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

9. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if he will provide details of the proposed changes to the triple lock; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6071/25]

Barry Heneghan (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

15. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if he is considering any changes to the triple-lock mechanism, which currently requires UN Security Council approval alongside Government and Dáil approval, for the deployment of Irish Defence Forces overseas; whether any proposed changes are solely intended to ensure that future peacekeeping missions are not unduly hindered by geopolitical deadlock at the UN; whether potential reforms to the triple lock are being considered to enhance operational flexibility while maintaining Ireland’s neutrality and adherence to international law; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6035/25]

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

44. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the status of the proposed changes to the triple lock; if it is intended to remove the neutrality protection of the triple lock; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6076/25]

Mark Ward (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

45. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence regarding the new proposed legislation to scrap the triple lock system, if this will undermine Ireland's military neutrality; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6121/25]

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Government is waging a very thinly veiled stealth war against Irish neutrality. The move to remove the triple lock is part of that very conscious and deliberate campaign by this Government to undermine our traditional neutrality. Can the Tánaiste please explain why the Government is getting rid of the triple lock? Is it not clearly just a move to undermine Ireland's traditional neutrality and involve us in the wars of big powers?

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to take Questions Nos. 9, 15, 44 and 45 together.

I reject the Deputy's assertion. That will not come as any surprise to him. As set out in the programme for Government, this Government intends to reform the legislation relating to the triple lock also ensuring that amendments to it are in keeping with our values and our policy of military neutrality. I might be shouting into a black hole in relation to this, but I really do hope we can actually have a debate which can respect that we all want to maintain military neutrality. I do, the Government does and the Deputy opposite does. I hope we can have a discussion about the detail of the legislation around the triple lock. Simply conflating the two does a disservice to the men and women of Óglaigh na hÉireann. It does a disservice to our defence and security obligations as a country and to peacekeeping and the role our peacekeepers can play abroad. We can be militarily neutral and also say that we do not believe the UN Security Council should have a veto on where our peacekeepers go. Those two things are absolutely consistent with each other. The Deputy may have a different view, but that is my absolute view.

As I said to Deputy Gibney earlier, I want to engage constructively on this. I want to get the legislation right. I do not believe the current legislation in relation to the triple lock is fit for purpose. I have said very clearly that in amendments I bring forward, we will want to keep with our values and our policy of military neutrality. Please do not tell the people of Ireland that I am wishing to get rid of military neutrality. That is not my position. Do not misrepresent me, my party or the Government of Ireland.

The triple lock sets out a number of mechanisms in relation to how Irish troops may participate in overseas peace support operations. I believe a new process is needed to replace the current system, which underpins the deployment of Irish troops abroad and which does effectively allow the UN Security Council to bind Ireland's hands in its international engagement by veto or by a threat of veto. The previous Government had approved the drafting of the general scheme of a Bill to amend the legislation on how we deploy our troops overseas, in terms of overseas peacekeeping but also for other purposes, including evacuation operations of Irish citizens abroad. Many times in this House, Deputies have rightly highlighted important issues about how we get our people, our citizens - not troops - back from overseas in times of great danger and in a volatile geopolitical situation. The next step is to present draft heads of legislation to Cabinet and to publish them. Then, if and when we can get the Oireachtas committees set up quickly, let us go to an Oireachtas committee and scrutinise this and get it right.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not trust Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael with Irish neutrality. For example, the Department of Defence has just contracted a US defence agency based in the pentagon to redesign the Irish Defence Forces. In the blurb on its website, this US pentagon-based company says it is grounded in American values. Maybe they are the values of Donald Trump as he has shown in a video the Tánaiste may have seen about Gaza, with statues of Trump and dollar signs being made by Trump in Gaza. Should we trust Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, given that millions of US troops were allowed go through Shannon Airport, in a neutral country, to prosecute wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? The Government has involved us in PESCO and the EU militarisation project, which is in turn aligned with NATO, dominated by the United States, Germany and Britain. Why would we trust you with neutrality?

