Defence (Amendment) Bill 2026: Second Stage

I move: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.” I am pleased to present the Bill to the House today. At the outset, I want to again acknowledge the members of our Defence Forces and thank them for the work they do in keeping us safe at home, but in particular, given this debate, to acknowledge, recognise and thank them for their significant contribution to peacekeeping missions for many decades. I have set out in recent weeks, both in this House and in the Seanad just last week, why the changes contained in this Bill are necessary, but it is important to do so again today. It is well known that the triple lock is the legal mechanism that governs the deployment of our Defence Forces personnel overseas as part of an international force. We currently require a UN Security Council mandate, Government approval and Dáil approval to deploy any number of Defence Forces personnel overseas as part of that international force. Whether it is one person, 20 people or 50 people, any person overseas requires all three. Clear examples of international forces are the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, Operation IRINI, which we have had to leave, and Operation Althea. These are the types of missions where our troops are currently engaging in peacekeeping, peace enforcement and force protection. What is also the case at the moment is that any one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council can decide to withdraw its support for any of the current UN peacekeeping missions or, as we have seen over many years, can prevent a new peacekeeping mission from being established. To spell that out even more bluntly, France, the UK, China, the US and Russia currently decide and have a role in where we take part and how we contribute to certain international missions. Russia, a country that is bombing, murdering and maiming innocent civilians every single day in Ukraine and that is attacking European member states, including Germany, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland, all in the last few months, has a say over which peacekeeping missions we can send our troops to or where we can keep our troops. This is what goes to the heart of the debate. That five countries across the world, or any country, can have any say in where we send our troops is crazy. We need to change this. The changes contained in this Bill are necessary if we want to ensure that, as a sovereign country, we have the independence and ability to make our own decisions about where we deploy our troops. Most importantly, these changes are necessary if we want Ireland to continue being a force for good in the world, which I believe we all do. Without the independence to make these decisions, we are more limited than ever before. We can do less to defend human rights around the world, and we are reliant on the political decisions of others when making these important decisions. No other country in the world has this mechanism. No other country in the world allows another country or a superpower to decide for it. The alternative is that we maintain the status quo and wait for one of the permanent five to withdraw its support for further UN missions that we are a part of. Again, I think this is getting lost in the debate. The question is asked why we are not exploring UN-mandated missions that currently exist, or why we are not looking to expand and increase our numbers there. Of course we are. However, there is nothing to stop any one of the permanent five members from withdrawing its support for any of those missions at any given time in the same way they have with Lebanon and Operation IRINI. The choice here is simple. The Government and I, as Minister, working with the Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, and many others, want to fix what is broken. Importantly, we want to ensure that the right to decide where we send our troops remains firmly with the democratically elected representatives of this country, not with Vladimir Putin or anybody else. The changes we are proposing are consistent with the principles of the UN Charter and international law. The changes in this legislation mean that legal, military and policy advice will support any decision about future overseas deployments, and changes proposed in this legislation will not in any way affect our long-standing policy of military neutrality. There is a reason that at no stage in our country’s history have we enshrined our neutrality or the triple lock in the Constitution. Successive Governments and successive decisions have all recognised that, as a country, we need to remain responsive and agile to the world around us because we are not immune to risk. Putting neutrality in our Constitution would undoubtedly prevent us from engaging in any meaningful way with other countries on our security or on defence matters, and that is not who we are. We are a neutral country, but we are also a country that contributes to peace and security on these islands and further afield. Those two are not mutually exclusive. I have been clear from the outset that I want to engage with colleagues who want to work constructively, as I know they do. I spoke with many of them when we attended the RACO yearly event in the last 24 hours. I want to work with colleagues who want to support the role of our Defence Forces overseas and who want to ensure that Ireland has legislation that