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

8. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the basis on which the decision has been taken to legislate for the removal of the triple lock; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31260/25]

Darren O'Rourke (Meath East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

12. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if he accepts that abolishing the triple lock was not necessary to release humanitarian deployments or secure the evacuation of Irish citizens abroad, as heard at a recent meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Defence and National Security; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30282/25]

Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

43. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence to provide an update on legislation he is bringing forward with respect to the triple lock; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30079/25]

John Clendennen (Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

48. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if the proposed changes to the triple lock will impact on Ireland’s policy of being militarily neutral; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30705/25]

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

51. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if the general scheme of the defence (amendment) Bill 2025 removes, rather than reforms, the triple lock; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31229/25]

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

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach Gníomhach. Baineann mo cheist leis an nglas triarach agus an cinneadh atá déanta fáil réidh leis. My question relates to the triple lock. Will the Tánaiste outline as clearly as he can the basis on which the decision was taken to legislate for the removal of the triple lock? If he can outline that in a rational way, I would be very interested.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obviously, I cannot respond to the Tánaiste's five- or six-minute reply in one minute. He made many promises. We had promises in the Nice and Lisbon treaties and, separately, we have promises to end the housing crisis. There have been many solemn promises the Government has not fulfilled. For the Tánaiste to stand here and say he will fulfil a promise is not a response to the question I asked. My question asked about the basis leading to this decision. I would have thought that somewhere a document sets out the problems.

The continuous referral to the difficulty with the veto has always been framed in terms of the Russian veto being used. Even today, on his third occasion to speak on this, the Tánaiste spoke about the recent decision of the failure of the UN in calling for a ceasefire. He failed to call out who used the veto. America used the veto.

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

Sorry-----

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

The Tánaiste has referred to hypothetical situations, which, he has told us in the past, he does not like to talk about because he instead prefers to deal in reality. The reality is that America used the veto to stop a ceasefire and allow genocide to continue.

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

To be clear, the United States of America used the veto. I have no issue about that. I think I referenced the President of the United States on a number of occasions today in regard to my concern about the potential use of the veto. The United States used the veto, and I think it was an appalling use of it. It is a sign of the dysfunctionality of the Security Council. I fully agree with the Deputy on that.

Regarding Nice, Lisbon, etc., I am talking about what we ran on in the election. Nice and Lisbon are very important and we gave commitments in our manifesto. We articulated them not just in this Government but in the previous Government. This proposal is not coming as a surprise to the Deputy or anybody in the House. I believe the Irish people see a very clear difference, as we have seen in recent public polling, between valuing military neutrality and recognising that we can have an informed discussion about how we reform and change the triple lock. I do not think the two issues should be conflated.

Every time we try to have a conversation on defence, security or peacekeeping, we are accused of attacking military neutrality. We are not. Military neutrality is not owned by Deputy Connolly, the left or anybody else. It is owned by all of us. It is deeply valued on a cross-party basis, including by my party. We have no proposals to change military neutrality. I want to work with the Deputy to make sure that the legislation is clear. We might have differences in terms of the proposal on the triple lock but we should seek to get the legislation right.

I am not just talking about hypotheticals, although I accept what I said about Lebanon was hypothetical. On previous occasions in the House, I have mentioned the challenges we have already faced in respect of the veto. I do not understand what the problem is with the people who elected Deputy Connolly in Galway, me in Wicklow and others in Dublin making a decision such that the Government and the people's representatives can reach agreement. Deputy Ó Laoghaire asked about oversight structures, which are in place. Every law that is passed has arbitrators, namely, the courts. Why would we give that sovereignty away?

I have looked at other militarily neutral countries, ones the Deputy would not doubt at all are militarily neutral, and I am happy to discuss them when we deal with the legislation. She or I could not and would not question their neutrality. They do not have a triple lock. The idea that it is either the triple lock or no military neutrality genuinely does not stand up to scrutiny. One can favour the triple lock, but it is not the same as saying the triple lock must stay or military neutrality will be threatened. There are many examples of countries that are proudly militarily neutral that do not have a triple lock, and the Deputy would not suggest that they are militarily aligned.

There is a way of getting this right and I look forward in the first instance to the report coming back from the committee following pre-legislative scrutiny. My predecessor hosted an international forum on defence and security that examined the issue of the triple lock. There has been much work done on this over quite a number of years. There are genuine different views in the House and I respect that, but there is a way of getting legislation right that guards military neutrality while also recognising that we have to be able to deploy peacekeeping troops in a manner that does not succumb to a UN Security Council veto.

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

I do not know if the Minister understands the Lisbon and Nice treaties. We had to vote a second time because of people's concerns regarding the militarisation of Europe and neutrality. We got solemn declarations, or whatever they are called, in the Nice and Lisbon treaties and the then Government forced the people to vote twice. The Taoiseach has told us the triple lock is a fundamental and core part of our neutrality. Perhaps the Tánaiste should ask him when that changed.