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

The Tánaiste talks about respect and trust. That is exactly what the people of Ireland do not have for on in him. There has been a carefully choreographed campaign to get rid of our neutrality. The current Taoiseach, back in 2013, clearly spelled out what Fine Gael was up to. At that point, we were told the triple lock was an integral part of our neutrality and so on. You have turned language on its head. If you want respect and trust, then you should have done what you promised in respect of neutrality and let it go to a citizens' assembly. That did not happen. What we got was Dame Richardson in charge of a carefully choreographed, so-called consultative forum, and even then the people of Ireland made their views known and the vast majority said we hold neutrality dear.

Now you have come back with this. It is one of the clearest objectives in the programme for Government. As opposed to the other wishy-washy language, you will change the triple lock and you are changing the triple lock against the wishes of the people of Ireland.

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

It feels as if there is constantly something unsaid in this debate. The Government is in favour of removing the need for a UN mandate for peacekeeping missions. We have had referendums in the past and a lot of weight was put on the fact that the triple lock existed - that this was a defence of our neutrality. Whatever about your bona fides, the effect of this is to undermine Irish neutrality. The issue that is left unsaid is: what missions does the Government believe need to take place outside of a UN mandate? For all the faults of the UN, this is how it operates. We would certainly like to see it reformed. I take the point that reform is unlikely to happen. However, notwithstanding that, the UN is the organisation that is tasked with providing peacekeepers, generally speaking. What missions does the Minister anticipate Irish troops could potentially go on outside of a UN mandate?

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A very worrying thing is beginning to happen in this House where there is a basic lack of respect for the mandate of people who sit on this side of the House. Deputy Connolly has come in here and said that I do not have the trust and respect of the Irish people. I got elected to Dáil Éireann on the same day as she did, as did my colleagues. Together we formed a majority of the people's representatives. We put in our manifesto that if we were elected to government, we would reform the triple lock. We told the Irish people before the election. We do not need any caustic remarks that if people in this House do not like the way we vote somehow or other we have lost the trust and respect. I would not accuse Deputy Connolly of losing trust and respect. I have the trust and respect of my constituents which was just renewed a couple of months ago and we have formed a Government. This is democracy in action. It is not just democracy if you like the outcome. We do not need a citizens' assembly. We have one; here it is. This is the citizens' assembly, the National Parliament where the men and women elected by citizens of this country get sent to debate and discuss issues. If we can do it in a respectful manner, I think we will be very productive.

Deputy Ó Laoghaire asked a valid question. It is not the UN; it is the UN Security Council veto. It is the Vladimir Putin veto that actually has a real ability. Vladimir Putin has no right to say where the men and women of Óglaigh na hÉireann can go on peacekeeping missions. I will not comment on his election, but he certainly was not elected to this Dáil. There have been a number of times - for example in 1999 where a permanent member of UN Security Council vetoed the renewal of the United Nations Preventive Deployment Force as a subsequent EU peace operation to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia did not have a Security Council mandate. Ireland wanted to participate but we were unable to participate in that. More recently in 2015 the EU established a security mission in the Mediterranean known as Operation Sophia. The mission did not have a UN mandate until 2016 and as a result Ireland's participation was delayed by over a year. The same concerns as regards Operation Althea have since arisen where a potential UN Security Council member veto would have resulted in Ireland having to withdraw from the mission.

Finally in 2017 the Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre (Narcotics), which is an international maritime intelligence centre supported by the EU, requested a Naval Service ship to assist with maritime drug interdiction operations. Although Ireland is an extraordinarily strong supporter of that centre and indeed was one of the founding members of the centre, a ship could not be sent there because there was not a UN Security Council mandate. There are real challenges here and we should work through them in a sensible and respectful manner.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The point of the UN part of the triple lock is that we do not deploy troops in conflicts between the big imperial powers. The Minister is right: Putin is a nasty imperialist aggressor. However, is it not interesting that he does not call Trump a nasty imperialist aggressor when he has just said to the Ukrainians, "We might consider giving you a few weapons, but only if you give us all those raw materials in your country", or while he is trying to do a real estate deal on top of the broken bones and bodies of the victims of genocide in Gaza. The Minister does not mention him as an imperialist or the new German Chancellor who has invited Netanyahu, a wanted war criminal, to Germany which is also involved in NATO. He does not mention them and that is the truth of it. The Minister wants to get rid of the triple lock so we can deploy Irish troops to get involved in conflicts headed up by military alliances dominated by the United States, Britain and Germany - people who are every bit potentially, and often in reality, as nasty as the Russians.