allows us to continue to contribute positively to peace. Unfortunately, we have heard few meaningful solutions from the Opposition in recent weeks and months when it comes to ensuring that Ireland is the country that decides where we send our troops, not Russia, America, China, Britain or France. There have been no serious answers to the questions of what we do about the Security Council veto. I put it to the Opposition that there is nothing neutral about allowing another country to decide where we send our troops. Allowing other countries to dictate where we send our troops simply allows superpowers to have their interests reflected in what should be Irish decisions. The triple lock is not working. It does not reflect the changed global environment that we live in. The changes in this legislation aim to address this in a manner that will allow us to deploy our personnel in defence of the principles of the UN Charter and international law. The primary purpose of this Bill is to consolidate with amendments the existing provisions of the Defence Acts 1954 to 2015 concerning the dispatch of members of the Defence Forces for services outside of the State. Most significantly, it reforms what we have all known as the triple lock mechanism, providing the legal mechanisms governing the dispatch of our Defence Forces on peacekeeping missions as part of an international United Nations force. The Bill also updates the other purposes outside service as part of an international force for which Defence Forces personnel may be deployed overseas. In particular, it provides expressly for the evacuation of Irish citizens from unstable or dangerous security environments. We have seen an increase in these kinds of environments and situations. It also provides for military close protection duties when the President or members of the Government are travelling abroad in a potentially hostile environment or area of conflict. Recent years, weeks and months have demonstrated why we need these capabilities and why there should be a clear legislative basis for them. The Bill also deals with another area of important reform. It amends the Defence Act 1954 to provide for the suspension of members of the Defence Forces, giving effect to the recommendations contained in the report prepared by Mr. Peter S. Ward SC on the management of Defence Forces personnel charged with or convicted of serious criminal offences, which was published in December 2024. These provisions are an important part of the continuing transformation of the defence culture of our Defence Forces. I am confident that Deputies across this House will recognise that these are sensible and indeed necessary provisions. I want to touch again on the crux of our debate. I will give some concrete examples because people at home want to understand what we are talking about and what it means to currently have the triple lock and to potentially reform it. Operation Irini provides one clear example. In May, the UN authorisation underpinning Operation Irini, which is an EU naval operation in the Mediterranean supporting the implementation of the United Nations embargo on Libya, was not renewed. Our four defence personnel had to withdraw immediately. The EU mission itself continued. Personnel from the 23 other participating countries remained. Ireland had to leave because our domestic legislation required the UN authorisation. The Irish Government continued to support their participation and our personnel were making valuable contributions, which I know from speaking to three of them a day before they had to leave, but our law required them to withdraw. This is the reality that we need to address. For many years our own troops contributed to this operation and we gained from that operation, but because of a decision of another country, one of the five permanent members, we had to leave while every other member state stayed. While many people may not be familiar with Operation Irini, everyone is aware of Ireland's peacekeeping role in Lebanon. Irish personnel have served with UNIFIL for almost five decades. Generation after generation of Irish soldier has served there. The contribution of our peacekeepers has defined the history of our Defence Forces for the past 50 years. UNIFIL's current mandate provides for the conclusion of its operations by 31 December this year. Without reform of our legislation, our ability to contribute meaningfully to peacekeeping in Lebanon in the way that we have done for decades will be severely constrained. While we are considering and agreed just last week at the EU Foreign Affairs Council a role that will develop and play out in Lebanon after UNIFIL, following proposals which Ireland was involved in, under our existing legislation there would be significant limitations on the contribution Ireland could make to a mission that did not have the necessary UN mandate. Specifically, with the role that we currently have, our members would not be able to take part in many similar missions, in positions that they are trained for, because of the triple lock. This is a clear, real, live reason we need to change and to reform our triple lock. It is absolutely essential. I am committed to working with all Members in this House to find a way forward so that we can continue to support our troops and, most importantly, make our own decisions about where we send our troops and do not allow other countries to make those decisions for us.

