2026-06-09

132. Deputy Pa Daly asked the Minister for Defence if she will outline her proposals to remove the triple lock neutrality protection, when she intends to bring forward a Bill in relation to same, if there are plans to hold a referendum on the issue and if she will make a statement on the matter. [38222/26]

133. Deputy Louis O'Hara asked the Minister for Defence to provide an update on the planned legislation to abolish the triple lock and if she will make a statement on the matter. [43465/26]

Could the Minister to provide an update on her plans to dismantle the triple lock neutrality protection?

I propose to take Questions Nos.132 and 133 together. I am pleased to discuss this issue and to expand on some of the areas that we have elaborated on. This key legislation is a priority for me and this Government but it is important that we have an opportunity in the House not just here during Parliamentary Questions but through the legislative process to debate certain elements of this Bill. There have been a number of calls for a public plebiscite or a referendum in relation to what is being proposed in the Bill with regards to the triple lock. Again, I highlight the fact that there has been a lot of conflation as to what is actually being proposed and what is actually being suggested. The triple lock is a statutory mechanism. It is set out in the Defence (Amendment) Act 1960. It is not a constitutional mechanism and is not enshrined in our Constitution. It was a political commitment during the Nice and Lisbon treaties process. It is clear, therefore, that as I and my predecessors have stated a number of times on the floor of the House and as I have stated a number of times this evening, amending the legislation that governs how we deploy our Defence Forces overseas does not require a referendum. It does not require a national plebiscite. We are talking about a very different time when the legislation was developed. The world has changed. The UN structure itself has changed since. It is not working. We can accept that. We all know that it is not working in the way that it should. The geopolitical environment has changed as well. We now find ourselves in a situation where one in five of the permanent members of the Security Council can decide whether or not our Irish troops can travel to engage in peacekeeping missions, be it in Lebanon, the western Balkans, the Mediterranean or any other part of the world. It is simply not acceptable to have a situation where Ireland's sovereign decision-making with regards to the participation of our peacekeeping troops in peace operations can be impacted by the geopolitical interests of other states. That is exactly what is happening. I repeat that in the past two weeks alone, our troops have had to come home from a mission on which they have been working for a number of years now and where they have been held in such high regard by their fellow defence force members and the Mediterranean Operation Irini because the UN mandate has not been renewed. This is what we are talking about. We are not talking about going off to war anywhere. We are talking about peacekeeping missions. We are very clear that our neutrality is to be protected. We are very clear as a Government that this is not what is being impacted here. As I mentioned earlier, it has been demonstrated in a real tangible way as well through the UN Security Council resolution that underpinned the EU mission Operation Irini, which has come to an end for Irish troops but for nobody else that has been involved in that overall. We also know that this clearly illustrates the extent to which Ireland's ability to contribute to international peace and security efforts can be affected by factors outside of our control. That situation is not sustainable if we are to retain a meaningful and credible capacity to participate in international peace support operations in line with our values and I think this is in line with our own interests and the democratic will of the people of Ireland who have entrusted us as their representative. There has been extensive engagement between my Department and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel about the drafting of the Bill and it is my intention to bring this to the House. It was approved by Cabinet today that we would bring it forward for Second Stage to debate this even further and to have a wider debate with colleagues as soon as possible.

There is no doubt that this is an erosion of our military neutrality. The triple lock is something that is deeply valued by the Irish people. Opinion poll after opinion poll has shown clearly that the Irish people want to retain this protection, yet Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael are absolutely determined to get rid of it. These plans are going to endanger our neutrality, endanger our reputation on the world stage as peace builders and expose us to the rising moves towards militarisation across the EU. If the Government is so confident in its position, why will it not put it to a referendum? The Minister said that we do not have to put it to a referendum but that is not a justification in and of itself. Let the people have their say on this issue. We know why the Government is refusing to do that. It is because it knows the answer it will get from the people on this because the Irish people cherish our military neutrality and the triple lock as a core aspect of this. Removing it without putting it to the people through a referendum is an attack on our sovereignty and democracy and I just cannot understand how the Minister can justify that. How can she justify not letting the people have their say on such an important issue and a core aspect of our military neutrality?