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

Micheál Martin, the current Taoiseach has repeatedly said that the triple lock is at the core of our neutrality. As a neutral independent sovereign State, we should use our voice to champion the UN structures, to reform the UN structures and to get away from the language of rule-based order and talk about international law which has been hard won following two world wars. Then we come to Putin. On this side of the House, we are all on record as condemning the illegal invasion.

I do not hear the condemning of America for its encroachment - to put it mildly - it is taking over and destabilising of a number of countries in South America. I do not hear the Government condemn the new US President at the moment because it suits its purposes. Our credibility is at stake in relation to being neutral. We need our credibility. We need people to be able to trust us so that we speak truth to power regardless of whether it is in America or in-----

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Deputy Ó Laoghaire.

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

Regarding our assessment as to why Ireland should be a neutral State, some people have talked about moral superiority. That is not it in my view. In my view it is a clear-sighted assessment of the role we can play where we can be of most benefit but also do what is in our interests. I believe that neutrality serves us well and has popular support. The Minister has said he is in favour of neutrality. The massive concern is that without the triple lock, effectively a vote of this Dáil ultimately is the only thing that will decide whether troops will be deployed. What we are talking about here is Irish troops operating outside of a UN mandate. For all the flaws of the UN, it is recognised and there is a certain respect for the blue helmets and all that goes with it and Irish troops have served with distinction under it. With Irish troops being deployed outside that mandate, what if something were to go wrong? That is the concern. What if Irish troops were to become embroiled in something controversial or difficult or that might in any way undermine or damage our status as a neutral state?

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with Deputy Connolly. We should and do continue to champion the UN and champion reform of the UN. I fully agree with that. I am a huge believer in international law and the workings of the United Nations. At a time when that is under threat from others who are looking inwards and do not believe in multilateralism, we should be even louder in our promotion. I do not disagree on that. However, I also recognise the reality, as I am sure she does that UN Security Council reform is not exactly forthcoming from some of the permanent members of the UN Security Council.

In response to Deputy Boyd Barrett, I have been very clear and have given specific examples on the record in his House as to where I would have liked to see Irish troops being able to assist in various missions that are in line with military neutrality but they could not because of the current reality. I put them on the record of the House. He can go back and scrutinise them and check them out. Those are the examples. I have a longer list I can provide to him as well.

I have also been very clear on our position on Ukraine. We will have a debate on Ukraine immediately after these parliamentary questions. Everybody from President Zelenskyy down knows the support and solidarity that the Irish Government and the people of Ireland have provided to Ukraine. Others can have their position on Ukraine. Ireland and the European Union have our position. I spent Sunday and Monday with European foreign ministers, working extraordinarily hard to make sure we backed in a unified way the UN resolution on Ukraine and we did. We deviated from the US and we proudly deviated in standing up for our values and not amendments or resolutions that did not recognise Russia as the aggressor and the importance of the UN Charter.

We would be having a really interesting debate in this House if there was a conversation about what should be contained in the legislation to amend the triple lock. I find it underwhelming and disappointing that at a time when I am giving real examples of real challenges that have been faced by the men and women of the Defence Forces, the Deputy is not saying, "Let's tease through these."

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister has not given one example.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy must not have been listening. I will give them again in a second.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am listening very carefully.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I gave them to him; does he want them again? They were: the United Nations Preventive Deployment Force in 1999; in 2015 the Mediterranean operation known as Operation Sophia; the Maritime Analysis Operations Centre (Narcotics) mission operation; and a UN authorisation for EUFOR Operation Althea in Bosnia Herzegovina that we nearly had to miss out on too.

These are the examples.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are not good examples.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hope the Deputy heard me that time. I have already given them, but let me give them again. Maybe he does not want to hear them or does not want to engage. Maybe he wants to jump up and say Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil want to get rid of military neutrality. No, we do not. The Deputy might not trust us, but let me assure him that the people of Ireland showed, when they went out to vote in the election, that they do not trust People Before Profit with our foreign policy or our defence policy.

Deputies:

Hear, hear.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Every single opinion polls show the majority of people are in favour of neutrality.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So am I.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Whatever. They also, in their hundreds of thousands, protested about decisions of previous Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Governments to allow millions of US troops to go through Shannon Airport to assist US-UK led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered on the basis of lies put out by the US. The coalition Government of which the Tánaiste was a member allowed that to happen. Why would we trust the Government when it had NATO generals overseeing our troops in Cork at least twice in the past couple of years? Why would we trust it when the Department of Defence has employed a US Pentagon-based contractor imbued with US values to redesign our Defence Forces? Why would we trust it when it is involving us with the PESCO alliance, which is aligned with NATO and dominated by the US, the UK, France and Germany, some of the biggest imperial powers with brutal records of warmongering? Why would we trust it?

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

I will pick up on that point on trust. Trust is at an all-time low in this Government in relation to neutrality.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Says who?

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

In the context of troops going through Shannon Airport, the Tánaiste has never once inspected those troops. Repeatedly, he has got information about arms and soldiers carrying arms. Never once did he engage in an inspection. He reassured us. I am never reassured by institutions nor Governments. I like to see evidence.

There is no progress on the occupied territories Bill, which goes to the core of our credibility in relation to how we deal with different aggressors, be it Russia, the US or Israel. The Government is bowing to American interests. There are any number of examples, including the Lisbon treaty and the Nice treaty. We were forced to vote twice. We got reassurances and we got civil declarations and guarantees that we were not going in the direction of a military-industrial complex and a European army.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We got the triple lock.

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

We were told that over and over. When I talk to people on the ground in Fianna Fáil, they tell me that neutrality is absolutely at the core of what we stand for.

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

We will have the legislation. The Tánaiste is talking about teasing through it. Of course we will. We will have our engagement, and I hope that there will be enough time for it. However, as far as we are concerned, the triple lock is something that Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil for a long time put a lot of store by and pointed to it as evidence that there was no question regarding Irish neutrality, as Deputy Connolly outlined.

In the context of the Lisbon treaty, which was a very flawed document that contained flawed proposals, one of the fundamental arguments in favour of that and one of the reasons used to sell it to the Irish people was that this would strengthen both our position and international respect for the triple lock. We can have numerous debates about all the failings of the UN. Ireland must use its voice. However, there are many countries across the world that are led by people who we would not have any time for but that are part of the UN. It is the multilateral organisation that makes decisions in respect of peacekeeping missions. We need to be part of UN missions.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am having an out-of-body experience here. I am in favour of Irish neutrality. The Government of Ireland is in favour of Irish neutrality. The Government of Ireland values Irish neutrality. I spend a significant amount of my working week travelling the world explaining to colleagues, partners and counterparts why we value our neutrality. I also value this place and the democratic mandate of the men and women elected to Dáil Éireann in the context of decisions relating to our Defence Forces. The idea of seconding that out to anybody else is ludicrous. The idea of seconding it out to somebody such as Vladimir Putin is downright illogical. We need to be able to have a sensible debate. We need to publish the legislation,. None of the Deputies has seen the legislation yet but they are all against it. We need to then send it to an Oireachtas committee and scrutinise it. I welcome the fact that Deputy Ó Laoghaire at least is willing to do that.

I take the point about how people were in favour of the triple lock at one time but are now not in favour of it. However, I would respectfully say that the world has changed. There was a time when we used to invite Russian presidents to this country, shake their hands, welcome them and engage. Vladimir Putin is involved in an invasion of a country on the Continent of Europe. The context has changed.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The US context has changed too.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In terms of our defence and security obligations, we have an obligation to do that.

On the occupied territories Bill, I do not wish to be misrepresented. I spent all of Monday in Brussels at an EU-Israel association agreement negotiation. It was stated that we have not made no progress. We have made progress. The 27 member states have unanimously agreed to language that I think that even Deputy Connolly might be supportive of in relation to the differentiation between the State of Israel and the illegally occupied territories. That is what our incredible diplomats, our incredible civil servants, aided, assisted and directed by the Irish Government, have managed to achieve at an EU level this week in the context of the importance of a two-state solution, standing up for and providing more money for UNWRA, standing up for the International Criminal Court and international law and, when it comes to trade, differentiating between the illegally occupied territories of what should make up the State of Palestine and the State of Israel.