The general scheme of this Bill has been subject to considerable scrutiny. In line with normal practices, it was referred to the Oireachtas committee for pre-legislative scrutiny. The committee members worked well on that, and a wide range of views were expressed. The Government has listened to those views and to the stakeholders who participated in the process. We have considered the recommendations and we have taken a number of them on board. The Minister will be required to make an annual report on overseas deployments available to the Oireachtas. Written notification will be provided to the relevant joint committee where a contingent of 50 or fewer are deployed and the purposes for which a contingent may be deployed as part of an international force will explicitly include peace enforcement, as was mentioned by the joint committee. Changes have also been made to the provisions concerning the suspension of members of the Defence Forces and the dismissal of officers, ensuring that fair procedures apply, and that the circumstances in which suspension or dismissal may arise are clearly set out in the Bill. We will also bring forward an amendment on Committee Stage to ensure that the provisions of the Army Pensions Act apply to members of the Defence Forces deployed outside the State as part of an international force. Let us go through the Bill. Sections 1 to 3 in Part 1 are standard sections. Section 3 provides for the repeal of the existing legislation concerning the dispatch for service of members of the Defence Forces outside the State, which is the Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1960 and the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006. Section 4 is really the crux of it. It amends section 2 of the Defence Act 1954 to include a definition for the term "relevant international force", which replaces the term "International United Nations Force" as defined in the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006. This is the change. We are changing from "International United Nations Force" to "relevant international force". The insertion of "relevant international force" is what the reform of the triple lock actually means in practice. It means that the Defence Forces can continue to participate in UN-led or UN-organised missions. If the United Nations Security Council changes its mind and starts to authorise new peacekeeping missions, we can still take part and that mandate will do us. It will also allow the Defence Forces to participate in missions organised or led by, for example, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE, the EU or other regional arrangements. The participation of the Defence Forces in any such mission would only occur where it operates in a manner consistent with the Charter of the United Nations and international law. That is what we are voting on - not the histrionics from the Opposition, not the exaggerations, not war and not neutrality. This is exactly what we are voting on. Sections 5 to 10 and 13 to 20 provide for consequential amendments to the Defence Act 1954, necessitated by the repeal of existing enactments dating back to 1916 to 2006. In the case of a number of these consequential amendments, references to the repealed enactments are replaced with references to the relevant new sections of the Defence Act 1954. Section 7 applies to officers and section 11 applies to enlisted persons and will amend the Defence Act 1954 to provide for the suspension in certain circumstances of members of the Defence Forces. These proposals come from the Ward report, which was mentioned by the Minister. The section sets out the circumstances in which a member of the Defence Forces may be suspended and the procedures to be followed, including the right to make representations. The section also enables the Minister to make regulations pertaining to suspensions. Section 8 amends the provisions as set out in section 50 of the Defence Act relating to the dismissal of an officer of the Defence Forces. The reasons that may give rise to the dismissal are that the officer has been convicted of a criminal offence, that the officer has engaged in conduct that has brought discredit to the Defence Forces, or that the dismissal is necessary for the purpose of safeguarding national security. Section 9, which is about officers, and section 12, which is about enlisted persons, amend the Defence Act 1954, again in line with recommendations from the Ward report, to require a member of the Defence Forces to inform his or her commanding officer if the member is charged with a criminal offence. The member will also be required to keep the commanding officer informed of any significant developments relating to the charge, including the dates of court appearances. Section 21 inserts a new Part XIV into the Defence Act 1954. The new Part XIV, which consists of six new sections, consolidates the provisions relating to the service outside the State by a contingent or member of the Defence Forces which are currently situated within the Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1960 and the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006. The new section 336 of the Defence Act 1954 relates to the dispatch of a contingent or member of the Defence Forces for service outside the State as part of a "relevant international force". This is one of the central provisions of the Bill. The legislation expressly provides that any dispatch of a contingent or member, as part of a relevant international force, which I have already described the definition of, shall be subject to that international force operating "for the purpose of peace-keeping, peace-enforcement or conflict prevention consistent with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations". That is what we are voting on. Subsection (2) of the new section 336 provides that a contingent of the Defence Forces will not be dispatched, as part of a relevant international force, other than with the prior approval of the Government, and, subject to certain exceptions as set out in this section, only if a resolution approving the dispatch has been passed by the Dáil. Subsection (5) of the new section 336 sets out the circumstances in which a contingent of the Defence Forces may be dispatched outside the State for service as part of a relevant international force without a Dáil Éireann resolution. The circumstances are that "the contingent consists of not more than 50 members of the Defence Forces", or the contingent is being dispatched for the purposes of replacing, in whole or in part, a contingent that was previously approved for dispatch. The Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1960 currently allows for the dispatch of a contingent of not more than 12 members of the Defence Forces without a resolution approving the dispatch having been passed by Dáil Éireann. This is one of the key mistakes people make regarding the triple lock. The specification of the 12 members and the 50 members has nothing to do with the United Nations or a mandate. One member of the Defence Forces going abroad previously had to have a UN mandate and now will have to be part of a relevant international force. The 12 members