I am particularly proud that Ireland has been acting as a guarantor for the dialogue process with the FARC-EMC, as part of the Colombian Government's "total peace" policy. Our consistent political support, engagement on issues such as human rights and women's participation, our lesson sharing as well as targeted funding, are all making a real difference on the ground.

In Ukraine, we are also working to translate political support into the practical implementation of President Zelenskyy's peace formula, which we believe offers a comprehensive approach to securing a just and lasting peace. We are engaged directly in a number of areas covered by the plan, such as nuclear safety, food security and the restoration of justice. Our own history has taught us the importance of accountability in restoring trust and building a prosperous future. Indeed, those who attended the forum will have heard directly from many Irish men and women working across multiple organisations and continents for a more peaceful and more just world.

For examples, we heard from former members of the Defence Forces, such as retired Major General Michael Beary, who has been leading a UN mission to support peace in Yemen; former senior Garda, Maura O'Sullivan, now working in Ukraine to reinforce that country's policing and rule-of-law structures; Kate Fearon, a founder member of the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition now working with the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE; Patricia Lewis, a leading expert in non-proliferation and disarmament and a recent recipient of the presidential distinguished service award; and from Renata Dwan, who has spent decades working with the UN on conflicts in Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, DRC, Mali and Syria. It is these kinds of tangible contributions that represent a real-life expression of our foreign policy values.

Our term on the UN Security Council taught us many lessons. One of the most important was that we can be most effective when our advocacy at multilateral level is informed and guided by detailed, nuanced, practical experience, working directly in communities affected by violence and conflict.

Our diplomats and military women and men need to both to be at the top tables and getting their boots muddy, and I am very proud that they are more than eager to do so. What we heard at the consultative forum is that the Irish people are proud of this work and want us to do more of it and that is what I want us to do. One practical outcome from the end of our Security Council term was the establishment of a new peace and stability unit in the Department of Foreign Affairs. This unit will develop and sustain partnerships in peace building and conflict prevention across the globe in conflict affected states. Our unique history and relationships of trust leave Ireland well placed to support partners in this regard.

A further area of agreement across virtually all speakers and contributors to the forum was the need for investment and support in our Defence Forces. When the Commission on the Defence Forces delivered its report in February 2022, it recommended significant and wide-ranging changes for the Defence Forces and defence provision in Ireland, including changes to high level structures, defence capabilities, organisation, culture, human resources and funding.

I am deeply committed to the positive transformation of our Defence Forces into a modern, agile military force, capable of responding to increasingly complex security threats. This is reflected in the Government’s approval of a high level action plan to progress the recommendations and to commit the State to move to the level of ambition 2, with a commensurate increase of the defence budget from €1.1 billion to €1.5 billion, in 2022 prices, by 2028.

The Government has followed through on this commitment by increasing spending on defence in budget 2023 and 2024. Yesterday, I published the detailed implementation plan for the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces following approval by Cabinet. It has been a priority for me that this plan is both ambitious and credible, recognising that transformation efforts of this magnitude take time and are only successful if they are built on solid foundations. This is a once in a generation transformation. I am confident that we can and will build on the strong foundations developed and realise our shared ambition for a transformed, modern, forward looking Defence Forces. This is part of our ongoing investment in our Defence Forces; in its people, infrastructure, capabilities and culture

Ireland has always played an essential role for peace, a fact tangibly demonstrated by our unbroken and distinguished involvement in UN peacekeeping since our first deployment in 1958. However, we also need to look honestly at the challenges to that engagement. We cannot ignore the systemic challenges facing the UN Security Council. That is most evident in how difficult it is to agree or renew UN peace keeping mandates, which we saw at first-hand while on the Council in 2021 and 2022. It is striking, for instance, that not a single new peacekeeping mission has been authorised by the Security Council since 2014. It is much more than that. Let us be clear that many crises the Security Council deals with never get near the stage of discussion on a peacekeeping mission or even on a comprehensive peacebuilding plan. On Ukraine, for reasons we all know, the Security Council has not even issued a statement on the issue, never mind agreed on a resolution.

On the Ethiopia question, we worked tirelessly to prevent atrocity crimes and to bring to light grave violations of international humanitarian law. While I am proud of our engagement and believe that this meant that the Security Council was ultimately able to play a role, it was never even able to agree to formally place the issue of Ethiopia on its agenda.

Let us look at what is happening now in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. It took almost six weeks after the attack by Hamas in Israel and the terrible loss of life in Gaza for the Security Council to agree a resolution calling for humanitarian pauses. The implications of this for Ireland and our current policy is simply something we have to take seriously. We cannot just revert to sound bites. We have to be honest about the fact that in respect of many of the worst crises internationally, where rapid, impartial and decisive international action is desperately needed the Security Council has not been able to act.

As matters stand, the legislation governing the despatch of contingents of the Defence Forces for overseas peace support operations ensures that these may only take place where that deployment is approved by the Government, approved by Dáil resolution if the proposed deployment is more than 12 personnel, and that the operation in question is mandated or authorised by the UN. In effect, this triple lock system hands the five permanent members of the Security Council a veto over our national sovereign decision to deploy troops to peacekeeping missions as we see fit.

Of course, as we saw over the course of the forum, there is no single consensus over how to proceed with the triple lock but we saw ample evidence of other options on how to allow agility and responsiveness while ensuring our actions comply with the highest standards of international law. It would, therefore, make sense to amend our existing legislation in a manner that would allow us to respond to crisis situations with more agility and where, in making these important decisions, we are not surrendering our sovereignty. I have, therefore, instructed officials in the Department of Defence to prepare legislative proposals without delay that would govern the future overseas deployments of our Defence Forces. These could, for example, allow us to despatch Defence Forces personnel to multilateral missions overseas where these are organised by a regional organisation such as the European Union or African Union, or where the host country is requesting such support from the international community. While these proposals may not necessarily always include a role for the Security Council, they will, of course, remain fully consistent with the principles of the UN Charter and international law. By making this change in the future, we would remove the veto power of Security Council members over Ireland's engagement, while safeguarding the essential link with international law and good governance.

During the consultative forum, many contributors also expressed a clear view in favour of working more closely with our international partners. I firmly believe we should broaden and deepen such co-operation, either where we can add value or benefit from the expertise of others. For a country of Ireland’s size, and for a country that has always been outward looking and whose foreign policy is based on partnership, it is sensible that we would look at the options available for partnership, rather than go it alone. We are already doing this successfully as active members of the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy, including through permanent structured co-operation, PESCO. Rather than some notional European army, what PESCO provides for in reality is a menu of projects that allows us to work with and learn from EU partners, in a way which is suitable and beneficial to our security needs.

The area of maritime security is an excellent example of where we are well placed to take advantage of training and capability development offered by our European partners. I am pleased that Ireland became an observer in the critical seabed infrastructure protection, CSIP, project earlier this year. However, we should go further and do more. In that spirit, we recently concluded a new individually tailored partnership programme, ITPP, through NATO’s Partnership for Peace. It should not be necessary for me to say it again but for the avoidance of doubt, let me once again be entirely clear that this Government has no intention of taking any steps towards NATO membership or altering our policy of military neutrality. That is simply not on the agenda. That being said, I have no hesitation in stating that the Partnership for Peace programme in place since 1999 has offered us valuable opportunities to enhance our defence capabilities. Importantly, the focus on interoperability of our Defence Forces has greatly facilitated Ireland’s participation in UN and EU missions overseas, including our current engagement in the Irish-Polish battalion in UNIFIL.

The latest ITPP represents an opportunity for Ireland to continue this exchange of expertise and training and broadens our engagement into new areas that will benefit Ireland. These include co-operation on cybersecurity, resilience and maritime security.

Our continued commitment to a principled, values-led foreign policy does not exclude a dedicated and clear-eyed focus on our own national security. As I have said previously, Ireland cannot rely on its geographic isolation for its security or isolate itself from world events. In fact, as the discussions at the forum clearly showed, the nature of the threats we face are unlike those we have seen before. They may include cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns that seek to undermine our social cohesion, or interference with our energy and telecommunications infrastructure. The havoc wreaked by the malicious actors who attacked the HSE in 2021 offers a salutary reminder that neutrality is no safety blanket when it comes to such threats. The response to the cyberattack also put into stark relief the essential need for close co-operation with international partners on security issues.

We have already taken important steps in recent years to bolster our national security institutions, for example, through the allocation of significant resources and capabilities to the National Cyber Security Centre. Internationally, Ireland's membership of the European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats has allowed us to take advantage of world-class training and policy development opportunities.

There was a clear consensus among contributors to the forum that it is now time to take forward the next steps that will be essential to strengthening our national security arrangements. I, therefore, make a commitment today that the Government will deliver a national security strategy in the coming months. The strategy will lay out the threat environment and clearly set out the systems and structures required to address these. It will also make reference to the development of a fully functioning national security authority to deal with the protection of European Union classified information, as well as personal and facilities security clearance, underpinned by appropriate legislation and furnished with the resources it requires.

As an island nation, the question of our maritime security is paramount. I am also announcing today our intention to develop a maritime security strategy with the necessary resourcing, accompanying legislation and decision-making systems in place. This strategy will have a particular focus on sub-sea infrastructure. It is also important that the actions and services that we deploy in support of our national security are underpinned by robust and modern legislative arrangements. Work will be progressed across government to modernise and enhance these arrangements, including with respect to information gathering and sharing, cybersecurity and, crucially, independent oversight of our security legislation.

As I have repeatedly stated, the changed geopolitical context and wider threat environment in Europe call for consideration of our approach to national and international security issues. The consultative forum offered us an opportunity to start a national conversation, one based on facts and evidence. It was a chance to bring together leading international experts to discuss the matters of security most important to us in an open manner, with the opportunity for every citizen to take part. The actions I have set out today will allow us to realise a vision of a confident and forward-looking state, one that does not shy away from playing an active role in upholding international peace and security or efforts to build peace and uphold international law. At the same time, I want to ensure that we can be proud to claim a well-resourced and highly skilled Defence Forces, with cutting-edge security infrastructure and responsive and dynamic systems to deal with whatever threats we may face. I am committed to taking this process forward and I hope my colleagues in the House will join with me in doing so.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If ever we wanted evidence that the so-called consultative forum on international security was not a genuine exercise in public debate or discourse and was, rather, an attempt by the Government to reshape public opinion, those doubts have been well and truly answered by the Tánaiste's comments today. There is clearly an agenda within government that seeks to reframe the definition of Irish neutrality and to undermine the principle of Ireland having an independent foreign policy. In my view, the forum was an exercise in attempting to advance that agenda. In that regard, I would have considered that the exercise was a failure - it was a failure because it became undone. In advance of the forum, the Tánaiste actually pre-empted any public debate by stating, almost as if it were a fact, that there was a need to deepen collaboration with NATO and he repeatedly sought to undermine the triple lock, which requires a UN mandate prior to Irish participation in overseas missions. Today, we can see why.

On the eve of the forum, an opinion poll was published which clearly showed that the vast majority of Irish people disagree with the Tánaiste and they value our neutrality. The poll, published by The Irish Times, showed that 61% of voters support Ireland's current model of neutrality and just 26% want to see it changed. There was then the welcome intervention by President Michael D. Higgins, who warned of the dangers of a drift in foreign policy and, unlike the Government, actually set out the positive legacy of an Irish foreign policy based on humanitarianism and unequivocal support for international law and the UN charter. The decision by the Tánaiste to exclude any formal role for the Opposition was not only a strategic mistake on his part, but was actually a poor way of doing business. Those of us who had the opportunity to be at each of the forum hearings endured no less than five lengthy Government speeches while Opposition representatives had to raise their hands from the floor. That is not debate or consultation.

