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

4. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the consultation he has had with rank and file members of the Defence Forces in relation to the potential changes to their terms and conditions in the general dcheme of the defence (amendment) Bill 2025, which has recently concluded pre legislative scrutiny, particularly in the context of potentially more dangerous operational parameters of non-UN sanctioned missions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [49295/25]

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

5. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if he will outline his proposals to remove the triple lock neutrality protection; when he intends to bring forward a Bill; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [49300/25]

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

The general scheme of the defence (amendment) Bill 2025 represents a fundamental change to how we deploy troops overseas. For the many decades that Ireland has been participating in peacekeeping it has been under the exclusive banner of the UN. When people sign up for the Defence Forces, it is with a reasonable expectation that overseas service will be in a blue beret. Has the Minister consulted with rank and file members of the Defence Forces on this fundamental change to their terms and conditions?

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

I agree with Deputy Gibney that it is absolutely the Government's intention to bring about a change in terms of how we deploy our troops overseas. I am quite clear on that. Where we disagree is how we see that. I see it as entirely possible to do that while respecting being a militarily neutral country. I have spoken to many of my counterparts in countries that are militarily neutral, none of which have a triple lock in place. We have recently seen what can happen at a UN Security Council with a peacekeeping mission that has been extraordinarily successful in Lebanon and yet one permanent member of the Security Council can decide that all of a sudden it does not want it to continue.

At the outset I must say that I want to be collaborative on this. The committee on defence did a good piece of work on pre-legislative scrutiny. I am considering that and I will report to Government shortly in advance of bringing forward the full scheme. I am open to seeing how we can strengthen any legislation to provide reassurances around the role of the UN Charter. It is absolutely our intention that any mission Irish troops go on would be in keeping with the UN Charter, but that is different from us saying it must be in keeping with a UN Security Council resolution. I am certainly eager to see how we can explore that. I think Irish people are rightly proud of the role that members of the Defence Forces have played in peacekeeping missions right across the world. It is a record that dates back many decades and which has remained unbroken. The current triple lock system is broken, however. It is absolutely broken. We can talk in aspirational terms about hoping somebody fixes it one day, or that Russia changes its mind or China changes its mind or the United States of America becomes really interested in UN Security Council reform, but that is not the real world. That is not the world we are operating in. I do not believe that anybody who is not elected in this country should have a say in where any member of Óglaigh na hÉireann goes or does not go, and that is happening now. Men and women of Óglaigh na hÉireann will not be able to go to southern Lebanon as a result, in effect, of a decision taken by people outside of this jurisdiction. I wanted them to continue, and I am sure the Deputies did as well, but they cannot. We worked to try to get that into a good place relative to where it could have been, to avoid a cliff edge and the likes, but the reality is that mission will end in 2027. We do not wish it to end in 2027. We wanted it to continue but that is the effect of the UN Security Council veto and structure today.

I have consulted with lots of people in relation to this. Obviously with the command structure that works in the Defence Forces it is often difficult to have direct conversations with serving members of the Defence Forces but we do of course talk to their representative bodies on an ongoing basis. The Oireachtas committee heard from them as well and they have made submissions, which are captured in the report that came to me. I know that the men and women of Óglaigh na hÉireann are proud of serving overseas and I imagine they would rather the democratically elected Government and Parliament of this country decide where they go rather than anybody from any other country.

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

I notice that the Tánaiste did not use the words "General Assembly" when he was describing how broken the triple lock is, so I do think we are still ignoring the fact that there is a facility within the triple lock to actually consult with the General Assembly. I would also point out that all previous Acts refer to this international United Nations force, not an international force. It is defined as, "an international force or body established, mandated, authorised, endorsed, supported, approved or otherwise sanctioned by a resolution of the UN Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations." It is to be replaced with an international force that can be under the banner of any international body. From peacekeeping that is guaranteed to be peacekeeping by the UN consistent with the UN Charter, we face a pivot to opening the door to missions of a lower quality and different nature that are branded as peacekeeping or strengthening international security under this legislation. I do not believe that what the Tánaiste has described is an effective level of consultation with the very men and women who are putting their lives on the line to discuss how the context in which they do that will be changed.