and the 50 members relates to Dáil Éireann approval, and that is the legislation and the law. The increase to 50 in the number of personnel that may be dispatched without a Dáil resolution - they will still need to be part of a relevant international force - will allow for the deployment of a number constituting a military platoon with support elements, such as communications, transport and other support elements. The new section 337 of the Defence Act 1954 deals with the dispatch of a contingent or member of the Defence Forces for service outside the State for purposes other than service as part of a relevant international force. The following new purposes are included: "undertaking civilian evacuation operations in response to an actual or potential disaster or emergency" and "undertaking military close protection duties or military security duties". The provision relating to civilian evacuation operations is particularly important. We live in a time of geopolitical instability. When Irish citizens are caught in high-risk or volatile environments overseas, Ireland must have the capacity to respond. Our Defence Forces need a clear legal basis to do the job we may ask them to do in undertaking civilian evacuation. This is why the Bill makes express provision in the Defence Acts for the deployment of members of the Defence Forces outside the State for those purposes. The term "military close protection duties" relates to the provision of "personal security duties carried out in an actual or potential hostile environment or area of conflict" in respect of persons including the President and members of the Government, as specified in subsection (5) of section 337. The reference to "military security duties" is intended to cover the provision of security support to Irish embassies in high-risk or volatile security environments. Any dispatch of members of the Defence Forces under this section will be with the prior approval, and on the authority of, the Government. However, in line with an existing provision of the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006, the Government will be authorised to give general approval for the dispatch of the Defence Forces for any purpose set out in subsection (1), other than dispatch for civilian evacuation operations, or the provision of military close protection or military security duties. Dispatch for these purposes will require Government approval on a case-by-case basis. We also have a new section 338, which is a very interesting one as well. This provides that "A State ship or service aircraft may, with the prior approval of the Government, be deployed outside the State for the purpose of participating in international activities to counter drug trafficking by sea and air". This is primarily intended to facilitate greater participation by Ireland in the Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre (Narcotics), MAOC(N), of which Ireland is a founder member. If we look back at the record, we will see that a previous Minister for Defence said we would provide equipment for this intergovernmental or interstate operation. We were not able to do so because of the triple lock, even though it relates to drug trafficking. This will give us legislation that will allow us to do that. This is really important for us. We are a founder member of the centre. They asked us for equipment in 2017, but we could not because of the existing legislation even though we are a founder member of the centre and it is about drug trafficking.

I am happy to go through other sections, if people have questions, because there are some others to go through.

Earlier today at the RACO conference, the Minister suggested that people had put their trust in politicians to bring in changes in particular to the triple lock neutrality protection. That is despite the fact that no reference whatsoever was made to it in the Minister's own party manifesto. It is despite the fact that the Fianna Fáil manifesto merely spoke about reform, rather than ending it. Most of all, it is despite the fact that commitments were twice given to the Irish people in the Nice and Lisbon treaty referendums that the triple lock would be a permanent feature and a protection for our neutrality. When people went to the polls on those occasions, many of them changed their minds from the first referendum to the second on the basis of what Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael presented as being binding commitments. Now, they say that the triple lock has nothing to do with neutrality, even though we are literally amending the parts of our Defence Acts that relate to deploying Irish personnel as part of an international force. For a long time it was the policy of the Government that the triple lock was central to neutrality. I will quote Micheál Martin. I think he is sick of being quoted but it is no harm to say once again that he said that "the triple lock is at the core of our neutrality" and spoke about a Fine Gael "obsession". I will also quote from the Minister's departmental website, which states: Ireland’s policy of military neutrality has long been an important strand of our independent foreign policy and is characterised by non-membership of military alliances or common or mutual defence arrangements. That is uncontroversial, but more interestingly it says: Ireland’s traditional policy of military neutrality is well understood by EU partners and codified in the Protocol attached to the Lisbon Treaty. That is the Lisbon treaty that the Irish people voted for on the basis of that protocol. According to the Minister's own departmental website, the triple lock is central to our neutrality and the protocol is fundamentally premised on the triple lock. The Minister knows perfectly well the Irish people want to keep our neutrality and that they want to keep the triple lock, and she knows that she does not have a mandate for this legislation. If she was so certain of her position, given such past commitments in particular, and if she is so certain of this argument she makes in terms of sovereignty, she should put it to the people. The reason she refuses to do so is because she knows it will be rejected. The Minister cannot very well put such store in arguments around sovereignty and pretend such votes did not really take place. Indeed, she is trying to truncate the debate in here. It would be perfectly normal and in order to have this debate continue into the following week. There is nothing stopping the Minister adjourning this debate at the end of this evening's part, but the reality is that she knows there are many within Government, particularly in Fianna Fáil, who have serious reservations about this Bill, because they are proud of the historical record of peacekeeping and of multilateralism, and they see Fine Gael, Micheál Martin and the Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, rushing to get rid of it. The Minister is trying to keep a tight rein on this debate. The Minister tells us that the world is changing. That is not disputed. The world is undoubtedly changing. We see the profound instability in this world, with Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, the continued Israeli