We are seeing this happen on a number of fronts at the moment where there is a claim that Government is eroding our sovereignty and that we are allowing other people to essentially make decisions for us with the migration pact or now the triple lock. Currently, other countries, like Russia, which has been waging a war on European soil in Ukraine for almost five years - longer than World War I - could actually prevent us from keeping peacekeeping troops on missions. That is what has happened in the past two weeks alone. The Deputy says that our reputation is being endangered. We have an excellent reputation. The men I met in Rome only a few weeks ago are highly regarded because of their contribution to operations like Operation Irini and now they will no longer be able to contribute, so what is actually being eroded is our ability to contribute and to continue to be held in such high regard and the only people who are losing out are us. We are losing out and our Defence Forces personnel are losing out. Regarding our military capabilities, knowledge and experience in working with other partners, we are going to lose out if we cannot continue in these types of missions. This suggestion that we are giving away our sovereignty is completely contradictory when it is other larger military powers that are able to dictate where we send peacekeeping troops. It makes no sense to me and I think the vast majority of people to whom I speak see what it is that we are trying to do here. We are trying to make sure that we have a mechanism in place to continue what is a long and proud tradition of our peacekeepers and to ensure that we are not impacted by the decisions of others that very clearly have ulterior motives and objectives at hand.

If the triple lock protection is removed, it will be possible to deploy Irish troops to any situation at all that the Government sees fit. That is not what the Irish people want because that gives carte blanche to any future Irish Government and indeed will expose Irish Governments to significant outside pressure as well in future situations. It is a serious diminution of our neutrality. There is no doubt about that. The Minister should be working to strengthen our neutrality, ending the US use of Shannon Airport and actively opposing increased EU militarisation. Only a few years ago, Micheál Martin said the triple lock was at the core of our neutrality. What has changed since then? It is clear that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael just want to follow the EU's drum beat for increased militarisation. That is the reason for this. That is the reason for such a drastic change on the triple lock and it is shameful. Even Government TDs are opposed to this. One of the Minister's predecessors at the Department of Defence, Deputy Willie O'Dea, in response to the Taoiseach's call for a referendum on increasing the number of Ministers, said, "How about a referendum people actually want, like on the triple lock?" Once again, the Minister is out of touch with the Irish people. She is failing to listen to people and has not been able to give any good reason this evening as to why she will not put this to the people in a referendum. That is what needs to happen in this case for such a significant decision. The Government is hiding from the people because it knows the answer it will get.

I am very happy to debate this with anybody. I am very happy to outline what is actually in the legislation. It will be published in due course. The legislation will be very clear. It will outline how we will deploy our troops for peacekeeping missions. It will outline how we will deploy them in line with UN principles and with international law. It will not allow for any other type of deployment that goes beyond those areas. It will allow for a smaller number of troops to be deployed to ensure that where our own citizens are at risk in conflict areas, they can be taken out, removed and brought home safely. Beyond that, to be very clear, nothing in this legislation will allow me, as Minister, this Government or anybody in it to decide we are going to send troops to a conflict zone to take part in a conflict. Let me be very clear that is not what this legislation is proposing. So, all of the misinformation and the attempts to suggest this is suddenly going to open us up to becoming a warmongering country is completely wrong, completely inaccurate and is trying to sow a level of misinformation that muddies the waters here. The legislation is very clear. How do we make sure we can continue to deploy our troops in peacekeeping missions? How do we make sure that other countries - Russia, the US, China, France or the UK - do not have a say in how we deploy our troops? How do we make sure that we, as a sovereign nation, the people here, democratically elected to this Chamber, are the ones who decide, with the advice of the Defence Forces, on exactly how we deploy our troops to peacekeeping missions? That is what the focus of this legislation is. I look forward to debating it with colleagues in this House and progressing it in the weeks ahead.