2026-06-09

119. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Minister for Defence her proposals to remove the triple lock neutrality protection; when she plans to bring forward a Bill; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [43733/26]

I understand the Government's proposal to remove the triple lock neutrality protection was discussed at Cabinet today. I believe a Bill was brought forward. Will this Bill be published in the coming days? When will that come to Second Stage? When will it be debated and what are the plans in that regard?

I thank the Deputy for the question. As he said, this was discussed at Cabinet today. Approval was sought by me, and it was agreed by Cabinet that this would be presented for Second Stage. This will happen in the coming weeks. While there is no date set, I intend that this will be presented to the Dáil in coming weeks and published in the near future. The purpose of the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2026 is to consolidate, with amendments, the existing provisions of the defence Acts 1954 and 2015 concerning the despatch of members of the Defence Forces for service outside the State. There are other elements to the legislation proposed today, specifically where we can give a mechanism to the Defence Forces so that somebody who has been convicted or put forward on charges can be relinquished from their duty for that time. That does not currently exist. I outline that is also part of the legislation. In effect, the requirement for a UN mandate will be removed. It will modify the existing requirement regarding what we know as the triple lock mechanism in relation to the despatch of the Defence Forces for service outside the State as part of an international United Nations force. There has been extensive engagement between my Department and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel with regard to the drafting of the Bill and it is my intention to bring it to the House as soon as possible. As this House is aware, the key proposed legislative change is that the requirement for a UN Security Council mandate will be removed. Current legislation allows members of the UN Security Council by means of a veto or threat of same to bind this country's hands in its international peacekeeping engagement. It is simply not acceptable to have a situation in which Ireland's decision making with regard to participation in peace operations can be impacted by the geopolitical interests of other states. I have provided many examples of this to the House, most recently the difficulties regarding extension of the UNIFIL mandate until the end of this year, and because of that the requirement for us to withdraw our personnel from south Lebanon at the conclusion of that mission.

The defence Acts exist in Irish legislation and state clearly the circumstances this Legislature has decided is the threshold that should be met if we are to send Irish personnel - men and women - on peacekeeping missions. That is a decision that was made here and nowhere else. We need to be clear and honest about that. There were a number of key points in the pre-legislative scrutiny report, one of which was that it did not recommend the removal of the triple lock neutrality protection. It called for a number of safeguards. There was a considerable amount of discussion. I am surprised that there seemed to be a Whip on members to try to rush it. I am not sure what the need for it was. We could have gotten a bit more time to scrutinise it. I would like to know if the Minister has taken on board any of the points from that report.

We are seeing the reason for moving on this now play out in real time. It is not just the decision taken not to continue the UN mandate in Lebanon where we have had members on the ground for decades. In the last two weeks, I met members of the Defence Forces in Rome. On the very day I met them, they had to finish up with Operation Irini, which had a mandate to operate in the Mediterranean to prevent arms from getting to Libya. These members contributed significantly to that overall mission and are held in very high regard among members of the defence forces of other countries. They themselves told me personally that Ireland is the main one to lose out because of this mandate not being renewed. Irish troops, members of the Irish Defence Forces, and the people of this country will no longer benefit from the experience and knowledge those troops gain from being part of these missions. It is really important to take into consideration that we are not talking about some abstract concept. This is not about something that may or may not happen in the future or that happened in the past. As of now, we have troops in Lebanon whose mandate will not be renewed. The final troops went out on rotation in the last few weeks. That will finish next year. It will no longer continue. In the last two weeks, troops have had to finish up with a mission that will continue without us. The only people who will lose out are the Irish people and members of our Defence Forces, who have gained a wealth of experience from their participation in that mission.

This is one of those pieces that come up in this debate. I deeply regret the end of UNIFIL. It is very worrying for the region. However, there is no UN mission afterwards. It is not that we are not participating in a UN mission. UNIFIL will end. It will be gone. There will be no more UNIFIL. That is a shame, but there is no UN mission to which other countries' troops will be deployed but that Ireland will be prevented from taking part in. There is a question I have been asking for a while now. There is a need for the UN to be reformed. We have brought forward propositions in that regard. There are 11 or 12 existing peacekeeping missions outside of UNIFIL. It is true that we need our peacekeepers to go on peacekeeping missions to ensure their experience is developed. It does not seem as if this Government has been actively seeking out alternative deployments with existing UN peacekeeping missions. I have seen no evidence of that. I have been asking that question and I ask the Minister the question again.

We are part of various different peacekeeping missions, including those in the western Balkans and Common Security and Defence Policy missions, although I appreciate those are separate and mainly focus on training. There are civilian missions and there are also military missions. Just now, I gave the Deputy an example of a UN mission we have been part of and contributed to for the last number of years. Our members have been held in high regard because of the experience, knowledge and commitment they have brought to that mission, Operation Irini. Because that mandate was not renewed and expired in the last two weeks, we can no longer have troops as part of that mission. Because of the triple lock, other countries can decide where we keep our troops and whether they can continue to be deployed on missions that will continue without us, as Operation Irini will. We should not allow other states to take that decision. This Bill does not change our position on neutrality and does not prevent us from engaging in other missions outside of the UN mandate structure, as we already do. It makes sure that, where we are involved in operations like the one we saw end in the last two weeks, the rug is not pulled from under us because the mission is not continuing in its current format. The triple lock binds us in a way that it should not. It does not bind other countries. Even Austria, a neutral country, is not required to go through this extensive triple-lock process.