occupation of Gaza and settler violence in the West Bank, the US and Israeli war with Iran, the Sudanese war, and now the conflict between the Houthis and Saudi Arabia. The response to this volatility should not be to cast aside the protections that we have. The Government proposes to dip its toes. It should be wary that the tides are very strong. What the Government proposes to do is risky, reckless and foolish. It puts Irish Governments in the future at risk of considerable pressure for deployments - of what kind, we do not know. Before I return to the triple lock itself, I will briefly state that it is important that this legislation is also dealing with disciplinary issues and suspensions. I have no objection in principle to this. I acknowledge that changes have been made to the general scheme. That is welcome, but they require additional consideration. We will engage with the amendment the Minister of State has mentioned. It is the first reference we have heard to it. We will engage with that as it comes forward. There have been a lot of myths in relation to this debate and it is important to take them one by one. The first, is in relation to the constant argument about the veto. The reality is, in the triple lock, neutrality protection exists. It exists in the Seville declaration, particularly at Ireland's request, but fundamentally it exists in the Defence Acts. It exists in Acts of these Houses. That is where the triple lock exists. It is the threshold and the standard the Oireachtas has set for the deployment of Irish troops so that it has a UN mandate and that it has a strong grounding in international law. I too acknowledge the very proud record of Irish peacekeepers who have served with distinction, who have brought great pride to Ireland and who have enhanced the reputation of Ireland internationally. I also acknowledge the fact many personnel lost their lives and were severely injured during their service. Those peacekeepers have done us proud. They did so under a UN mandate. There are currently ten other UN peacekeeping missions, aside from UNIFIL, and that is even before we go into the upwards of a dozen other missions supported by UN Security Council resolutions for certain activities and UN mandates. There is not a shortage of locations to deploy Irish personnel to but the Government is not interested in that; it is even exploring it. Right now, all the Government's eggs are in this basket and the deployments it proposes to undertake outside of a UN mandate. The Government has also attempted to suggest the triple lock constrains us in so many different ways regarding our personnel abroad. The triple lock specifically relates to being part of an international force. The reality is that it does not, and never has, prevented us from, for example, postings outside the State, secondments, training, ceremonial duties, monitoring observation, reconnaissance and fact-finding, inspecting and evaluation of equipment, undertaking military close protection or military security duty duties, undertaking humanitarian tasks, evacuation and the protection of Irish citizens. The Minister proposed to clarify that in the legislation. That is fine. It looked clear enough to me in the 2006 Act but if she wishes to clarify that, that is fine. Ultimately, that is not what this legislation is about. If the Government had proposed legislation that did solely that, I would have no objection. Ultimately, the Government is using these arguments as cover to get rid of the triple lock. The Government has also attempted, at times, to connect getting rid of the triple lock with investing in our Defence Forces, but it is this and previous Governments that have failed to invest. We should have a Government that is strong on neutrality and strong on defence. This Government is neither. We must properly resource the Defence Forces by rebuilding the Naval Service, strengthening air and maritime surveillance and developing adequate radar capabilities. Neutrality does not mean being defenceless. It also does not mean dependence and reliance on others. The weakness in our defence has been created by decades of underinvestment by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. Instead of fixing that failure, the Government prefers closer alignment with military structures of NATO states. We read recently that the Government is directing officials to progress Irish participation as an observer in the joint expeditionary force, JEF+, which puts this in a concerning context, on top of the fact there was a deployment of a British warship reportedly during the Irish Presidency's hosting of the European Defence Ministers' meeting at the request of the Irish Government, which has also raised serious concerns. We should invest in our Defence Forces rather than becoming dependent and reliant on neighbours, particularly NATO member states. It would be more in the Government's line if it was serious about defence, to address the delayed timelines in the Commission on the Defence Forces report, perhaps, most of all, to meet the needs of the Defence Forces' greatest assets - the men and women of the Defence Forces. As the Minister heard at the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers, RACO, conference, officers were rostered to work during that very Ministers' meeting and not paid an allowance despite the fact they were working around the clock. The very people we are relying on did not get that allowance. This is a matter of basic respect. We have Defence Forces personnel not being paid for the work they are doing because there is no way of recording overtime and we have the issue of the inadequate cadet pay. I urge the Minister, Deputy Chambers, to stop blocking the appointment of an adjudicator to the Defence Forces scheme and stop delaying the processing of local bargaining schemes under the previous national pay agreement. The European Economic and Social Committee has found against the Government for its failure to properly pay our Defence Forces and abide by the working time directive. The Minister needs to direct her Department to fix this. That would be far more in her line than getting rid of the triple lock. Neutrality has been a strength for Ireland. It is a clear-eyed assessment of how Ireland can best play a role in this world. We enjoy a unique position, being seen by countries of the global south as having overcome conflict and a history of colonialism but also having strong connections of history, language and family with countries such as the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Britain, as well as being an EU country. It gives us an outsized level of influence but this has been allied to and buttressed by our military neutrality and our support for the multilateral system. We are a small nation. We will never be a major military power but neutrality allows us to create a place in the world not swept along by one or other of the tides of the great powers. We are well able to stand on our own two feet. This illustrates all the more why neutrality is vitally important at this time. The Government's attempts to get rid of the triple lock are foolish and reckless and we should oppose them at every step.