Following all the hearings and pronouncements, what did we end up with? The chair of the forum, reflecting the views of the considerable majority of those who spoke or wrote at the forum, recognised that there is at present no public appetite for a change to the current position in respect of neutrality. From my perspective, while the forum was a failure in terms of the Government's objectives, it was not completely a wasted exercise. I attended each of the forum meetings and, on behalf of Sinn Féin, I made a considered written submission. While the panels were not as balanced as I would have liked, each contribution was valid, even those I would consider to be fundamentally wrong.

The forum has also presented a challenge to those of us on the left and others who value our neutrality. While we have always been very good at articulating what we are opposed to, and that is important, we have not always been as effective as we should be in setting out the positive and constructive role that neutrality can help Ireland to play internationally. I have outlined to this House previously that Sinn Féin's vision is for Ireland to play a constructive role in the wider world, committed to diplomacy, humanitarianism, peace-building and co-operation with other states on global challenges, including poverty, world hunger, climate change and conflict resolution. In order to play that role, I strongly believe that we must have an independent foreign policy, with military neutrality at its heart. There is a renewed need to shine a light on the reasons that we should be proud of our military neutrality. We have to have a logical and contemporary rationale that counters those who seek to recast it as a weakness or a failing.

The legacy of Irish neutrality is our role in working for nuclear non-proliferation, our humanitarianism, our contribution to the drafting of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, our peacekeeping and the proud record of our UN peacekeepers. This has been our contribution to making the world a better and safer place. It is a contribution that has served us well and I contend that it is a contribution that has served the world well.

The Sinn Féin contributions to the consultative forum set out a roadmap to enshrine the principle of neutrality within the Irish Constitution and EU treaties, to ensure Ireland can adapt to a changed global security environment and to address the historical underinvestment in our Defence Forces. We also set out our approach to international and EU arrangements and organisations, underpinned by the triple lock and the primacy of the United Nations, and Ireland's opportunity to be a positive force for conflict resolution across the globe.

Hard-earned reputations can be easily lost. Sinn Féin believes that the historical role of the Defence Forces as a neutral force engaged in UN peacekeeping is something the Irish people are rightly proud of. That is why we have made detailed proposals to this House seeking a greater role for the Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and greater scrutiny of proposals brought forward by the Government. Unfortunately, we have found ourselves against a Government that appears unwilling to engage with the Opposition or see itself scrutinised in any meaningful way. A recent example of this was Irish participation in four European Defence Agency projects legally requiring the assent of this House. A 55-minute debate was scheduled to discuss all four, with only a single vote being taken on all four projects. In rejecting Sinn Féin's motion that it be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, the Government was not just rejecting greater or enhanced scrutiny, but it effectively voted against any scrutiny at all, essentially treating this House as a rubber stamp for Government policy. Indeed, in recent weeks and months, we have seen the Government skirt around what is possible in terms of the deployment of Irish Defence Forces personnel and the missions they may take part in, and even, at one point, use the triple lock as cover when that had no relevance at all.

To be clear, Sinn Féin wants to be in government and we have made no secret about that. We seek to raise the bar, not stymie the current Government, but ensure full and appropriate checks, balances and conventions for all Governments to come.

Much was made by the Government in advance of the forum and by many at the forum of the changed context arising from Russia's illegal and contemptible invasion of Ukraine. The argument, as it went, was that the actions of Russia determined the need for a common European foreign policy to cast aside the triple lock requirement of UN approval and align Ireland entirely with NATO in terms of defence actions.

If anyone bought into those arguments, if anyone had questions about the absolute necessity for Ireland to maintain an independent foreign policy, those questions were answered the day the Presidents of the European Commission and European Parliament landed in Tel Aviv and gave unequivocal support to Israel as it embarked on its ferocious illegal assault on Gaza. That position does not and would never represent the views and the values of the Irish people and it reinforced the need to ensure no European officeholder can ever speak for Ireland without our direct consent and agreement.

Ireland has been part of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, UNDOF, mission since 2013. That mission has been in place since the 1970s and has remained in place to uphold the ceasefire between Israeli and Syrian military forces in the Golan Heights and to monitor the implementation of the disengagement agreement. The role of the Defence Forces on the Golan Heights is one we should be very proud of. It was a perilous mission. The onset of the Syrian Civil War led to one of the most dangerous periods for peacekeepers in the mission's entire history and during it UN troops were sometimes used as human shields and abducted. The Irish peacekeeper battalion had been deployed multiple times to secure exit routes for UN colleagues under fire. Throughout the ten years of Irish presence, our Defence Forces have been noted for their bravery and positive contribution to this vital UN mission.

The reason I mention the Golan Heights mission is twofold. The first is it represents very clearly the important and constructive role Ireland can and indeed has played in international peacekeeping under the UN flag for over six decades. The second reason is Irish participation will come to an end very shortly. Opponents of Irish neutrality - we heard this often during the forum - claim that it and especially the triple lock leave us beholden to Russia or China. However, those opponents are not against Ireland being beholden to others when it comes to foreign and defence policy and simply want to choose who it is we are beholden to. Irish neutrality means not being beholden to others at all. It means, as I said, having an independent foreign policy. Ireland will withdraw from the Golan Heights peacekeeping mission not at the behest of the Russian or Chinese Governments but because of the Irish Government. It will withdraw our forces from important UN work so it can divert resources to EU battle groups. The Tánaiste has made great play of the fact no UN peacekeeping mission has been approved, but he is withdrawing us from the mission we are involved in.

It is entirely disingenuous to set that as a rationale to undermine the very basis of Irish neutrality and it is beyond ironic-----

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is talking nonsense.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----the same parties who want to undermine our neutrality have overseen the systemic underfunding of our Defence Forces, bringing us to the position we are in where there are only about 7,600 members across all sections of the Defence Forces. That is against an establishment need of 9,500 members and a level of ambition 2 target of 11,500. The Commission on the Future of the Defence Forces also set out the capital investment our Defence Forces needed. It said we needed capital investment of €246.5 million each year for the past ten years. Last year that target was missed by €70 million and next year that target is again going to be missed by €70 million, yet Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael laughably suggest it is others that cannot be trusted with Ireland's security.

I will respond to the proposals set out by the Tánaiste in respect of undoing the triple lock. He mentioned of course the veto at the UN Security Council. He did not refer to the triple lock also allowing for a UN General Assembly mandate to be provided-----

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is time the Deputy got real.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----at which there is no veto. The Tánaiste has not answered the question of what mission he wants the Defence Forces to participate in that the triple lock has prevented. He has not given us an outline of what impact it would have on the reputation of Ireland and Irish troops were we to participate in a military mission that does not have UN approval. That has not been answered and I would hazard a guess that putting our troops and credibility on the line in the way the Tánaiste has outlined would be a very new and grave risk for us to take.

What the Tánaiste has announced today is a fundamental shift in Ireland's foreign policy. It would radically undermine Irish neutrality as we know it and every single time they have been asked the people have shown Irish neutrality is something they value. The triple lock was a key, pivotal argument for those who advocated agreement to multiple EU treaty referendums, especially those on the Lisbon and Nice Treaties. I could produce for the Tánaiste all the commentary from the Governments of the day on how the triple lock provided a key protection to address any concerns people had in respect of those treaties' impact on Irish neutrality. In light of that I put it to him that any proposal the Government wishes to bring forward must also be put to the people. Will the Government have-----

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Idiotic.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Government would not dare put it to the people because it knows what the response would be.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is being idiotic and stupid.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What he has outlined today is a proposal in respect of fundamentally changing Irish foreign policy that he knows does not have the support of the people. If he is so clear-----

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I just do not want Russia vetoing everything we do, that is all.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----what he is doing is in the best interests of the people he should give a commitment today-----

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So stupid, for Christ's sake.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----he will put it to them.

Finally, I will talk about the ongoing, slow shift we have seen. I have mentioned on a number of occasions that the shift can be seen very starkly in the response the Government has made in respect of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, a response we wholeheartedly supported at every single step.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sinn Féin did not do so in 2014. It backed Russia in 2014.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We can compare that with the response to the Israeli actions in Gaza. I have put forward an amendment to the Government's amendment that simply adds two words on condemning the killing of children and civilians "by Israel" because the Tánaiste has not uttered the words that he condemns Israel. Why not?

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You are playing politics all the time with this issue.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. The Tánaiste is the man----

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You have been a disgrace.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Through the Chair. This is not questions and answers.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----who has made a career out of pointing-----

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You have been a disgrace on this.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----to the fact of whether people condemn or do not condemn. We unequivocally condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine. We unequivocally condemn Hamas's actions on 7 October. We unequivocally condemn Israeli actions that have led to the deaths of thousands of innocent children. Will the Tánaiste do the same? It is a fair ask. It is "Yes" or "No". Will he condemn Israel?

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Go raibh maith agat, a Theachta.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do not lecture me on the loss of civilian life, Deputy. You know a lot more about it than I do-----

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You are on the mic-----

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and your organisation does.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do you condemn the actions of Israel?

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a bit rich for you now to be lecturing us.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do you condemn the actions of Israel? "Yes" or "No".

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do you condemn the Provisional IRA?

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not a question and answer session Deputy.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Tánaiste appears to want to answer every question apart from the one I am putting to him.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tá an t-am caite anois. Go raibh maith agat. It is not a question and answer session, unfortunately. It is statements and does not allow for this.

Bogaimid ar aghaidh leis an Páirtí an Lucht Oibre agus An Teachta Howlin.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sinn Féin does not.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is daft. Deputy Howlin knows it too.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is disingenuous.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Táimid ag dul ar ais go dtí an Rialtas. An Teachta Cathal Crowe has 11.5 minutes. Is he sharing time?

Cathal Crowe (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, I am using six minutes of this time slot. I believe Deputy Seán Haughey is-----

Seán Haughey (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That arrangement has been overtaken by events. Deputy Crowe has the full 11 minutes.

Cathal Crowe (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not need the full 11.

At the outset-----

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Crowe should keep going.

Cathal Crowe (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If Deputy Howlin wants to join us, he could have ten of the minutes.

Cathal Crowe (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At the outset, I ask the Tánaiste and the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach to greet Danny, an 11-year-old boy from Liscannor, County Clare, who is stone mad about politics. He has come up to the Dáil today to get a flavour of what life is like here. He has just seen a good ding-dong debate so he has seen a bit of action anyway.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will give him a bualadh bos.

Cathal Crowe (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is good to see Danny. I welcome Katie, his mom, and Ruth, who are also here today. It is great to see young people coming into the House. This House does not belong to the Government or to the Opposition but to the people of Ireland. It is always lovely to see younger members of our citizenry coming in here.

I welcome the debate we are having here this afternoon on the Consultative Forum on International Security Policy. I thank the Tánaiste for leading out on it. It is very important. Nothing remains static. Like the Tánaiste, I taught history in a classroom for many years and the chapter I dreaded opening in front of children when we reached it every April or May was the chapter relating to the Holocaust period and the death of 6 million Jews. At the time, Ireland remained fully neutral and tiptoed along that line. However, when you read out that section and talk about the death of 6 million people - and there have unfortunately been many genocides since - you see the young people wondering whether Ireland did enough. The approach taken in more recent years, an approach of military neutrality, is far more sensible.

