Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

2. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the human rights monitoring mechanism, if any, planned for missions without a UN mandate in light of the proposed removal of the triple lock, given the potential lack human rights monitoring at UN level in missions without a UN mandate; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31235/25]

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

4. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if he will outline his proposals to remove the triple lock neutrality protection; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31322/25]

Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have discussed the issues pertaining to the abolition of the triple lock many times. I am reading the draft Bill which seeks to do this. I am struck by the apparent lack of human rights monitoring mechanisms which could be included as safeguards for deployment, given the removal of the human rights monitoring at UN level. What human rights monitoring, if any, is envisaged to ensure missions in which we take part are human rights compliant?

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

I propose to take Questions No. 2 and 4 together.

I thank Deputy Gibney for the question. As she is aware and has alluded to, I brought forward the general scheme of the defence (amendment) Bill 2025, which amends the legislation underpinning overseas deployments of the Defence Forces. This was agreed by Cabinet on 4 March. The Bill will, among other things, provide for the modification of the existing requirement regarding the dispatch of the Defence Forces for service outside the State as part of an international force. Under the current proposals in the general scheme to amend the existing legislation, the requirement for a UN mandate will be removed. I wish to again underline that the legislation in place currently allows members of the UN Security Council, by means of a veto or indeed threat of same, to bind Ireland's hands in its international peacekeeping engagements. The veto by a UN Security Council member on a proposed resolution for a full and unconditional ceasefire in Gaza on 4 June last is further evidence of this. It is simply untenable for this Government to continue with this policy.

I recently saw some people at a press conference opposing the abolition of the triple lock and then asking me to send the Navy to the humanitarian blockade in Gaza. There would not be a UN mandate to do that. The inconsistency in respect of this is quite breathtaking.

I strongly believe that such consideration on international engagements should be within our sovereign control. The people of Ireland decide where our peacekeepers go. Their democratically elected officials decide, not people who have never received one vote in any constituency in this country. That is how our democracy works. It is how many neutral countries work as well. The triple lock is not the norm in other neutral countries. In my view and the view of the Government, the decision-making should be within the remit of the Government of the day and the people's representatives in Dáil Éireann, people who have been democratically elected.

I very much recognise, however, that in removing the UN Security Council mandate there is a need to provide alternative safeguards to underpin the future dispatch of Defence Forces personnel.

I am very open to the Deputy. This is why we publish draft legislation and have pre-legislative scrutiny. I am very open to working across the House on this. So far my thinking on this is that in parallel with removing the UN mandate requirement, I have proposed that governing principles will be included in the legislation. Those already proposed in the draft Bill will require that the mandate of these operations must be consistent with and adhere to the principles of the UN Charter and international law. The UN Charter is the bedrock here. If there is a view that we need to strengthen that, I am happy to engage. In assessing any request to participate in a mission, among the main considerations are its compliance with Irish law and our foreign policy. Other elements include consent of the host nation. This is important as I have heard people asking if this could apply to non-peacekeeping or peace enforcing. Further elements are trust in partners in the operation and that the operation operates in accordance with international law and is consistent with the UN Charter. In evaluating proposals to join an operation consideration of the legal framework, rules of engagement, concept of operations also form the basis of deliberations. I would also like to highlight the current legal framework that applies for EU military missions. Under Article 21 of the Treaty of the European Union the Union’s action shall be guided by the principles of democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law.

During the drafting process these principles will be refined to make sure we provide legal effect to them, and I would welcome any further suggestions on safeguards from the committee and from Members. I look forward to the pre-legislative scrutiny report of the Committee on Defence and National Security. I wish to underline again that the proposed amendments to the legislation are in keeping with Ireland’s values and policy of being militarily unaligned and being militarily neutral, and these changes do nothing, and do not wish to do anything, to undermine that policy. As this House is aware, Ireland’s policy of military neutrality is characterised by the non-membership of military alliances or common or mutual defence arrangements, which is set out in the Constitution. These legislative proposals have no effect on the Constitutional provision that underpins this policy.

Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Tánaiste mentioned hypocrisy around calling for humanitarian naval action in Gaza----

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

Inconsistency

Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

----which of course is not covered by the triple lock anyway. The Tánaiste mentioned the triple lock not being the norm in other neutral countries, and once again I say that they have not had the same journey to neutrality that we have had. They did not have the same engagement with the Nice and Lisbon treaties which required us to enshrine the triple lock for that purpose.

I will go back to the main point of the question today, which is around human rights monitoring. I welcome the principles the Tánaiste has outlined such as consent for nations. They are great principles but they are not monitoring. They absolutely are not active monitoring. The only organisation that does active monitoring is the UN. The other organisations the Tánaiste mentioned do not have the primary purpose of peacekeeping and therefore do not apply the same level of human rights monitoring. Even in respect of the UN Charter, which the Tánaiste mentioned, he is not talking about applying it by the letter. He is talking about the principles, which once again falls short of that human rights monitoring. I welcome the opportunity to engage on this.

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

We will have a fair few engagements on this. I am not all that convinced there was a lack of clarity, but if there was a necessity for clarification on humanitarian evacuation, drug interception or rescue of civilians, the Government should just legislate for that. That is my suggestion. As far as the Irish people are concerned, we do peacekeeping with the UN. The UN is not perfect but we do peacekeeping with it. We do not do peacekeeping with NATO or other organisations. That is the standard that offers us the highest level of international law, of confidence.