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

I will return to some of the things that we discussed in the committee but I might first respond on the issue of UNIFIL and what this means in terms of the UN. I wish to say clearly that I regret very much the decisions that have been taken in relation to UNIFIL. A lot of work would have gone on behind the scenes to ensure there was not a cliff edge. This was important so that the least worst outcome was avoided but it is still a bad outcome. It is a bad outcome for the regions and a bad outcome for the Irish Defence Forces. However, while it has not been said explicitly, the implication is sometimes carried by Government statements that there is a higher bar for Irish participation in UN peacekeeping missions, or something like that. Obviously that is not the case. There is no UNIFIL after the end of 2027. It ceases to exist. It is not the case that there is a higher bar for Irish participation in UN peacekeeping missions. The requirement that we have put as a sovereign State is that Irish troops participate in UN missions. It is not the case that there are UN missions, which have international respect and that standard of law, that Irish troops cannot participate in. The UNIFIL mission will end. There will no longer be a UN presence. If there is anything to follow, and I doubt there will be, it will happen outside a UN mandate.

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

Firstly, I agree with the Deputy's characterisation of what happened at the UN Security Council, which I believe is accurate. We did work very hard and I particularly commend the French, who held the pen in trying to come up with a compromise solution. There was a real risk that we would have seen a withdrawal of peacekeeping troops in some sort of chaotic manner from southern Lebanon. I was very worried about the safety and security, in that context, of our peacekeepers and the people of Lebanon. There is a new government in place there and a president in place. They have really taken action against Hezbollah. That idea of the international community turning its back on them at such a crucial moment was not something we could countenance. To get to the end of 2026 before withdrawal begins and then to have a full 12 months for the withdrawal to take place is a better outcome, but it is still a bad outcome. It is not what we in Ireland wanted and I do not believe it is what this Dáil wanted, but it is what has happened.

I do not mean to be combative but I believe the General Assembly piece misses the point. The reality is the General Assembly can make recommendations but one cannot overlook the role of the UN Security Council. The one time that is referenced was the time the UN Security Council was in agreement with the General Assembly. I am off to the UN for a high level week this weekend. The idea that everything is functioning well really misses the point. The UN Security Council has not been in a position to authorise a new peacekeeping mission since 2014. The world has not become more peaceful. It is utterly dysfunctional how the UN Security Council is operating. Why can we not trust ourselves as a sovereign nation? They do not have this problem in Switzerland. They do not have this problem in Austria. They are militarily neutral.

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

It is called international law. We do not just get to invade other countries.

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

I know it is the left and the far left but Deputy Gibney is well able to speak for herself and it is her question. Switzerland follows international law very well. Does anybody doubt the neutrality of the Swiss? They do not have a triple lock. Does anybody doubt the neutrality of Austria? They do not have a triple lock. This is trying to whip up a frenzy. I have heard it: "Simon Harris and Micheál Martin want to send our sons and daughters to war." Stop. Stop. It is misleading and it is done to try to do "them and us" as part of the divisive toxicity that people engage in.

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

No one is denying the difficulties of the Security Council but the Tánaiste has given no effort to actually describe how the General Assembly could be engaged to fall back. It is in the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006. It is part of the triple lock and the Tánaiste is completely ignoring it. Constantly referencing other countries denies our history. It denies the Nice and Lisbon treaties and how we arrived at the point of the triple lock. Beside that, our association with UN mandates was way before then anyway. One cannot compare it to other countries like that. We can say that something is consistent with the UN Charter until we are blue in the face but the charter is clear around the use of force without consent and the backing of the United Nations. Everyone claims to go to war for peace, love, security and human rights but we have seen in the last 25 years how hollow those words can be. UN backing guarantees that peacekeeping missions are of high quality and that the operational parameters do not do more harm than good. We cannot send young men and women abroad into conflict zones with no blue beret and with no safeguard beyond what the Government of any given day thinks is a good idea.