We have to have an opinion on what is happening in the wider world and when ISIS is slaughtering people. We also have to have an opinion on the 7 October attacks by Hamas in Israel and to have an opinion on and condemn the response of the Israel Defense Forces in the following four weeks. There is a lot going on globally. Ireland is now pitching itself as a very proud member of the United Nations and a country that is militarily neutral and that is not aligned to NATO but which is very happy to play an important role in crisis management and in offering a sensible position at the United Nations Security Council and in humanitarian missions. That is the way. As a member of Fianna Fáil, that is certainly the vision for our country I would like to see realised over the coming decades.

The option of sitting on our hands and saying nothing unfortunately evaporated long ago. We now need to have a position on things and I am glad that Ireland has been the most out there in condemning what is happening in Gaza and the slaughter of innocent people, despite what some in this Chamber might say. As I said here a few weeks ago, an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. Unfortunately, that is what happening. We have seen 6,000 young people killed and hospitals are being bombed. It is atrocious.

I will hit on a few points that have already been mentioned in this debate. The two motions voted on here last week were quite divisive and have led to a deluge of correspondence coming into all of our constituency offices. I will put on record that, as a Government backbencher, I am not very happy with the commentary of the Israeli ambassador, Ms Erlich, in recent weeks. I do not like certain aspects of her tone. However, I do place a value on diplomacy at a time when 40 Irish citizens are stuck in Gaza and when young Emily Hand, who just celebrated her ninth birthday last weekend, is still held hostage. It is highly important that we have diplomatic lines open and I commend the Tánaiste on taking time to go to Egypt and lead out on those diplomatic efforts. This is a time when we need dialogue. Had we followed through on that motion's request to expel the Israeli ambassador, it would have automatically led to the expulsion of our ambassador in Israel. God only knows where poor Emily Hand is at this time. I have great sympathy for her family in everything they are enduring at this time. There are also 40 other families who do not know whether their loved ones are alive or dead or where they are. That is a time when you need dialogue and diplomacy.

Last week, I partook in a Zoom meeting with other politicians from across Europe. We spoke about allegations of war crimes and all that we are seeing every night on TV. There were certain other Irish parliamentarians in the meeting and the way they portrayed Ireland was atrocious. They spoke as if we were complicit in acts of war.

We are the most outspoken nation in Europe and the world on this conflict. We stand in solidarity with the people of Palestine, which is very different to being in solidarity with Hamas. We stand in solidarity with the suffering people of Palestine. We condemn what happened on 7 October and we condemn the war that has ensued ever since because it is humanity that is suffering. It is innocent people who are paying the ultimate price.

The consultative forum dealt with other areas. There were experts from the civilian world present, as well as experts from the military world, including in peacekeeping, crisis management and international humanitarian law. The other wing of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Irish Aid, is a good vehicle for the country to express Ireland's will in the wider world and to support nations that are oppressed and enduring famine, hardship and medical crisis. That really shone through during the Covid pandemic.

I note that the forum also dealt with the realm of cyber threats. This has repeatedly come before the Oireachtas Committee on Transport and Communications and I note that a robust unit is being developed, on foot of what happened with the awful HSE cyberattacks. Cybersecurity is another form of warfare, which is what it has often been called by IT experts. It is a type of warfare used to undermine the network of a country. In this regard we should be building capacity beyond our shores and working with partners in Europe. The more depth, knowledge, understanding and expertise we can have, on a pan-European basis, when it comes to cybersecurity, the better. We should not be pursuing that front in isolation.

I ask the Minister to answer the following point when he is wrapping up, if possible. I have a small question on the Aer Corps Museum in Baldonnel. There are suggestions that the hangars there are no longer large or fit enough to accommodate some of the display and that some of it might go out of public display for the foreseeable future. Is there anything that can be done on that? There is incredible equipment there. Aviation nuts like me and many more people love to see the old aircraft and equipment that so loyally served our country for many years on display and we want to see it remain there for a long time to come.

I see Ireland remaining militarily neutral. I see Ireland not being aligned but being forthright in expressing our worldview. Our worldview is unfortunately shaped by years of occupation, of rule as part of an empire. That is a voice of reason, understanding and compassion that we have brought internationally and long may it continue.

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am happy to speak on this report. As the Minister knows, in Sinn Féin we saw this consultative forum on international security policy as unnecessarily political and narrow. I attended the four days of the forum and contributed to each of the sessions. We made clear in our submission our vision and ambition for Ireland as a neutral and independent state, playing a key role in peacemaking, peacekeeping and humanitarianism. Within that, we outlined our belief that our neutrality should be enshrined in our Constitution and in EU treaties, this being the desire of the majority of Irish society.

On the forum, what we warned about in theory we saw and experienced in practice, as the Government’s preferred position was elevated and reflected, day after day and panel after panel, while in the main, those who wanted to keep and protect our neutrality were forced to contribute from the floor. It was extraordinary that the majority view of the people of the State, which is to protect our neutrality, was largely confined to informal contributions. It was almost as if we were bit-part players or guests in something of national import, when in truth, in a referendum, when it comes, the people will be the ultimate deciders. I was glad to see that Louise Richardson’s report stated so clearly that: "It was frequently expressed, and rarely contradicted, that there is currently no popular mandate in Ireland to abandon the policy of neutrality." I would put it to the Tánaiste that the Government should attend to that wish and that lack of a popular mandate, and apply itself to making sure it is enshrined in our Constitution.

We have responsibilities to our partners, as the report points out, and we share this world. However, events have rapidly overtaken the report because we also have the responsibility to be ethical and compassionate and be a courageous voice of people who have been abandoned by those international partners referred to in the report. As is unmissably the case with Gaza, when Commission President Ursula von der Leyen gave what she called the EU’s “full support” to Israel. That full support from Ursula Von der Leyen opened hell on the innocent children of Gaza, where the civilian people of Gaza have been reduced to medieval siege conditions by the most moral army in the world. In reality it is the most amoral army in the world. President von der Leyen has no difficulty calling the removal of food, water and power a war crime when it is done by Russia but when it came to Israel, she gave it the EU's “full support”. There are serious questions here for the “partners” mentioned in the report, and for how democracy functions in the EU. There is a huge gap and disconnect between people marching on the streets for their belief in humanity and desires as democrats, and the pet projects of their EU leaders, conducted behind closed doors. This is a dangerous development for the EU, which is visible for all to see and one we cannot ignore.

The Tánaiste said earlier that during the consultative forum many contributors also expressed a clear view in favour of working more closely with our international partners. They were invited guests who were brought in because that was their opinion. There were hand-picked panels. Everything has changed since then. In the context of the report and our responsibilities and values as outlined, we must speak up for people who are murdered; killed; maimed; terrorised; blown to pieces by Hellfire rockets and shrapnel; burned by white phosphorous; pounded by land, air sea and drone; and crushed by concrete. Parents are losing their children and children losing their parents. Thousands and thousands of bodies are piled high. These are images reminiscent of the Holocaust. Extremely big questions remain about the behaviour of the EU and countries the reports refers to as our “partners”.

It is vital that Ireland remains neutral and has an independent foreign policy and an independent voice in Europe. That is a voice the Tánaiste has used in part, even though he lacks the courage to go far enough He should have agreed with us to refer Israel to the International Criminal Court, a court where it belongs gan dabht ar bith.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You cannot refer countries.

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the context of our responsibilities as outlined in the report, I urge the Tánaiste to use every means open to him, to move heaven and earth, to stop the bombing of Gaza and the raids on the West Bank, and ensure that this ceasefire that was announced last night is permanent. It is six and a half weeks late but at least a ceasefire has been announced.

Netanyahu did not want a ceasefire because while the war goes on, the investigation into 7 October waits. He would happily go on slaughtering innocent children to save his skin. He has been forced into this ceasefire by the families of the hostages and I commend them on exerting that political pressure. They know that Netanyahu did not give a damn about them. He waited nine days to meet them after the Hamas attack. The Tánaiste and I might have our differences but I know he, or any of the leaders in Ireland, would not have waited nine days to meet the families of hostages in a case like that. Genocidal hatred of Palestinians is his purpose. This war was never about defence.

I welcome that hostages will be released and that Emily Hand has been mentioned as being among the first 50. I hope to God she will be among the first group. I welcome that Palestinian children will also be released. We must ensure this ceasefire is permanent so the killing will stop. We must do all we can to end it. According to the "values-based" policy cited in the report, I ask the Minister to act with might and main to ensure this ceasefire is permanent.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will try to spend the majority of my time discussing the consultative forum and the findings from it but inevitably we will not be able to step away from other events that are taking place in the world, particularly in the Middle East, and from our role within those events.

There was an assertion in the consultative forum's conclusion: "that Ireland’s policy of neutrality is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for Ireland’s global standing as a force for good in international affairs". That was contained in the findings of the report. I found that reminiscent of the Tánaiste's comments in the summer, that Ireland's neutrality was not a lucky charm to protect Ireland and that a reimagining is needed. Those comments were made in the context of Russia's grotesque invasion of Ukraine but those were the words he used. I will return to that point but I want to refute the assertion made about neutrality in that consultative forum. There is no evidence for it in the reality of Ireland's position in the world as it is. It is almost revisionist of the position we have etched out painstakingly through decades of work by Irish politicians and diplomats at UN level over the course of over 70 years. Let us not forget the people who put themselves in harm's way in the name on UN peacekeeping missions.

From the outset, the values of self-determination, anti-imperialism and anti-militarism were derived from Ireland's colonial and post-colonial experience and have defined our contribution to peace proposals at the United Nations.

Mr. Liam Cosgrave, our first Minister for External Affairs to attend the UN, outlined that Ireland is unique in that it is the only western country that has a long experience of being treated as a colony, not only of being temporarily occupied during a war but of being governed over many generations by a foreign country whose rule people rejected and strove to shake off. He said this at a UN plenary meeting in 1956. Ireland's diplomats and Ministers have used this history to claim an understanding of the psychology of opposing belligerents and have always appealed to both sides in a conflict, where possible. This is reminiscent of the Taoiseach's words shortly after 7 October, when he asked us to take a step back and understand the psyche of some our European counterparts who would not even call for a ceasefire. Let us also understand our own psyche and our own position. Mr. Frank Aiken, who was a member of the Tánaiste's party, said that like many of our fellow members of the UN, Ireland was a young state but had a people with a proud and ancient history. He said that coming from such a country, he spoke in the hope that Ireland's profound convictions, born of long experience of tragic frustration, may carry weight with the UN Assembly. That was on 23 September 1957 and in the present day, Irish ambassadors are aware that most UN member states that are small or former colonies identify with Ireland's size and history and with our commitment to the rule of law, equality, justice and, where possible, multilateralism. They also identify with our discourse, policies and voting positions on decolonisation and disarmament at the UN. This is the soft power that is invaluable to our position in the world and is something we should not let go of lightly. Mr. Aiken insisted that Ireland should maintain independence and not become part of any tight group bound by agreements to support one another no matter what the subject for discussion. Radical and groundbreaking proposals from Aiken led to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which is probably one of the greatest achievements of Irish diplomacy, and diplomacy as a whole, over the past 100 years.