One of the bases on which Irish troops can be deployed is that of strengthening international security. I am sure the Tánaiste will agree that is very broad. Can he tell us a bit more about what he has in mind?

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

I thank the Deputies for their concerted engagement. I definitely did not use the word "hypocrisy". I know the depth of feeling that people have in relation to Gaza. I am just making the point that there is an inconsistency - I think that is the word I used - in relation to it. I do not want to use a loaded phrase because I have huge respect for people who are quite rightly highlighting the situation in Gaza. I am just making the point that we are living in a world that is so turbulent we can no longer rely on international partners to necessarily provide sanction. We cannot even get the UN Security Council to agree a motion in relation to Gaza. That is the point I am making on the current level of dysfunctionality around the veto.

I take very seriously the points Deputy Gibney makes and appreciate her professional background and expertise in these areas. I am happy to work constructively on this issue. We have a clear difference on the triple lock. I respect that difference. It is clear we are not going to resolve it. If Government intends to do what it does intend to do, it is legitimate that the Deputy asks about the safeguards and human rights monitoring. I am happy to engage on how we can strengthen that and try to address it in legislation. Deputy Gibney is right that I did refer to principles of the UN Charter, which is the fundamental grounding here. We are very much open to looking at how we can refine and strengthen that and give it legal effect. I will constructively engage with any recommendations that come from the Oireachtas committee and the pre-legislative scrutiny report regarding that.

To Deputy Ó Laoghaire, I genuinely welcome the points he makes at the start on being happy to legislate to provide greater clarity. This Bill is looking to do a number of things. All is not the triple lock. I think that is the point the Deputy is making. We are looking to reform and change the triple lock, absolutely, but we are also looking to do other things that are separate and distinct from the triple lock, which I think provide clarity for our people on rules around deployment in terms of rescuing Irish citizens from abroad, for example. I welcome the Deputy's constructive support on that. I do think the Deputy picked one element of the draft Bill there. It does have to be read in the round. We are very clearly saying in the draft legislation that people could only be deployed where there is the active consent of the host country and the likes. However, in terms of keeping international security, there is absolutely no doubt our troops in Lebanon are helping to keep the security of Lebanon right now.

Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Tánaiste. On the dysfunctionality he has described in the UN, this is exactly the time for us to recommit to our engagement with the UN, to help resolve the difficulties we are experiencing at Security Council level. As we have been at pains to point out throughout this debate, and will continue to highlight, the triple lock can be satisfied by the UN General Assembly. I had answers from the officials of the Department of Defence to that effect, which confirmed that the General Assembly can satisfy it. The same thing was put out in the literature on the Lisbon and Nice treaties. Some of the Government spokespeople will talk about the difficulty that might present but again, it is exactly the time to commit to that and make sure we work within the UN structures rather than stepping away from them at this crucial time of volatility on our globe.

I thank the Tánaiste for his engagement on the issue of human rights monitoring. We will be bringing forward suggestions on how we can satisfy that.

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

On the safeguards and so on, the difficulty is who the arbiter will be. The arbiter will be the Government of the day, which will be the self-same Government that intends to deploy the troops.

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

The courts.

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

That does create a difficulty, if a Government is so motivated to deploy troops and it is being asked to evaluate. I understand the arguments the Tánaiste has made about the UN Security Council. It seems to me that it is a sovereign act by a sovereign Parliament to decide that this is the threshold. We have decided that this is the test. The Parliament here sets tests for numerous areas of public policy. Sometimes we ask other organisations to do that. We asked the Low Pay Commission to set tests as to an appropriate method of determining low pay. We do ask outside bodies at times where we trust that they have a certain standard to be an arbiter. The Government is going to be an arbiter. That is fundamentally what is proposed in the legislation.

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

The courts arbitrate on our law, Irish courts. They are the arbitrator of any law passed here and ensure that the Government of the day, any Government of any hue - the Deputy might be in government one day - keeps within the laws of the land as passed by the Oireachtas. The law is arbitrated on by the Irish courts, not any Government. There is an arbitrator and it is our courts system.

The Deputy is right that the test today on whether we can deploy peacekeepers is the UN Security Council. My contention is that it is now the wrong test and we need to change the test. The Deputy has referred to things like external bodies and the Low Pay Commission. The Government of the day and the Oireachtas appoint people to the Low Pay Commission. The geopolitical situation has evolved significantly over the last several years and extraordinarily rapidly in the last number of years. The idea now that a UN Security Council where we have the likes of Russia threatening to veto things is really serious. I touch wood and hope this does not happen, but we have brave men and women in Lebanon today serving under a UN mandate.

We all support them fully. I visited them and they are doing a great job. What if the UN does not renew that mandate? Would it be the view of the Opposition that those peacekeepers should come home, even though it is my view and I think that of the Oireachtas and of the overwhelming majority of people that they are doing an incredible job? What if Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin or any of the leaders of the permanent members of the Security Council decide they are going to try to save a bit of money this year and are not as committed to multilateralism? In the context of the Elon Musk review being spoken about at the minute, what if it is decided there is a further need to pull back funding from the UN? Are those people going to decide whether the men and women of Óglaigh na hÉireann have to come home from southern Lebanon? That is not what I think should happen.