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

The Swiss and the Austrians have constitutional protections in terms of neutrality so perhaps that is a conversation the Tánaiste wants to have. Instead of legislation governing the triple lock then perhaps the Tánaiste wants to have a conversation about us looking at constitutional protection for neutrality. Let us have that conversation. I suspect that is not what is in the Tánaiste's mind. If the Tánaiste is concerned about sovereignty I suggest that the Government puts this proposition to the people, given there have been two referendums in which the Irish people were assured that the triple lock would remain in place and that it was attached in protocols to European treaties. If the Tánaiste is so confident on the issue of sovereignty then I suggest he puts it to the people.

As regards the committee, a lot of the issues that were instanced by Government representatives as reasons to get rid of the triple lock are not prevented by the triple lock. Carrying out duties as military representatives, filling appointments or postings outside the State, and secondments to international organisations are not prevented by the triple lock. Conducting or participating in training is not prevented by the triple lock. Undertaking monitoring, observation or advisory duties is not prevented by the triple lock. Undertaking reconnaissance or fact-finding missions is not prevented by the triple lock. Participating in supporting duties, inspecting and evacuating stores, undertaking military close protection or undertaking humanitarian tasks - none of these are prevented by the triple lock. That was found and confirmed by the-----

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Thank you, Deputy.

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

Where are we going to send the peacekeepers if we are reliant on the UN Security Council providing a peacekeeping mission?

Where are we going to send Irish peacekeepers, considering it has not supported any peacekeeping missions since 2014 and has now effectively ended-----

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

Where is the Tánaiste going to send them?

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

-----the largest overseas peacekeeping mission we are involved in? Where are we going to send them?

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

Where are you going to send them?

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

We are going to be sending them on peacekeeping missions that are consistent with the UN Charter and the approval of the Government and the approval of the Dáil. I do not understand-----

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

That would mean the triple lock then.

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

The triple lock-----

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

-----is the UN Charter.

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

-----requires the UN Security Council.

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

Eleven missions.

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

The Deputy was late to my initial remark. I am very happy to have a conversation with Deputies Murphy, Gibney and Ó Laoghaire about how we can strengthen within the legislation references to the UN Charter. I even have some ideas I am happy to discuss with them about how we can oversight mechanisms in making sure anything our peacekeepers go on is consistent with the UN Charter. That is 100%. I value the UN. The UN is a force for good. We value multilaterialism at a time when it is under attack. What I am not going to do is just sit here and suggest that we are going to just allow this to continue until Putin or anybody else changes their mind and says, "Let us reform the UN Security Council". It is doing a disservice to the men and women of Óglaigh na hÉireann, many of whom I can tell Deputies - and Deputies ask if I speak to them - are absolutely gutted that their peacekeeping mission to Lebanon has been ended, many of which they have served on and their mothers or fathers served on previously. That is coming to an end because of the dysfunctionality of a structure the Deputy wants me to continue with. I am not going to do it.

On democracy and mandate and all that, we had a general election. We very clear in my party's manifesto, as was Fianna Fáil, around-----

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

Fianna Fáil was not.

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

Fianna Fáil was not at all.

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

In the current manifesto-----

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

The Tánaiste's party was not either.

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

The leader of Fianna Fáil, the Taoiseach of the country, was very clear in his views on the triple lock.

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

His manifesto was not.

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

He proposed it when he was Minister for Defence. I have been crystal clear with regard to it as well. We had an election and formed a government. We do not need to run back to the people to have a referendum on every issue. We are very clear, and I believe the majority of people in this country trust their own democracy and certainly not Russia's as to where our peacekeepers go.