Since our foundation as a State, it has been precisely our position of, and adherence to, neutrality that has given us legitimacy on the world stage and any erosion of this impacts our standing. This is an important point to make as politicians on the Government side, following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, started to see neutrality almost as a form of weakness on the global stage when it is the exact opposite and always has been. The sense of being a maverick independent is what has given us credibility and legitimacy and given us our place. Now, when the dogs of war and the hawks are assembling, is it the Irish position to simply go and give a little bark behind them or will we stand up and be a voice for peace?

Why is the Tánaiste shaking his hands?

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry? I apologise.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In terms of the Tánaiste's position, where we differ is that he offers words but in terms of the Middle East conflict, we want him to go forward and offer actions. That is where we have diverged. I have highlighted examples of people from the Tánaiste's own party that I have admiration for, including Mr. Frank Aiken-----

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Frank Aiken was from Fianna Fáil and in favour of neutrality.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, exactly. That is what I am trying to say.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy should get real. He should not be lecturing us on it.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am using the example of Frank Aiken to demonstrate a time when Ireland took a maverick position, stepped out from the group and acted unilaterally as a way of achieving something. Now we seem to have lost the courage to go beyond ourselves. It is with that spirit in mind that I am saying to the Tánaiste that now, when the dogs of war are once again assembling and when we are seeing a genocide being inflicted upon the people of Gaza, we should go further and where necessary, act unilaterally.

I do not doubt the Tánaiste's commitment, integrity or desire to bring peace to the Middle East. I do not doubt his conviction in going over there and while I would disagree with some elements of the visit, that is fine because this is a parliamentary democracy. What I would love this State to do is to be the first to call for sanctions because in the context of what we are speaking about now, everything is going to come back to Israel's gross genocide. What Israel has not experienced, either in this genocide and invasion or the apartheid it has inflicted through 75 years of oppression and occupation and forced displacement of Palestinian people, is consequences. That is why we are pushing so far. The Tánaiste was not here last week for the debate on the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador. I appreciate that we went quite far with that call but what we left out there were several other calls to which the Government could actually respond. It could say that it was not going to do that but that it appreciated the need for action to be taken. We left, for example, EU trade agreements on the table. The Tánaiste's own party colleague, the MEP Mr. Chris Andrews has endorsed that proposal at EU level.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Chris Andrews is on that side of the House.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, I meant to say Barry Andrews. It is hard to tell the difference. There was a range of actions the Government could have taken. I disagree with the fact that we have continued to use words when action is what we are calling for.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There has been action.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is no laughing matter. We have asked for things like the progression of the Control of Economic Activities (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018. It was Fianna Fáil in 2019 that brought that Bill to Second Stage in the Dáil. When introducing it, Deputy Niall Collins asked if not now, when?

What I was going to ask before the interruptions was, why we do not have the courage to go beyond ourselves? There are examples of this from the Tánaiste's own party and I was going to list a number of them. Simply standing back and using words and rhetoric and talking about peace being built on the graves of children will do nothing. There is no courage in that. The Tánaiste may smirk, smile and throw his hands up in the air but he has a position in the world. What will his memory of this be? The Irish people want us to go further than words. We can act unilaterally. If the Tánaiste does not, so be it, we will do it without him.

Seán Haughey (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When the report of the consultative forum on international security policy was published in October, my initial reaction was to wonder what all the fuss was about. When the forum was established, a storm of controversy erupted. We were told that this was all part of a sinister plot by the Government to commence the process for Ireland to join NATO. The chairperson, Professor Louise Richardson was criticised, including by people who should have known better, and protesters attempted to disrupt the panel discussions.

In my view, Professor Dame Louise Richardson is to be congratulated for the manner in which she conducted the forum and for her final report. We managed to have a respectful debate and a wide range of views were facilitated. The final report is clear, concise and easy to read. We now have a considered description of Irish neutrality, in that we are deemed to be politically aligned and militarily non-aligned. The forum has been a most useful exercise.

It is clear from the report that the geopolitical environment is changing and therefore it was absolutely essential that Ireland would consider its security policy at this time. Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine altered significantly the international security environment, particularly in Europe. Other new, emerging threats have presented themselves in recent years including cyber threats, hybrid warfare, disinformation and election interference, as well as threats to our critical infrastructure, especially our offshore infrastructure, including undersea cables connecting the US to Europe. They have become all too apparent. We have already experienced a ransomware attack on the HSE and Russian ships have been observed acting suspiciously off the south-west coast of Ireland in our exclusive economic zone.

The report also says that we are only now beginning to examine the risks to our society posed by climate change. It goes on to state that our geographical location no longer provides us with the protection that it once did, for example, as it did during the Second World War. As I have said previously in the House, it would have been reckless and irresponsible of the Government not to assess and examine these developments and engage the public on the issues. Similarly, the establishment of the Commission on the Defence Forces was extremely important.

Irish people are rightly proud of our global reputation as regards foreign policy issues. The central elements of our foreign policy are: UN peacekeeping; crisis management and conflict prevention; disarmament, arms control, and the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons; adherence to international humanitarian law; the promotion of fundamental human rights; and a commitment to humanitarian causes, including tackling global hunger and food insecurity, particularly in the global south. These priorities have evolved over many years, arising from our history and culture, including our non-colonial past. They have resulted in us exercising soft power, especially in the USA. As a result, we engage willingly and constructively in international institutions. This has been proven by our election from time to time to the UN Security Council. It is interesting that Norway, with its own unique tradition and history, and as a NATO member, has played an important role of facilitator between parties to conflicts and promotes conflict resolution and reconciliation. Ireland, with its own unique tradition and history, can do this too. The forum sums all of this up by stating that Ireland has a global reputation as an honest broker, mediator and advocate for human rights and arms control and more recently, in respect of the women, peace and security agenda. Long may this continue.

The approach of the Government to the horrific events taking place in Gaza is firmly rooted on these principles.

The forum also examined our ongoing participation in the EU Common Security and Defence Policy. Ireland participates in PESCO missions. We support the European peace facility and provide non-lethal equipment to Ukraine. Linked to this is our assistance with the EU training mission for Ukraine. We pay into the European defence fund. We have signed up to the EU strategic compass and have agreed to the concept of EU battle groups. The forum panellists all agreed there is no agenda to create a European army. In any event, member states are not interested in such an army. CSDP is not a stepping stone to a European army. We should dismiss that scaremongering once and for all. It seems generally accepted that all these CSDP initiatives are important and there is scope for deeper engagement with it as it evolves and develops. Similarly, there is no substantial objection to our ongoing participation in the NATO-led partnership for peace. I note the remarks of the Tánaiste regarding the NATO-led Partnership for Peace bringing forward an initiative to protect our underseas cables.

Where do we go from here? How should we proceed? First, we can all agree there is no question of Ireland joining NATO. Second, the triple lock is no longer fit for purpose. Government and Dáil sanction for overseas missions should be enough. The Defence Acts will need, therefore, to be amended. We cannot have authoritarian regimes exercising a veto over our deployments abroad. In this context, we are all agreed the UN needs to be reformed and we should continue to advocate for this. I welcome the comments by the Tánaiste in respect of bringing forward new legislation. I suspect it will relate to the Defence Acts. I look forward to seeing that legislation in due course. Third, there is no need to have a constitutional amendment to insert neutrality into Bunreacht na hÉireann. In any event, there is no agreed definition of "neutrality" and we need to have flexibility to respond to events quickly and without undue constraints. Fourth, we need greater public spending on all three branches of the Defence Forces to defend our land, sea and air. We need an armed neutrality, if one likes. The recommendations of the commission on the Defence Forces must continue to be implemented. I welcome the publication yesterday of a detailed implementation plan for the report of the commission on the Defence Forces. That is timely.

The Tánaiste in his contribution made several announcements. He announced there will be a new national security strategy, a national security authority and a maritime security strategy and indicated a robust and modern legislative framework will need to be brought forward to facilitate this. The House will have significant work to do when that legislation is brought forward. Today is only the start of the debate. This proposed legislation and these new initiatives will have to be extensively debated in the Dáil. I look forward to seeing the proposals in due course.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As regards the process and set-up of the consultative forum, many of us saw it as the Government removing the conversation from the Irish people to some degree. We have issues with that particular process and set-up. I welcome some of what has been said. A peace and stability unit, using the history and skill sets we have and built on our history of having been colonised and our anti-colonial history of resistance and peacebuilding, is what we need to do. There is absolute belief among the Irish people of the need for an independent Irish foreign policy. The Tánaiste stated that Ireland does not need to be a military superpower. I do not think we need to engage sometimes alongside the military superpowers or to hamstring ourselves in that context. In recent times, we have seen that the decisions they make are not necessarily ones with which the Irish people are happy.

We all know there needs to be proper resourcing of the Defence Forces. We need to deal with the issues of recruitment and retention and ensure we have capacity to deliver on peacekeeping and deal with those security issues in this world of hybrid and other threat. We must have the capacity to deal with whatever security circumstances we encounter. I do not think anyone will have any major issues, depending on the issue, with us getting involved in some sort of co-operation as regards cybersecurity, but that does not mean we have to jettison our non-alignment, independent foreign policy and neutrality.

At the business end of the report of the consultative forum, it states: "A considerable majority of those who spoke or wrote on this topic expressed the view that there is presently no public appetite for a change to the current position on neutrality." The Government or any Member should not fear a referendum on neutrality and putting that discussion to the people. It is where an issue of such importance belongs. The Tánaiste and I attended an event earlier today to remember Private Seán Rooney, who was lost on a UNIFIL peacekeeping operation in Lebanon and other members of the Defence Forces who were lost this year. At times like that, one must remember their sacrifice and the great respect Ireland gets, not only for the fact that we are not always seen as aligned and are seen as having our own foreign policy, but the respect that is based on significant work that has been done by our peacekeepers. Yesterday, the Tánaiste stated there is no act more noble than peacekeeping. Deputy Carthy, however, raised the issue of the UNDOF mission in the Golan Heights and the fact that Ireland seems to have disengaged from it, while at the same time only 35 have signed up for EU battle groups. That indicates the Defence Forces are making decisions on a man-by-man or woman-by-woman basis in respect of our neutrality.

The considerable agreement in the House in respect of the disgraceful Russian colonial aggression in Ukraine is to be welcomed, but we can now see the western world, including the US and the EU, will have a more difficult job bringing the global south alongside in this regard. That is down to the double standards and the abject failure of the western world for many decades in the Middle East and in respect of Palestinians but, in particular, the failure to call out what is a genocidal attack on the Palestinian people in Gaza at this time. Josep Borrell stated that this could undermine diplomatic supports for Ukraine and the global south and the EU's ability to insist on human rights clause in international agreements and that the EU needs to show more empathy for the loss of Palestinian civilian lives in Israel's war against Hamas. We know what Ursula von der Leyen did, similar to the US, in putting arms around Israel as it carried out its genocidal actions. We all welcome that negotiation has brought in what may be a short-term ceasefire that may allow hostages on either side to be released, including, I hope, Emily Hand. What is needed, however, is a proper ceasefire and a roadmap for the Palestinian people that will deliver not only peace, but also freedom and self-determination.