If the Government is asking us change something as fundamental as our policy of neutrality, it should lay out in black and white what led to that decision. Which veto was used and at what time? Which country has used the veto the most? It has all been America. America has played an appalling role lately in voting against a ceasefire. Now more than ever, we need to use our voice. Earlier, the Tánaiste referred to the volatile situation in the world. That is why we need to stand up, not reactively but proactively.

It is difficult to cover everything because there was extra time. I am not sure what the position is regarding that, but other TDs were grouped with this question.

Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The way it works is that each TD gets one minute.

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

Do I get in again or is this the end?

Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This the end.

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

That is all I wanted to know.

Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is the way it works.

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

It is unfair the way it has worked out.

Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand, but that is the way it works.

Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am disappointed in how the heads of the Bill have been presented. I think there is support for 80% or 90% of what needs to be achieved in terms of our national security, or we could at least reach accommodations, such as on the extraction of our citizens from war zones. The Tánaiste will launch the national maritime strategy today, which I welcome and is much needed.

There is an emotive element to the triple lock, which will envelop all of these issues politically. Issues will be conflated. The Tánaiste said in his first contribution that they are separate, which is the case, but he knows the reality of political discourse in this country. We need to have a sophisticated discussion on all elements of national security and the triple lock, but they should be done separately. We do not need to rush into removing the triple lock as part of the legislation. A process of reform is ongoing in the United Nations and we should lead on that. We should try to improve the United Nations. We fundamentally believe in it, and any future of peacekeeping outside the United Nations is not something we can take a punt on at this point.

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Most people would link the triple lock with our foreign policy and neutrality. A lot of people would be surprised at the proposal, given that during the Nice referendum campaign the Government parties were very silent on this issue and there was no real view that there would be a move to change it. The current position comes as a bit of a surprise. To follow on from what an Teachta Connolly said, perhaps the Tánaiste could explain in the remaining time the rationale and motivation to upend a system that has been in place since the 1960s. It is a huge step. There has been no real debate, but rather an announcement that it will be changed. The worry people have is that a fundamental part of our policy on foreign affairs will change all of a sudden.

The Tánaiste will, perhaps, give examples later of Afghanistan and some of the challenges there but other challenges in the world face us today and people need to have a clear debate on this.

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

People need to have a clear debate and people need to stop the spread of misinformation. I heard the leader of Sinn Féin, Deputy Mary Lou McDonald, speak about sending our sons to war. Let us get real. There is no proposal to send anybody's son to war. There are genuine differences on the policy of a triple lock. That is great and a legitimate thing to have. We also have to be truthful about this. The legislation is printed and it is there for people to read. I would love the Deputy to refer me to the line in the legislation that makes him believe we are sending anybody's son in Ireland to war. We are not. This is about peacekeeping. I am extraordinarily proud, and I think we all are, of what our peacekeepers are doing. It is a legitimate question to ask whether there is a better way of doing it. I believe there is and some people believe there is not. Some people believe my way is not the right way and that the current way is fine. That is grand and let us debate it. This idea of scaremongering and saying we are sending people to war and we are sending people to Iraq, come on, that is not true. It might get the emotion going but it is not the factual debate we need to have.

I take the point about not rushing this, which Deputy Duncan Smith has made. I do not intend to rush this. We have the pre-legislative scrutiny and the committee is doing its job well from what I can see. It sends its reports back. We need to make sure there is ample time to scrutinise this issue.

On the purpose of improving the United Nations, I fully agree. The Taoiseach will be there next week. We are very committed to the United Nations and to multilateralism at a time when it is under attack from many sources. We are increasing our multilateral funding and support for the UN all of the time. UN Security Council reform, unfortunately, is not likely in the near term. There are ways we need to work through what it is.

I believe we can get a landing zone here that is correct if there is a wish to do that. If there is a wish, which there is not from everybody in opposition, to suggest this big bad Government wants to scrap military neutrality and send your sons to war, we will not make any progress. That is misinformation and disinformation, and it is downright factually incorrect.

This is a question about how we effectively and appropriately deploy Irish peacekeepers to do the brilliant job they have been doing. There are real-life examples. No new peace support operation has been approved by the UN Security Council since 2014. Operation Althea in Bosnia is a recent example, whereby issues arose in 2022 on the continuation of a UN Security Council mandate and Ireland was faced with the real possibility of having to withdraw men and women from the mission as the roll-over of the mandate was not immediately forthcoming. There continue to be concerns as Russia has become very critical about it. It is very possible that Russia may veto a future renewal. We saw in 2015 that Ireland could not participate in the EU security mission in the Mediterranean, then called Operation Sophia, for more than a year after it started because of the lack of a mandate. In 1999 a permanent member of the UN Security Council vetoed the renewal of the United Nations preventive deployment force, and because the subsequent European Union peace operation in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia did not have a Security Council mandate we could not participate. In 2017 we could not participate in the Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre.