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

7. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence to clarify the precise change to the triple lock that recently announced legislation will result in; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48880/25]

Donna McGettigan (Clare, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

11. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence his plans for the triple lock given recent comments by the Minister for Health and by other members of the Government proposing to scrap or undermine it, despite it being the expressed will of the people to retain it. [48759/25]

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

12. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if he plans to remove the triple lock by the end of 2025; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [49151/25]

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

39. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence to provide details of the Government’s decision to remove the triple lock; if the UN General Assembly can sanction peacekeeping missions by bypassing a veto at the UN Security Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [49268/25]

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

55. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if the proposed changes to the triple lock will impact Ireland's policy of being militarily neutral; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48881/25]

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

For clarity, I am going to go with Questions Nos. 7 and 55 together. The Government's intention is to change legislation to the triple lock mechanism that governs the deployment of Irish troops overseas. At present, as the Tánaiste knows, that requires the approval of the Government, the Dáil and a mandate from the United Nations. Could he clarify precisely what changes are now being proposed, and outline if this will materially affect both Ireland's tradition of neutrality and the democratic safeguards that have existed up to this point?

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

Does Deputy McGettigan want to add to that quickly?

Donna McGettigan (Clare, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No.

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

Deputy Murphy, quickly.

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

I will bluntly ask this question of the Tánaiste. Where does he want to send troops that he cannot currently send them under the triple lock? Does he agree with the Taoiseach, Deputy Micheál Martin, and the call of the so-called coalition of the willing, where he is willing to send Irish troops on the ground, presumably without an agreed UN peacekeeping mission? Otherwise, that would meet the requirements of the triple lock. Where does the Tánaiste want to send troops that he cannot currently send them?

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 11, 12, 39 and 55 together. There is a very fair question on this later. The deployment of any troops to Ukraine would have to be in the context of a peace agreement. We are not talking about sending our troops to a warzone or a place where there is an active war. It would only be in the context of a peace agreement. I do not believe we should recuse ourselves from that conversation. Our peacekeepers serve with absolute distinction. I am open to considering their being sent on a peacekeeping mission to Ukraine, if there was peace. However, all the talk about peace is happening while Putin continues his reign of terror. We might return to that in a moment.

I thank Deputy Clendennen for his questions. I previously clarified my intentions with regard to the proposed amendments to legislation governing the overseas deployment of the Defence Forces in the proposed defence (amendment) Bill. This was agreed by Cabinet on 4 March this year. As I mentioned, the pre-legislative scrutiny process which provided an Oireachtas all-party committee with the opportunity to examine the Heads of the Bill and to consult directly with stakeholders on the draft heads of the Bill, was completed at the end of July. I thank the committee for its work. My Department is examining the committee’s report on the matter. We will give serious consideration to the recommendations the committee has put forward, some of which are very sensible.

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 underline that the legislation in place currently allows members of the UN Security Council, by means of a veto or often a threat of a veto, to bind Ireland's hands in its international engagement. 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 and it is simply untenable for the Government to continue with this policy.

I strongly believe therefore that such considerations on international engagement should be within our sovereign control and the decision making within remain the remit of the Government and the Dáil, which have been democratically elected by the people of Ireland.

I recognise, however, that in removing the UN Security Council mandate requirement, alternative safeguards are needed to underpin the future despatch of Defence Forces personnel. I am genuinely up for having a detailed discussion on this when we produce the full Bill and, therefore, in parallel to removing the UN mandate requirement, I have proposed that the governing principles will be included in law and will be underpinned in primary legislation. These have been proposed in the Bill I published. It will require that the mandate of these operations must be consistent with and must adhere to the principles of the UN Charter and international law. These principles are being refined further to ensure appropriate legal effect as part of the drafting process. I say on the record of the House that I am open to considering whether they need to be tightened further or whether other structures need to be put in place because we owe it to any Irish peacekeepers and want to make sure they are deployed on a peacekeeping mission only in line with UN Charter and in line with international law. That is this country's record of peacekeeping.

As I mentioned earlier, it is my intention is to bring this Bill to the Government in the coming months. The speed at which that Bill progresses is a matter for the Oireachtas. I hope to commence discussion on the Bill this year. There will be plenty of time, as there needs to be, to debate the draft legislation in the Dáil and the Seanad, and ample opportunity to scrutinise the proposals at each stage.

Concerning the role of the UN General Assembly, the UN Charter unequivocally sets out the primacy of the UN Security Council with regard to all matters relating to international peace and security. While the General Assembly can make recommendations to member states, resolutions of the General Assembly cannot compel action. The charter is clear on that. Ultimately, while the UN General Assembly can make recommendations to member states, under the UN Charter the Security Council alone has the power to take decisions which member states are obliged to implement. In practice, therefore, UN peacekeeping operations are only ever deployed on the basis of mandates from the UN Security Council and overseas deployments to peacekeeping operations involving the Defence Forces has only ever taken place on the basis of that Security Council mandate.

Finally, as I have outlined and I wish to continue to stress, the Government has been clear that it has no desire to alter Ireland’s policy on military neutrality and the amendments proposed will do nothing to change Ireland’s traditional position of military neutrality, which is characterised by Ireland's non-participation in any military alliance. Our engagement overseas will continue to be firmly and exclusively grounded in the principles of the UN Charter and of international law.

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

I thank the Tánaiste for the details and his repeated clarity provided surrounding the proposed changes. Many people seem to remain unclear as to why the Government believes it necessary to move away from the existing triple lock. The cynic in me questions whether there is a co-ordinated campaign of misinformation in relation to this matter-----

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

Yes.

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

-----claiming it will compromise our neutrality. I wonder where that comes from.

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

There is, it comes from the Government-----

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

Deputy Murphy-----

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

Will the Deputy let me speak?

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

Deputy Murphy, allow the Deputy to speak.

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

The Deputy asked a question and I am answering it.

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

I think he meant it in a different way.

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

Many believe the triple lock has provided a clear reassurance to the Irish people that our participation overseas is grounded in neutrality and a UN mandate. However, in an ever-increasingly precarious and uncertain world, we should not find ourselves in a position where the likes of peacekeeping missions by Irish troops could be vetoed by UN member states.

There has been mention of Ukraine and in practical terms when a ceasefire and peace agreement is eventually reached there, hopefully sooner rather than later, we should not be at the mercy of countries that have built reputations on vetoes at the UN Security Council and essentially prevented deployment of Irish troops on such peacekeeping missions. Domestically, it is important that this legislation ensures that future overseas deployments continue to have broad political legitimacy and I ask for that reassurance today.

Donna McGettigan (Clare, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support the triple lock and want it retained. The vast majority of us do not want Irish troops to serve anywhere unless it is as peacekeepers under the auspices of the UN. Opinion polls have consistently shown that. It was enacted to reassure the voters of the State that we would not become involved in an EU army, NATO or any other military alliances. The Government is now clearly determined to abandon the reassurances given to the people. Our military neutrality is already being undermined by the use of Shannon International Airport in my hometown as a U.S. military stopover point. That must stop. We want to see ethical investment in Shannon, not a continuation or increase in its use as a military airport. The Minister for Health also said that we have given away our decision making because we cannot trust ourselves. The fact is the Government had to reassure the people that there would be checks and balances on decision making because the people do not trust it. The Government does not want an independent foreign policy but the ability to sign us up to military alliances in which our decision making truly will be abandoned.

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

In answer to Deputy Clendennen's question, there is a cynical campaign of misinformation. It is coming from the Government. It is suggesting that we are going to get rid of the triple lock but there is no need to worry because we are going to stay within the framework of the UN Charter. That is not honest, unless the Tánaiste does not understand the UN Charter. There are two circumstances under the charter whereby a country can legally, under international law, send troops abroad: the first is self-defence, which is not covered by the triple lock, and the second is where it is authorised by the UN Security Council. That is literally what Article 53 states. When the Tánaiste said we are going to get rid of the triple lock but do not worry because we will stay in the UN Charter, it does not make any sense. For example, in the context of Ukraine, the Tánaiste said we will send troops to Ukraine but only in the context of a peacekeeping agreement. Is that a UN-endorsed peacekeeping agreement? In that case it would meet the requirements of the triple lock. However, if it is not, in which case presumably it is not a peacekeeping agreement when one of the warring parties, Russia, the invader, is clearly still at war, then we are sending troops to participate in a conflict. Is this why the Tánaiste in his answer regarding the heads of the Bill referred to maintaining the principles of the UN Charter?

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

I thank the Deputy.

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

That is not accidental because he is talking about the vague, broad principles in Article 2 of the UN Charter in contrast to giving a commitment to stay within the articles of the UN Charter, which are exactly the same as the triple lock.

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

To be clear on this Ukraine issue - I never wished to accuse the Deputy of this but there is an effort to be a bit mischievous here - there is no question whatsoever of Irish troops being deployed to a war or playing any role in anything other than peacekeeping. We live on the Continent of Europe and I believe we have an obligation to assist in peacekeeping on our Continent should that situation arise. It is beyond an abstract conversation at the moment because there is no indication at all that Putin wishes to see anything like peace as he continues to invade EU airspace in terms of the drones in Romania and Poland, and indeed continue to terrorise the civilian population. However, if we get to a moment where there is a peace agreement that requires peacekeepers, why would we not consider at that moment deploying our troops?

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

Why would we not? Because of vetos-----

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

It is possible in that scenario that the UN Security Council, because Russia is on it. The Deputy does not know that and I do not know that. However, it is also possible, in answer to Deputy Clendennen's question, that we could see a scenario more broadly - and I am not talking about Ukraine - where EU countries may wish to deploy peacekeepers, where the OSCE may wish to deploy peacekeepers or where there may be regional requests for peacekeeping missions that do not have the support of Russia, China or of the US for economic reasons or whatever else. I do not see what the difficulty with that is because-----

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

They are not-----

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

I accept the point the Deputy is making on the UN Charter's reference to the UN Security Council.

However, I think the principles of the UN Charter matter. I am happy to tease out that legislation. It may suit Members to try to divide us further on this issue but what we are trying to do is a modest proposal. We are trying to produce primary legislation that makes it clear we are only interested in deploying our troops for peacekeeping missions and the other maritime surveillance missions that we already know about. How do we do that in a way that works in a world where the UN Security Council is not functioning as we would wish it to function? That is the debate we are having. We are not having a debate about neutrality, NATO membership or sending our sons or daughters to war, or any of the hyperbole I have heard. If we can have a debate that is focused on what we are trying to achieve, we could, heaven forbid, do a good day's work in this place by productively taking forward an issue that supports the men and women of Óglaigh na hÉireann and ensures we can stay true to our values.

That phrase, "international law", is also important. We will only participate in anything in line with the principles of the UN Charter and international law. I fully agree with Deputy McGettigan that the Irish people value neutrality; so do I. However, I do not agree that the majority of people wish to see the retention of the triple lock. I have seen no evidence of that. Insofar as one can follow polling, a significant majority of people are open to changes to the triple lock. That is a matter for discussion.

We are already involved in training missions, for example, EUMAM, through which we are helping to train Ukrainians. We should also do that for the Lebanese armed forces. Why can we not work with our neighbours, friends and allies on peacekeeping missions without needing Vladimir Putin's permission?

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

I thank the Tánaiste. Irish troops have served with distinction at Camp Shamrock for several decades, none more than Deputy Callaghan who has just departed the Chamber. We have a proud and unbroken record of deployment of troops to Lebanon. We must protect that in the best interests of Óglaigh na hÉireann as our only full-scale peacekeeping mission in the world today.

We must reiterate the point that this debate is about the opportunity for the deployment of peacekeeping missions around the world and removing that element of UN authorisation will not be seen as a weakening of our international neutrality at a time when investment in military defences is increasingly important. I commend the Tánaiste's work in this area. It is important that he has given reassurance to the public that military offence is categorically not on the agenda. We must reassure the public that Ireland will never drift into overseas military operations that have some level of EU backing without them being in compliance with the UN Charter.

Donna McGettigan (Clare, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Sinn Féin supports investing in our military, air force and naval services to overcome the chronic neglect they have suffered under this and previous Governments. We are not a major military power and should not strive to become one. Our standing in the world should rest firmly on our neutrality and independence. We should seek to assert influence from that basis. Any military spending in excess of what is absolutely necessary will produce profits for arms manufacturers at the expense of the people of Ireland. We are suffering through a housing crisis and the last thing we can afford is the military adventurism of this Government. Sinn Féin in government would hold a referendum to enshrine our neutrality in the Constitution. Why has the Government not agreed to do the same? Clearly, it is because the Government knows that the people would vote against it. The Government knows it is in defiance of the will of the people. We will oppose any attempt to undermine the triple lock by this Government.

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

We are getting somewhere here. The Tánaiste accepted that the point of getting rid of the triple lock is to be able to send troops outside of the framework of the UN Charter - not just outside the principles but outside the articles of the UN Charter, which govern international law in respect of where troops can be sent abroad. That is the reason to get rid of the triple lock. The Tánaiste may say that we are only ever going to send troops on missions that are called peacekeeping missions. Does he know what Putin called his invasion of Ukraine? He said it was a peacekeeping mission. When the US led the invasion of Iraq, it was for humanitarian and democratic reasons. When the US invaded Afghanistan, it was the same. These days, no country ever says it is doing something for its own imperialist interests. Countries always dress it up as peacekeeping.

The top civil servant in the Tánaiste's Department admitted to me at a committee meeting that if it were not for the triple lock, Irish troops could have been sent to participate in the invasion of Iraq. The Tánaiste's political commitment that we will only send troops on peacekeeping missions is not worth anything under this Government. The Government will be gone at a certain point and we will have new governments. If we get rid of the triple lock, there will be no legal requirement that we will be within the framework of international law.

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

I will raise three points. I have made most of my primary arguments but I have three matters to clarify. I am not specifically addressing Deputy Clendennen, but there has been talk of misinformation. Some Government Deputies have tried to say that the issue of the triple lock has nothing to do with neutrality. The idea that the legislation that references how Irish troops are deployed outside the State as part of international forces has nothing to do with neutrality is quite a statement. It is a remarkable suggestion that it has nothing to do with neutrality.

My second point relates to where we send Irish troops on peacekeeping missions. It is important that we find other peacekeeping missions. It is important in terms of our standing internationally and the development of our Defence Forces. Irish troops currently participate in three of 11 peacekeeping missions. There are plenty of other peacekeeping missions to participate in.

The Tánaiste referenced the Fine Gael manifesto. Certainly the Fianna Fáil manifesto was silent. I had to go back and check whether there was reference to the triple lock or legislation of that kind in the Fine Gael manifesto. There was no such reference in the manifesto. I looked at it and there is no reference in the manifesto to removing the triple lock or legislation of any kind. The Tánaiste can look at it again if he has forgotten what was in it.

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

I thank the Deputy for reading the manifesto. We made it clear, and I recall making it clear, during the general election, but I appreciate the Deputy reading the manifesto. I closely read the Sinn Féin manifesto.

I have quite a few things to say. To Deputy Clendennen's point, we should acknowledge the men and women serving at Camp Shamrock. We all do so, and that is an important point. It has been a difficult period for them because of the region in which they have been serving. They have been dealing with the horrific murder of Private Seán Rooney. We continue to fight for justice and work with his mum, Natasha, in that regard. There has also been all the debate about whether there will be a renewal of the mandate and all the uncertainty of that. Throughout all of that, they have served with distinction. I know that point unites us.

The idea of Ireland becoming a major military power or engaging in military adventurism is at such a remove from the reality. We are spending so little on defence relative to other countries. We are trying to get to a level whereby we can protect our undersea cables and have a better idea of what goes on in our skies. Even when we get to LOA 2 or LOA 3, we are not spending like a military power or any country that wishes to be a military power. That is not what we wish to be at all. We wish to be a country that can keep itself and its people safe, has a better idea of what goes on in our sea and skies and plays a role in peacekeeping. That is what we want to do.

I always find it hard to agree with Deputy Murphy, but I agree that this Government will be gone at some point and there will be a new government. I take the point about how political commitments translate into primary legislation. It is a fair point. I ask the Deputy to bring forward proposals, as I am sure he will. Let us tease it through. We are going to change the triple lock. That is our proposal as a Government. We are going to bring forward proposals to this House. We have published a general scheme. It has been scrutinised by the Oireachtas committee. Some good ideas have come back from that cross-party committee, on which I am reflecting. There is an openness from me and the Government to further strengthen commitments around the UN Charter. I ask the Deputy to bring forward proposals in that regard. If the Opposition's approach is to say, "No, nay, never, we will not talk to you about it and will just vote you down", that is grand, but it is not the most constructive way to try to engage in the legislation that we have a duty to try to get right.

What is going on in Gaza is a genocide. We agree on that point. We were one of the first countries, certainly in Europe, to call it a genocide. The UN independent inquiry now agrees. I often hear from people who support the triple lock that they want Ireland to be able to assist more in Gaza. I have even heard people ask if our military or Air Corps could become involved. None of that can happen under the triple lock. We must try to look at the situation. Do Deputies believe there will be, whether through unanimity or not, a veto in respect of Gaza and the two-state solution at the UN Security Council? I do not believe that.

What about Ukraine and peacekeeping? There are real issues here that are going to come to the fore in the time ahead. We must have legislation whereby Ireland remains militarily neutral and unaligned, but which also provides some degree of flexibility in the countries and parts of the world to which we deploy peacekeepers to reflect and advance our values.