There is no need for us, as I said previously, to hamstring ourselves. We have an independent foreign policy. Irish people are still committed to neutrality and non-alignment and there is no reason that should change. We should have that discussion with them.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the debate on the consultative forum report. It is just a pity that the same opportunity to debate was not afforded either to the people of this country or Opposition parties during this supposedly consultative forum. We should not forget that the Tánaiste initially said he wanted to hold a citizens' assembly on neutrality, as has successfully been done on a wide range of other issues, in particular, the first citizens' assembly, which was part of the road to the repeal of the hated eighth amendment. However, it is precisely that kind of popular, democratic and radical outcome that this consultative forum was designed to avoid. The Government was terrified that if it put neutrality to a citizens' assembly, it would get the wrong answer, one in which people would say they support neutrality and it should be in the Constitution, as proposed by People Before Profit in a Private Members' Bill last year.

What this sham forum was designed to do was to manufacture an apparent consensus towards further undermining Irish neutrality by moving us closer to NATO. The President himself called it out, warning that this Government is "playing with fire" in a dangerous "drift" towards NATO. He was absolutely correct. Overseeing this show was a dame of the British empire, Louise Richardson, aided and abetted by a cabal of so-called security experts, a large number of whom are also paid mouthpieces for imperialist Western governments and NATO. Unsurprisingly, the Government got what it paid for, and the policy report that purports to summarise the forum's proceedings is in line with that, without of course giving any fair or reasonable summary of the huge opposition to the sham forum. It claims, quite incredibly, that "little opposition was expressed" towards Ireland's involvement in "defence-related areas through such activities as the CSDP and PESCO in the EU" and even the Partnership for Peace with NATO. This is despite the fact that every one of the forum's sessions was repeatedly, and quite rightly, disrupted by protestors expressing opposition to Ireland's involvement with EU military operations and NATO.

During her opening address, the dame claimed that disruption of speeches would not be allowed. However, the mouthpieces for NATO, including the Tánaiste, were disrupted. Protestors exposed the fact that this forum had and has no democratic legitimacy or public support. Every opinion poll for decades has shown that the Irish people fully support neutrality. An Garda Síochána was then called in to forcibly remove protestors in violation of their democratic rights, so that the propaganda exercise could continue. This exercise is about laying the groundwork for working-class men and women to be sent off to fight in imperialist wars, to lose their lives so that the establishment parties and the Irish ruling class can suck up to US imperialism. Neutrality is an impediment to that and so they want to get rid of what is left.

The dame's report cannot, of course, directly attack neutrality, accepting that there is "no public appetite" for doing so. Instead, it seeks to undermine it by supporting an increase in military spending, undermining the triple lock and attempting to discredit our democratic proposal to hold a referendum. It admits at the start that submissions are not from a representative sample but then, on the basis of those same submissions, it claims there is clear public support to significantly increase expenditure on the Defence Forces and calls for the triple lock to be reconsidered. About the only useful aspect of the report is the admission that providing landing space or other facilities to a belligerent, as Ireland has done in Shannon, contradicts most definitions of neutrality. The question then for the Government is whether it will close Shannon Airport to the US military to bring the State more into conformity with some of the requirements of neutrality.

Mick Barry (Cork North Central, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For six consecutive weekends now, tens of thousands of people have marched in Irish cities in solidarity with the Palestinian people and in opposition to Israeli state terror. I can think of no other event in my lifetime as an activist that has made that happen - not the water charges, the Iraq war or the Gulf War. It is pretty much unique. The protests, and the sentiment among the broad mass of people towards the genocide, can have a significant impact on the so-called neutrality debate.

While the Tánaiste had hoped that a stacked consultative forum would nudge public opinion towards support for closer military co-operation with EU powers and NATO, Israel's war has, I strongly suspect, moved public opinion in the opposite direction entirely. Not only will that war provoke opposition to militarism but also a profound distrust of precisely those forces the Government would like to align this country's foreign policy more closely with. Who defended Israel's bombardment of Gaza? Who defended the mass murder of men, women and children that arose from that, only the US, the UK, France and Germany?

Whereas Dame Richardson's report states that the majority view from the forum was to see NATO as a defensive military alliance, Israel's war has shown that the leading NATO countries support a brutal, barbarous and bloody assault on a defenceless population. Unfortunately for the Tánaiste, Ursula von der Leyen did more to undermine the Government's policy in ten minutes than any number of consultative forums might do to promote it in a lifetime.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When the Tánaiste announced last April that he was establishing a consultative forum on international security, there was a fairly alarmed response from many Members of this House and outside the House. There was a view that this was a devious and covert attempt by the Government to jettison Ireland's well-served and popular policy of neutrality. Then, when it was announced that this forum was going to be chaired by Louise Richardson, an Irishwoman and a distinguished academic, it was pointed out that she was a person who had received an accolade from the British empire. I have to point out that I thought the British empire was an entity that ceased to exist about 100 years ago. Those who were critical of the Tánaiste and the proposed consultative forum pointed to the fact that this was inevitably part of the plot to steer Ireland into the arms of the military successors of the British empire.

We then had the publication of the programme for the consultative forum, which went on for a period of three days. It was pointed out that, astonishingly, it did not contain speakers such as Deputies Boyd Barrett or Murphy, who we have heard today. Instead it contained a collection of academics and individuals who had experience of security and army matters.

Then we got the report on 10 October last and, of course, it confirmed our worst suspicions. When one looks at the report from Professor Richardson, it contains some extraordinarily radical statements. I want to highlight some of them. On page 4, she states, "There was a palpable and widely held sense of pride in Ireland's values-based foreign policy and global reputation as honest brokers, mediators, advocates for human rights and arms control." She then made a couple of explosive suggestions, such as this one: "There was a broad consensus that Ireland needs to invest more in its defence..."Here is another one: "Broad support was also expressed for greater expenditure to address emerging threats such as cybersecurity and critical maritime infrastructure." Then she got to the section where she decided she was going to jettison Ireland's military neutrality and she said the following:

... there is currently no popular mandate in Ireland to abandon the policy of neutrality. Of those who responded to the submissions, 64 percent favoured keeping the current policy ...

[...]

For now ... there is no pressure, either internal or external, for a change in Ireland's policy of neutrality.

This confirms that many of the concerns expressed in this House and outside it about the purpose and intent of the consultative forum turned out to be false. It was not a devious and covert mechanism to jettison Ireland's military neutrality. In fact, this short and concise report reflects what was stated at the consultative forum over a period of three days. It outlines what I consider to be the broad opinion of the Irish people, which is that we respect and want to preserve our neutrality that has served us well.

Having said that, the report contains a couple of points that deserve to be reflected upon. One of those concerns whether there should be a constitutional amendment on neutrality. In effect, Professor Richardson is raising a prospect of which many people who opposed her appointment and the establishment of the forum would be in favour. It is worthwhile considering whether we should have a constitutional amendment to insert neutrality into the Constitution. My view, on balance, is that I would not support such an amendment for reasons I will express presently. However, we in this House need to be mature enough to recognise that simply because we are discussing an issue does not mean we are giving into or supporting that issue. We must be mature, brave and grown-up enough to recognise there are many complicated issues in international foreign policy and security policy that we need to discuss. By discussing them, we are not assenting to them.

At present, under Article 29 of the Constitution, international relations in Ireland are the responsibility of the Government. That is subject to the important proviso in Article 28 that the Government cannot declare war unless it has obtained the assent of a vote of Dáil Éireann. However, we should be careful about inserting into the rigid document that is the Constitution a provision such that Ireland shall always be neutral in respect of international affairs. Even limiting that to military neutrality is something we also should shy away from. We are much better placed with the current system, whereby there is broad public support for the principle of military neutrality but there is flexibility and a responsibility that rests on the Government. If the Government makes a decision in this regard that the public does not like, it can be put out of office in due course. We need to be cautious about putting ourselves in a very tight position where military neutrality is something that is absolute in the Constitution. I will not make a suggestion but I am sure we can all think of circumstances where, in the future, we may not wish to be militarily neutral; where we may wish to recognise that, in fact, we want to be involved in a dispute, whether to defend our own freedom or the freedom of others.

I welcome that Professor Richardson refers in the report to the policy of military neutrality that was adopted by Ireland during the Second World War. Unfortunately, it has now become a statement of popularity to criticise that policy. Not all parties in this House that existed back in the 1930s and 1940s supported Mr. de Valera and his policy of military neutrality but it was very effective and very beneficial from this country's point of view. In fairness to Professor Richardson, she highlights this, noting that de Valera's position was a pragmatic one as Ireland feared invasion by both Germany and Britain and did not have the means to defend itself. The Government also feared that siding with Britain would reignite a civil war. Professor Richardson says in her conclusion: "This was a pragmatic approach as, by being helpful [to the Allies], Ireland was reducing the incentive for Britain to invade." The policy that was adopted in the Second World War showed the benefit of Ireland being able to adopt its own policy in respect of not just neutrality but international affairs.

Neutrality means different things to different people. My own assessment is that, in an Irish context, military neutrality means we will not align ourselves with any exclusively military alliances. In short, it means we will not become members of NATO. I believe that is the wish of the majority of the Irish people. It is a policy the Government is right to maintain and one I would be extremely slow to change. However, there are areas we need to look at to improve the whole area of security in this country. The Tánaiste announced a couple of them earlier. We also need to give the Oireachtas a role in respect of security and the oversight of security within the State. If we look at other countries, parliaments generally have a role for elected members on security or defence committees. That is something we need to consider.

We also need to spend more on our Defence Forces. We really must recognise that, arguably through no fault of the Government, the numbers in the Defence Forces are declining considerably. In many respects, it is similar to the situation in An Garda Síochána in that it is hard to get recruits. We really will have to look at these absolutely essential public service jobs and see what we can do to make them more attractive to people. Without men and women in the Defence Forces and An Garda Síochána, we really are placing the country at risk.

The forum was a good idea. We have seen in recent times, with the horrific violence in Palestine and Israel, that very strong emotions are generated among Irish people when they see that level of ongoing brutality and violence. We do not adopt a neutral position on such violence, nor would anyone in this House want to be in a position where he or she cannot speak publicly about it or we, as a country, cannot act in respect of it because we are neutral. It is important to point out what Irish neutrality is not. It does not mean we keep quiet when there is violence taking place in the world. It does not mean we do not seek to assign blame and responsibility when there are events of violence going on in the world. It does not mean we are politically neutral. The real strength Ireland has is that, in many respects, like the situation in Palestine and Israel and other areas of dispute, we occupy territory that is known to be contested. Our situation and the situation at present in Israel and Palestine both followed on from partitions that were designed to prevent sectarian conflict but that, in fact, ensured there would be such conflict. We have a great role to play in advising other countries in the world that their conflicts cannot be resolved through violence. One thing is for sure: the political objectives of Hamas and Israel, respectively, will not be achieved through violence; they will only be achieved through political consensus and solution.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue. Ireland can play a significant role in laying the groundwork for international pressure to be put upon the Israeli Government to ends its actions in Gaza, but that role is not being played to its full potential. We take great pride in how we use our stance as a neutral, but not isolationist, country to be a champion for human rights and how we can, when the will is there, advocate measures that may have the effect of moving other states, through various means such as sanctions, to put pressure on aggressors to amend their ways. There have been shortcomings. Recent examples include the Government's unwillingness to refer Israel to the ICC or to approve a sanctions aimed at penalising those who break international law or wilfully ignore institutions such as the UN, whose findings assert that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. When we hear certain calls for Ireland's neutrality to be either ended or diluted, we must remember that we have the capacity to influence the actions of others. Whether we do so is up to us as a sovereign nation. I state all this to give context to this discussion.

Ahead of the consultative forum, concern was expressed, and my party colleagues and I were among those who voiced this concern, that the forum was more an attempt to reshape public opinion than it was a genuine attempt at public debate and engagement. As Deputy O'Callaghan said, we need discussion about these issues but when panels are stacked with people of one viewpoint, concerns come into play.

These concerns arose because of the lack of balance when it came to the representation of speakers who had a track record of promoting Irish military neutrality. This is also the case with the omission of members of the Opposition from having a formal role in the process.  Nor was there any formal participation from the Defence Forces representative organisations.

The issues under discussion needed to be discussed and that need has been present for many years.  If this had been addressed, the recruitment and retention crisis in our Defence Forces may have been averted, while the cyberattacks on the HSE and our reliance on others to monitor or territorial seas and airspace could also have been addressed before the need became as critical as it now is.

I will address the matter of neutrality and what the conclusions tell us. The report notes that the issue of neutrality and Ireland’s global reputation was a contested matter among those present. It summarised as follows:

It would seem, therefore, that Ireland’s policy of neutrality is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for Ireland’s global standing as a force for good in international affairs. The most that could be said is that it probably helps. 

While that is what the chair of the forum may rightly have ascertained from the forum, that conclusion is likely to have been shaped by the imbalance of representative voices. I further note that this is apparent on the matter of a constitutional amendment on neutrality, with reference made in the report to suggestions in favour of such an amendment being made “especially by those opposed to the Forum”. This is again indicative of the lack of balance in the formal representation at the forum – not the chair.

It goes without saying that I am of the view that a citizens' assembly should be established with the purpose of agreeing the wording of a constitutional amendment. Public engagement in general is needed on this matter if, as the report states, there was no agreed definition of the term "neutrality" as it means different things to different people.

I will also refer to the issue of expenditure on the Defence Forces, addressing emerging threats such as cybercrime and monitoring our maritime area and airspace. It is clear that the deficiencies present in these areas must be addressed with urgency.  Our Defence Forces have been let down, as is obvious in the recruitment and retention crisis they are experiencing. Our lack of preparedness to monitor our territory is a failure that has already dearly cost the HSE and the people who use it. That there was no formal participation from Defence Forces representative organisations at the forum is a further example of how the sector is traditionally sidelined.

While I remain critical of aspects of how the forum was comprised, it was nonetheless informative but by no means the basis upon which our neutrality should hang. In that regard, the deliberations surrounding foreign and defence policy must also be all-Ireland in nature and involve the viewpoints of the people of this island.  Involving a select group only can contribute but will not suffice.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Irish neutrality is a foreign policy tradition that stretches back over centuries. Irish political leaders from Wolfe Tone to O'Connell and James Connolly have advocated neutrality as the best way to serve the common good and to oppose militarism in society. Small countries have always been naturally sceptical of big military blocs because such blocs orientate their foreign policy around their own national interests, which normally means their economic interests. A perfect example of this has been the actions of the United States in the Middle East. Small countries also realise that when they are members of large military blocs they have very little influence over the direction of those blocs. They have to participate in wars but they do not have a say over what wars are fought.

Irish neutrality has actually served us very well. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya were perfect examples of wars of which it was good and logical for Ireland to stay out. Obviously, one does not have to be neutral in identifying what is right and wrong or helping countries, even though our country is militarily neutral. This is why it is up to this country to help with regard to the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the Israel-Gaza conflict.

One of the problems I have with the Government on this is that, despite having built up massive competency internationally for being an honest broker owing to being Ireland is neutral and to the good works we have done through the UN over the years, this Government has failed to utilise that competency in any way around the Israel-Gaza war. I have asked the Tánaiste, the Taoiseach and the Minister, Simon Harris, what actions and material offers have they made to Israel or the Palestinian Authority to act as a mediator, an interlocutor or a facilitator for peace. All three representatives of the Government said they had not made any such offer. I asked if they would make an offer into the future and they said "No", they were not going to make an offer. The Minister, Simon Harris, mentioned that no offer could be made until there is a ceasefire. This is a nonsense. Peace negotiations and peace processes start before there are ceasefires. That is a major issue.

Ireland can actually be an active neutrality agent in bringing peace to the world. I am not saying that Israel would say "Yes" to our offer but, as a country, we should be closing down any excuse it has for not participating in peace talks. We should be pushing through the European Union to try to make it establish an international peace conference as well. The European Union is, unfortunately, at sixes and sevens on this particular conflict.

When the Tánaiste mentioned that he is very focused on strengthening the security of this country, I laughed out loud because the Government's record on the security of this country is worse than useless. The biggest threat to our Defence Forces is Government policy. We have an exodus of personnel from the Defence Forces currently because of the Government's actions. The Defence Forces strength is down to 7,500 in the Army, the Naval Service and the Air Corps. This exodus is caused by the Government's actions on pay, conditions and terms of work. Simply, if you want to have people work, you need to treat them right and give them a decent wage. The Government is refusing to do that to the extent that we can only put two ships on the high seas at the moment. We cannot monitor our land, seas or cyberspace because this Government has stood idly by. The Government is the biggest threat to our security. If it meant business as regards our security, it would significantly invest in our Defence Forces.

Cathal Berry (Kildare South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to make some brief comments on the international security consultative forum. As someone who attended in person, I can say that I found it very useful and worthwhile. I am interested in international relations in any case but I picked up a lot of good nuggets at the forum, which I was not expecting, chief among them was that it is actually okay to have a different view from somebody else and to respectfully disagree with someone. Perhaps this is a skill in decline at the moment. We are picking up a lot of bad habits from the UK and US where people who have a different view are somehow personalised, demonised or polarised. It is important that we remember that having a different view is not just a feature of a free society; it is its very essence. Long may that continue.

On the points of agreement, I was glad to hear the Tánaiste say - and Deputy Tóibín picked up on this - that we need to provide more funding. There is general acceptance of that. The Tánaiste mentioned €1.5 billion per year as a target by 2028. This is at January 2022 prices and taking inflation into consideration. The Minister, Deputy Coveney, probably said it best when he said he expected the target figure should be €2 billion per year by 2028. That is a good target. It is important to highlight that we are going to undershoot €2 billion, which is a vital amount. It is necessary from a catch-up funding point of view due to the chronic under-investment of recent decades.

There was also very good consensus on maritime security. There is a concept of sea blindness where we do not look beyond the horizon. We are very vulnerable at sea. I am from farming stock, as is the Minister of State, Deputy Browne. I spoke to a farmer who had a great way with words. At the coffee break, he said he now understood that there is a hole in the fence and we have to fix it. He described how vulnerable we are from an energy point of view. Ireland has three gas pipelines coming into the country, two from Scotland and one from the Corrib field, and we have two electricity interconnectors. He said that, basically, we have three garden hoses and two extension leads connecting Ireland to the rest of the world. If any of those five elements or components go down, the lights will go off in Ireland. That is a very good summary.

I welcome that we got two new C-295 aircraft. They arrived in the last few months and have certainly helped the Air Corps maritime squadron. I welcome also the increase in offshore allowances last week for the Naval Service. However, we really need to get ships out there, regenerate the Naval Service and get our people out on the high seas.

There is a general consensus that there is a massive underrepresentation in the UN of countries from the southern hemisphere, especially in the Security Council. There was general disagreement that it should not be five permanent members and that they should not have the veto. Has the UN reached its League of Nations moment? That is the question for the Minister. Can it be reformed, tweaked or changed? There certainly seems to be resistance to it. Can it be changed or do we need a brand new organisation to take over global affairs?

I agree with Deputy Howlin that one of the reasons there is such a vehement argument about neutrality is that no one agrees on what it is. There are different views on neutrality. To me it is very simple, that we do not join a military alliance, enter a common security and defence arrangement but that we co-operate extensively with our neighbours, friends and partners on a case-by-case basis when it is in Ireland's interest to do so. By all means do not join an alliance or join a common defence clause, but everything up to and excluding those two things is on the table. That is a good way to go.

I welcome that the triple lock is at least being reviewed and look forward to a debate that teases it out properly.

I thank Professor Richardson for her great work over the last number of months. It was not easy. I wish her well with her future endeavours. I welcome that the national security strategy will be published in the coming months, as the Tánaiste announced. I have been screaming for it for a while. I welcome the establishment of the national security authority. Which Department will the new national security authority be nested in? Will it be the Department of the Taoiseach, Justice or Defence?

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the report. The consultative forum was a very useful exercise and I am glad the Tánaiste and the Government initiated it. It was a very meaningful debate. Unfortunately, I was abroad on other committee business at the time it was held and was unable to attend, but I followed it closely and have read its recommendations.

A view may have been expressed by some members of the Opposition earlier, which I have heard in the media since the report was published, that the consultation forum was a Trojan horse, which failed to sneak its cargo into Government buildings. That is not borne out in any objective review of the report. What strikes me as being front and centre, at least in the executive summary, and in the detail of the report is that there are multiple recommendations for change. At the very least, it has identified multiple deficiencies, areas for improvement and change-strategies we should adopt. It certainly highlights that the system is broken and needs to be fixed. That comes through loudly in the report.

I will take the executive summary as my guide. The first issue is a point Deputy Berry often makes about the need to have a national conversation about these matters. It is a normal, healthy thing to do. It should not be verbotenand that we cannot talk about security or neutrality in the Chamber or committees. National security and defence should be a bread and butter issue in the same way as health, the economy, housing and everything else is. Perhaps it may occupy less time in our debating schedule, but it is every bit as important and should be a normal part of the political debate, as it is in most mature countries. Why would it not be so? The debate has been very useful in that sense. It has put the issue centre stage. We have had a national conversation, which is proof of our maturity as a society and I hope as a political society.

I will move on to some other points. First, I highlight the need for greater public expenditure on the three branches of the Defence Forces. I welcome the Government's recent commitment around the naval branch. As a member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, I visited the Haulbowline Naval Base last year and, as when we visited The Curragh and other military encampments, I was made aware by the staff and personnel serving there of the need for greater supports and investment, with pay and conditions being paramount and recruitment and retention being a challenge. There is also a need to invest. I looked at the consideration of options 1, 2 and 3 from the Commission on the Defence Forces in the recent consultation. The Government opted for the middle road, which is option 2. Option 1 is a standstill, which effectively means going backwards. Option 2 is increased investment and support and option 3 is perhaps a higher order defence capability. The Government sensibly went for option 2. It was the minimum we could do in the circumstances. Unfortunately, some members of the Opposition took issue with that. They thought we should fall back to option 1. If there had been an option 0, I suspect some of them would have liked to take it. Some of the voices advocating that view are those who proclaim our neutrality the loudest. If we are to be a seriously neutral nation, we must be able to defend ourselves at the very least. We cannot have sovereignty if we cannot defend ourselves. I hope that is better understood as a result of this exercise.

Another topic that was highlighted has featured in the debate today, namely our maritime infrastructure and cyber infrastructure. I am classing them together, but they are separate. I have made the point in this Chamber in these debates in the past year or more that part of the foundation of our economy is our intellectual fire power, the research and development capacity we have, the knowledge economy we hold and support and the fact that we successfully attract, not only a vibrant indigenous economy of start-ups and enterprises, but also multinational corporations in the technology, pharmaceuticals, life sciences and advanced research spaces, which base themselves in Ireland for all kinds of reasons, not least that we have an educated workforce, we are an EU member state, we are English speaking and they enjoy being located here. That offering is essential to our economic package and our economic prosperity. We must protect those intellectual assets, including the data. Some 40% of the EU's data sets are housed in Ireland, largely because the Data Protection Commissioner for Europe is here. We need to protect that. If we cannot protect and safeguard the cables that carry that data across the Atlantic as the bridge between Europe, the Middle East and Africa and North America, for many companies, we cannot protect much at all. If we cannot keep our front and back doors protected, there is not much point in having a lovely house that is painted inside. It is a minimal requirement and it goes back to the sub-sea cables, which we heard a lot of debate about.

A few moments ago another Deputy said it is like a bit of sticking plaster at the moment. We have seen significant activity of radar aircraft and vessels circling over the spaghetti junctions at critical points in the infrastructure. That is not being done for charitable reasons or with good intent. It is being done quite clearly to intimidate and put the alarm out that it can be done, or perhaps to intercept some of the data, but it is not good for Ireland's economic offering or for anyone who is following that space. The other issue that arises with the sub-sea cables, as another politician commented recently, is that many of the threats or snags that arise are from fishing vessels. That is absolutely correct. Fishing vessels frequently encounter sub-sea cables, which causes problems. Equally fishing vessels are sometimes intercepted by submarines. There is a large amount of submarine activity in our waters and beyond. That is not helpful to the fishing fleets either. We have the same Submarine Telegraph Act 1885 as Australia and New Zealand, as it was passed in the late 1800s before independence. It governs the law around sub-sea cables. It is still in force today, but other jurisdictions, including Australia and New Zealand, have taken it further and put in the equivalent of a no-fly zone around the cables. In New Zealand, fishing vessels or any other commercial vessels do not sail over the location of the critical infrastructure of cables. It is not difficult to do. We have the same parent Act. With a few amendments we could bring it into law here. It would save fishing vessels a lot of expense and inconvenience, not to mention the operators of the cables, for whom the cost is in the multiple hundreds of thousands every time one of those snags occurs. That is to start with the bare basics as regards protection and security. It is not a hostile threat, but it is a threat that occurs nonetheless.

The other point in the cyber space is disinformation campaigns. Yesterday or the day before, a report was issued on disinformation campaigns that are active in Ireland. The problem of what they bring to the debate and the prevalence of hostile actors, including state actors, was largely attributed to the far right, but it is across every spectrum of a debate. China and Russia were mentioned in the report. Meta produces a threat advisory every six months. It has been well documented and born out in evidence that state actors are interfering in this space. It is not difficult or expensive to do. If a hostile state wants to weaken western liberal democracies and it can sow the seeds of discord, why would it not? It is an easy, quick, cheap and effective thing to do. It is not healthy for our democracy or society and we need to safeguard against it.

I was glad to see a recommendation that we have continual multilateral arrangements to co-operate with other member states. We do so already. We are a member of the EU, PESCO, the United Nations and various other alliances. NATO is often held up as a bogeyman figure.

I was coming into Leinster House earlier today and there were protesters outside with an anti-NATO sign. That is fine. I do not carry any particular torch for NATO, although I do think some of the exercises we have participated in, including sub-sea cable and marine training, can be very useful. There is this thing about NATO wars. What wars are we talking about? The Iraq war was not a NATO war. The war in the Balkans was. NATO went in and stopped an absolute massacre that was about to take place across the Balkans. The reaction to the attacks on 11 September 2001 could be argued to be a NATO response. By and large, some countries that are members of NATO participate in wars. They are not NATO wars. If the US bombs somewhere, it is not a NATO war; it is a US war. I think those concepts are confused all the time.

If we look at the countries that are in NATO, Canada and the US are members, although some might argue with its policies, and there are European nations that are proud members of it. They are actually our friends. They are countries we would look to ideologically, and places that we have much more in common in with than the alternative, which is the likes of Al-Qaeda, ISIS and Hamas. They are not organisations that I hold any torch for or see any common ground with whatsoever. Sometimes, listening to Members in different parts of this House, one might think that there is some kind of equivalence and we are somewhere in the middle between the two. We are not. I am not, anyway. I stand with the West and liberal democracy against those totalitarian theocratic regimes that try to take down everything we stand for.

On the neutrality point, I listened with great interest to a number of Deputies. Deputy Tóibín has left the Chamber but he talked about Wolfe Tone. I am always fascinated that when this discussion arises the suggestion is made that our neutrality is a sacred cow which has been there for centuries. Let us take Wolfe Tone as an example. Wolfe Tone was one of our proud republican patriots. I visit his grave every year at my party's commemoration and pay many personal visits each year as well. He was an officer in the French Navy who commissioned the French Navy to come to Bantry Bay as part of the 1798 rebellion and sought international assistance for the republican cause. When 1916 came around and Pearse and company were in the GPO, the Proclamation mentioned "gallant allies abroad" supporting the Proclamation and the rising. Rolling forward to 1960, when the new Republic had been declared, and proudly so, Seán Lemass, in his Oxford Union speech, spoke of the possibility that Ireland, a united Ireland, would consider alliances such as NATO - the idea was actually floated at the time - and other alliances that might enable us take our place among the nations of the world. None of these republican patriots were in favour of neutrality for the sake of it and none said we must be neutral. They were all actively pursuing alliances with other countries abroad. We have always done that and we always will do that. Why would we not do it?

I get confused when people say that we are neutral. The people who seem to be saying most loudly that we must be neutral are the same voices that say that we must actively intervene in the war in Israel and Gaza at the moment. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot be neutral in one direction and not neutral in the other direction. I do not personally believe we are neutral. I think we have a long, proud history of alliances with many countries, as I have just said. We cannot have it every way and only be neutral when it suits us. I commend the report and look forward to further debate on its recommendations.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was going to say that I welcome this report, but I do not because this consultative forum should never have been engaged with. There was a four-day roadshow and fanfare for the Tánaiste, Deputy Micheál Martin, 16 panels and a dame from the House of Lords to chair the forum. Was there no one fit to chair it in an tír seo? This man is running it by himself. I know now why he appointed Deputy Lawless chair of the committee on foreign affairs. He is another supporter and cheerleader of damaging our neutrality. He can spare us the history lessons of Wolfe Tone.

As I said, the forum was unnecessary and unwarranted. People who attended were turned out by gardaí because they asked something that was not permitted. It was contrived, controlled and totally stage-managed. I am glad people protested. I do not normally protest but I am glad those people did. They saw it for what it was, a phoney situation.

It fits better to support our soldiers and give them proper pay and conditions. Deputy Howlin referred to a figure of €30 million for all these projects he is going to complete. He is going to buy planes and build navy ships for €30 million. He is talking through his absolute you-know-what. That is what he is. We should respect our Army and support it, and respect our neutrality. We do not need to be all over Europe and the world on the global stage. We need to look after the people at home. There is an invasion going on quietly here and we cannot even have a debate about it in this Chamber. I am talking about the uncapped numbers of migrants and everybody else coming into the country. We will not talk about it all, but the Tánaiste wants to have a consultative forum. Why will he not have one on that? What is going on here is being talked about in every public house, workplace and car taking people to work, at every meeting and in every household. The Tánaiste has his súile dúnta. We are far-right if we mention it. I remember the Far East magazine that I used to get for my late mother. Now we are far-right, all of a sudden. I do not mind what they call us. We must stand up for our country, stay neutral, look after ourselves and look after our Army and Navy. They do not have the boats, ships and personnel to stop a stag party from coming in here, never mind an invasion or anything else. We are neutral and proud of it. It is time the Tánaiste stopped undermining that neutrality. We are neutral militarily but not politically, he says. Did you ever hear the like of it? New grammar is being introduced every day of the week.

Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was delighted to hear, a little while ago, that nine-year-old Emily Hand is now on a list of hostages to be released. Please God, that is followed through for her family and the people who have been extremely stressed about her well-being. Let us not forget that if we had expelled ambassadors and gone ahead with the drama that Members were calling for in the Dáil last week, this might not have happened. Some hostages are now being released and there is some sort of a ceasefire. That is only going to come through dialogue.

In the post-Second World War era, Ireland adopted a policy of neutrality to assert its independence from Britain and protect itself from global conflicts due to its geographic isolation. Recent geopolitical changes like the NATO partnerships, the EU Common Security and Defence Policy, CSDP, and Russia's invasion of Ukraine led to a re-evaluation of Ireland's neutrality. However, I believe that maintaining neutrality remains our best choice for the future. Neutrality has been a cornerstone of Irish foreign policy since the Second World War, giving us a unique global position. Recent events triggered a re-examination of our neutrality policy, leading to the creation of a consultative forum on international security policy. While the forum recommended deeper partnerships with NATO and the EU, it ultimately advised maintaining Ireland's neutral status, recognising the importance of parliamentary and public oversight over our national security matters.

Despite being viewed as a balanced and comprehensive report, the forum faces limitations as it cannot make policy recommendations to the Government. The rushed publication of the Department of Foreign Affairs statement of strategy, without public input, raises doubts about the forum's relevance as Ireland faces the challenge of balancing historical neutrality with evolving global challenges. The impact of the consultative forum was undermined by its limited scope and the disjointed Government approach. A more inclusive, co-ordinated and transparent strategy development process is essential for Ireland's continued role as a neutral peace-making State with citizens' participation. I am glad that last week I voted against expelling the Israeli ambassador. I will continue to do so to ensure we do not start a tit-for-tat process that will damage our country's neutrality.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am glad to get the opportunity to talk about this issue because I am very hurt and out of sorts about what is taking place on the Muckross Road in Killarney this evening. Seventy-seven single male asylum seekers have arrived. When we are talking about wars and conflicts we seem to be getting more men, whether they are refugees or asylum seekers. We do not know where the women are. Are they fighting the wars? I am being honest. We are talking about an international consultative policy and some forum. We need to have a national policy here to deal with the results of the conflicts all over the world.

Killarney and Kerry have taken on their fair share of asylum seekers and refugees. We are full of them and we have enough of them. In case the Minister of State is not aware, after the asylum seekers arrived, a van came along with a load of e-scooters. Who paid for them? They did not pay for them anyway. It is the fellas who are working all over the country and are out early in the morning who are paying for them. The asylum seekers were landed in alongside a 94-year-old woman without any consultation whatsoever. I have been begging here for a week or more for the Minister or his team to go and talk to the residents of the Muckross Road. It has not happened. I asked that it happen before the asylum seekers arrived or before their arrival was contemplated. They have landed now, and the women and girls that used to walk the Muckross Road morning, noon and night will all stop doing that. They are worried about their safety. On top of that, the tourism economy of Killarney and Kerry is now being compromised on a daily basis.

We need to sort out our own country first and sort out our own policies. There are more men coming than women. We cannot understand it.

He brought over 400 of them to the Killarney hotel last year and they fought between themselves. We want to know where they are coming from. They have to be vetted. If someone was allocated a house inside in Killarney or any part of Kerry by Kerry County Council, they would not be left into it without being vetted-----

Pádraig O'Sullivan (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Healy-Rae, the time is up.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----yet we do not know where these are coming from, who they are or what record they have.

Pádraig O'Sullivan (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Healy-Rae, sit down please. Resume your seat.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This has gone too far. Take it to the rest of them because ye will get it in the neck next year or the year after or whenever it is.

Pádraig O'Sullivan (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy, you are eating into the time of the next speaker now.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The people are waiting for ye to deal with this because ye have not dealt with it.

Pádraig O'Sullivan (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Healy-Rae. Now, can we go back to the consultative forum? I call Deputy Pringle of the Independent Group.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I start, I want to be totally dissociated from any of the comments previously made in the Chamber. I think it was an absolute disgrace. I want to make that clear before I go on.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on the report of the Consultative Forum on International Security Policy. It is no secret that-----

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do not anyone call me a disgrace here. I am elected by the people of Kerry and I am every bit as good as you are. You are not entitled to call me a disgrace, today, tomorrow or any other day.

Pádraig O'Sullivan (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Healy-Rae-----

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is obvious you do not fucking listen to what anybody says because that is not what I said. Next time, open your ears instead of your mouth, you might fucking understand what people are saying.

Pádraig O'Sullivan (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Pringle, I will give you your full time but I am asking Deputy Healy-Rae to stop, please. You went over a minute and a half over your time. You are now eating into other people's time.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I never interfered with you good, bad or indifferent.

Pádraig O'Sullivan (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can you please just stop and allow other people speak? We will go back to Deputy Pringle.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is no secret that I was very vocally against this forum and its set-up. The constitution of the panels at the forum was completely skewed towards those who are either opposed to Ireland’s current policy of neutrality, or those who seek to weaken it. Those with expertise on peacebuilding, arms control and humanitarian work were a significant minority on the panels and so you can understand why I am very sceptical of the report that came from this forum. We have said time and time again that if the Government wanted to start a national conversation, as the Tánaiste mentions in his opening statement, then this should have been done in the form of a citizens’ assembly. This forum was not a national discussion; it was a discussion between security experts and therefore those who have an interest in advancing military capabilities in Ireland, despite the opinion of the population. The chair’s report itself admitted this, saying "it must be borne in mind that the submissions were not a random or representative sample of the population, rather the views of citizens engaged in these issues; therefore, it would be unwise to extrapolate from these views to the population-at-large". Yet that is what the Tánaiste does in his opening statement today. He said this is a national conversation that has been taking place here, when clearly it has not. He goes on to contradict himself in his opening statement as well, where he talks about the need to get over the fact that the Security Council has not approved any new peacekeeping missions for us to participate in but then generally goes on to talk about how the Security Council is important. What is happening here is an absolute sham and dressing up to get participation and military responses right across the world; that is what we are seeing here. What is in the Tánaiste's statement is just a way of making sure that will happen on behalf of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Green Party, which are willing to participate in this. That is what is absolutely wrong.

The Government will make sure it will not give the people a say in this because the one thing they can be certain of is that the Irish people will have a different view and will want to ensure this will not happen and the ongoing militarisation that Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Greens have been pursuing will not happen now or in the future.

I also strongly disagree with the chair’s opinion that "It would seem, therefore, that Ireland’s policy of neutrality is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for Ireland’s global standing as a force for good in international affairs." There are many organisations that would also disagree with this assessment, including the New Agenda Coalition, of which Ireland is a member, which are committed to nuclear disarmament. Ireland’s policy of neutrality has been praised many times by NGOs and even UN officials. It is seen as a great asset to peace negotiations in the likes of Colombia and to discussions on things like nuclear disarmament.

It was not just the make-up of the forum that was questionable but also the content of it. I was disappointed at the lack of focus on biodiversity, especially since the greatest threat to our collective security is the climate and biodiversity crisis. Although cybersecurity is important, it will mean very little when we are faced with the enormous threat of climate change. In her conclusion the chair states "it will be important to ensure that future Irish governments have maximum flexibility to respond with deliberation and speed when called upon to ensure the safety and security of our citizens". Our citizens know that they have that through peaceful co-operation and the neutrality policy we have pursued.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not think in three minutes and 15 seconds I can do justice to what I feel and believe regarding this consultative forum. It was framed for a particular purpose. It has delivered on that purpose, albeit very badly. It is very badly written and did not give policy directions, which it was not allowed to. From that forum, we have a Tánaiste here today with an eight-page speech. I do not know who wrote it for him. We are told we are going to get rid of the triple lock. We were told this consultative forum was the start of a national conversation. He has just finished that national conversation and has told us he is going to bring in legislation now to get rid of the triple lock. That is absolutely shocking and unacceptable.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I really think he should consider his position in respect of what he has told us. Repeatedly through this, the chair told us we were not listening when various Government spokespeople said they were not getting rid of neutrality or changing it. Quite clearly, that is wrong. At the very least I would have asked that the report have a different title as the start of a conversation. It should have been "What does neutrality mean?" How do we make it work in the world as a neutral country and make our voices heard now more than ever? How do we do that? Instead, we have framed the whole thing from beginning to end and we have been ostracised and labelled as people who are not rational. I am a very rational human being and a female TD and I do not stand over Government policy on changing our neutrality. We should make it mean something when we need it in the world.

If we look at the backbenchers from Fianna Fáil and we look at the Green Party, Deputy Eamon Ryan told us the triple lock was essential less than a year ago. O'Dea told us we should stop fiddling around and talking about it, keep it and get onto the things that matter. Here we are today with a speech of eight pages and right in the middle, we say we are going to change the triple lock. Up to this point we were changing the triple lock because of Russia and it was about Russia misusing the veto. Nobody looked at America or chose not to refer to them. Professor Ray Murphy states that a quick review of the use of the veto shows how the US has most often exercised this prerogative, especially in relation to the Israel-Palestine conflict. In 2002, 21 years ago, the US threatened to use its veto to prevent the renewal of all UN operations in its effort to evade the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. It has continued, of course, to evade the jurisdiction of that court. The same professor outlines that the UN is often dysfunctional and inefficient but it remains the most important international organisation with responsibility for peace and security.

I say shame on the Tánaiste and on any backbencher who backs this instead of standing up for a neutral policy that means something now more than ever when we need voices for peace. Absolute shame on you.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to join colleagues for this important debate. I will conclude today's session with a few words on the consultative forum and the related next steps. Allow me to thank Deputies for their valuable contributions in the House today. One of the main goals of the forum was to generate discussions on our foreign, security and defence policies. Anyone who has listened to the last two hours of lively, open debate will surely conclude that we have certainly succeeded in that regard. The value of the last four days of discussion that took place in June of this year was to ensure that conversations on this very topic would be based on facts and evidence. There was an enormous variety of views and depth of knowledge among the contributions to the forum. We saw 80 people moderating or speaking on 18 panels over the four days of the forum, all of whom had considerable expertise and experience. They included many Irish people with on-the-ground experience of peacekeeping and peacebuilding all over the world, both civilians and military, as well as academics, experts from NGOs and Irish people working in the UN, the EU, the OSCE and NATO. It was also an open and inclusive process with approximately 1,000 members of the public in attendance and over 10,000 online viewers accessing the live stream during the forum. In addition, almost 850 submissions to the public consultations have been received.

The totality of these contributions was factored into Professor Louise Richardson's final report. For anyone who has not yet had a chance to read the report, I strongly recommend reading her expertly written findings, which represent a concise and measured account of the range of views on this issue in Ireland today.

As the Tánaiste previously commented, what was most striking was the degree of consensus to be found on many of the most significant aspects of foreign, security and defence policies. Ireland's commitment to a values-based foreign policy, to multilateralism and to the policy of military neutrality is not in question. Let me be very clear about that. Our contribution to both peacebuilding and peacekeeping has received global recognition. Such work is often grounded in the historical experience of conflict resolution on this island. Our partners, such as those who lead the peace process in Colombia, welcome the lessons we can share from our past. The role played by Irish women and men in UN peacekeeping missions, often in some of the most volatile security settings in the world, is an important part of our identity and one that inspires great pride in the Irish people. The consultative forum offered us an opportunity to hear directly from some of those individuals and to explore in more detail how exactly their work impacts on the lives of others.

One further area of consensus that arose during the discussions was the need for greater investment and support in our Defence Forces. Many Members present today will agree with me that it is now essential that we see significant and wide-ranging changes to the Defence Forces and defence provision in Ireland. As Minister for Defence, the Tánaiste set out the commitment to provide a positive transformation of our Defence Forces into a modern, agile military force capable of responding to increasingly complex security threats. This commitment is borne out in the high-level ambition plan to progress the recommendations of the Commission on the Defence Forces. This plan commits the State to move to level of ambition 2 with the commensurate increase in the defence budget from €1.1 billion to €1.5 billion in 2022 prices by 2028. We have already seen progress made in this commitment through the increased spending on the defence budget in 2023 and 2024.

Greater support for our Defence Forces brings me to an issue on which there has been much discussion but no single agreed point of view. I refer to the much-discussed triple lock mechanism. Participants at the forum from a wide range of backgrounds raised the question of how we can preserve our choice as a State to participate in EU-led missions in the context of an increasingly fragmented and contested UN Security Council, and which has not approved a new peacekeeping mission in almost a decade.

The Tánaiste presented his views earlier today on the need for a new process to replace the current triple lock, which allows Security Council members like Russia to bind Ireland's hands on international engagements. I direct those who argue that the discussion of this issue is all part of a plan to abandon our military neutrality towards my earlier remarks or those of the Tánaiste in his opening address. Any amendments that will be put in place would guarantee full compliance with the principles of the UN Charter and international law.

As Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, I work closely with our partner countries on a daily basis. I see the value of such co-operation in every area of our economy and society. I see no reason we would shy away from doing the same in the field of security and defence where it is in Ireland's interest to do so and not contrary to our foreign policy or military neutrality.

Our commitment to a values-based foreign policy, multilateralism and a policy of military neutrality does not insulate us from the harsh new security environment we find ourselves in today. The type of threats we see present today are novel and insidious. In many cases they seek to undermine our social fabric by spreading disinformation designed to stoke division. They sow doubt in our electoral system or create fear and confusion by interfering with our critical infrastructure. I point Members to the recent cyberattack on the Health Service Executive or the risk of intentional damage on our undersea cables. Members will agree that the Government must do more in this space to protect our citizens and our infrastructure. As a small nation it is entirely logical for us to look for opportunities for partnership to counter such dangers, be they in the context of permanent structured co-operation, PESCO, or through individually tailored partnership programmes with NATO.

As any representative of the Defence Forces will tell us, our involvement in the Partnership for Peace programme, in place since 1999, has offered us very significant opportunities to enhance our capabilities. The focus on the interoperability of our Defence Forces has greatly facilitated Ireland's participation in UN and EU missions overseas. By expanding into new goals such as co-operation on cybersecurity, resilience and civil preparedness, as well as maritime security, we are taking steps to protect Ireland against malicious state and non-state actors who seek to interfere with our way of life.

I strongly welcome the Tánaiste's comments that he wishes to see us go further and do more with our international partners. Equally, it is incumbent on us to take a clear look at our national security arrangements and ensure they are fit for purpose in an increasingly complex and unpredictable world. It is now timely to build on the progress made in certain areas, such as the National Cyber Security Centre, by enhancing our national security institutions. The Tánaiste made a number of commitments here today that will go some way towards doing so, most notably through the delivery of a national security statement of strategy. There will also be a clear focus on agreeing a maritime security strategy.

It is clear from the extraordinary public engagement with the forum, as well as the lively exchange of views here in the House today, that there is a real interest and a diverse range of views on Ireland's international security policy. Today's debate was an important next step in that national conversation to explore the type of challenges we face and to agree how we as a State are preparing to face them. I look forward to joining with my colleagues across the House and the Government in taking the next steps necessary to preserve our peace and security on this island and indeed around the world.