Let us be crystal-clear: defending Irish neutrality does not mean turning our backs on the world. It means pursuing peace through diplomacy, supporting humanitarian efforts, standing up for international law and refusing to become entangled in military arrangements that compromise our independence. The people of Ireland have a legitimate interest in these decisions and any fundamental change to the triple lock deserves serious public debate, transparency and democratic consent, not a rushed legislative process. One of the concerns with the Bill, and not just specifically from a policy perspective, are the powers given to Government alone regarding the dispatch of Defence Forces personnel for purposes other than service as part of a relevant international force. The Government may decide to send advisers overseas without Dáil approval. If Irish soldiers are to advise the military of any other foreign power, the Dáil must be consulted in order to judge the suitability of who we are advising. Not only is this for the purpose of maintaining our international reputation, for integrity and credibility, but military advisers have all too often in the past been a precursor or a catalyst for involvement in a much larger conflict. Let us consider the Americans in Vietnam or the Soviets in Afghanistan. We cannot allow the government of the day to simply pick and choose who it thinks we should be advising or aiding in military matters. Not every so-called ally or partner has a reputation for upholding international law or defending human rights. We must be careful who we call on our Defence Forces to not only stand beside but work with to build up their military capabilities. I have a similar concern about undertaking reconnaissance missions without the approval of the Dáil. Reconnaissance by its very nature means the proximity to or close contact with a potentially hostile presence. How far could the definition of "reconnaissance" be stretched by a Government? Could the cavalry troopers be sent to reconnaissance in force, bringing them into direct conflict with an opposing force? Could the rangers wing be sent to conduct an operating under the guise of a special reconnaissance mission? These two liberties given to the Government are in stark contrast to the other provisions in section 337 and I worry that they are wide open to abuse. This is something we must tighten up as a matter of urgency. There can be no room for semantics when it comes the dispatch of Irish troops to potentially conflict-ridden zones. The Government was very sure to explicitly define itself as eligible to receive close protection by the Defence Forces so it can be quite clear when it needs to be. The Government must scrap this scheme to repeal the triple lock. Ireland's contribution to international security should continue to be rooted in peacekeeping, neutrality and respect for the United Nations. For generations, Ireland has built a profound reputation as a nation committed to peace, diplomacy and the peaceful resolution of conflict. We should be proud of that tradition, defend it and pass it on to future generations.

The Ministers might not think the triple lock is something the public is engaged in but I assure them they are critically engaged. The vast majority are requesting their public representatives to vote against this Bill and that is why Sinn Féin will vote against it. Every time the triple lock is talked about there is what is like an annoyance or a frustration with the Irish people that they do not get it. There is an anger coming from the Government-----

There is not.

-----as to why people would question the triple lock or what they want. One person sums this up really well. Our neutrality is a core part of who we are. For decades, it has allowed our Defence Forces to do incredible independent, peacekeeping and humanitarian work across the world without being dragged into global conflicts. Stripping away the requirement of a UN mandate takes away the essential checks and balances that protect our troops and independence. Pushing a massive change like this through without proper public debate is completely unacceptable. If the Government truly believes our foreign policy needs to be altered, then it must put that question directly to the people of Ireland. A decision that alters our national identity cannot be made by a simple Dáil vote. At the very least, we must have a national referendum. Sinn Féin and I completely oppose these attempts to abolish the triple lock. The Government will say that it has nothing to do with our neutrality. Well, then, all the Irish people are wrong.

The Deputy is telling them it is about war.

Let the Government be on its own. As Chair of the defence and national security committee, I have a job to do to facilitate all members of the committee, and I will do that. I want to be absolutely clear. Protecting Ireland's neutrality and strengthening our Defence Forces are not mutually exclusive. The Government would have people believe that the triple lock is somehow preventing Ireland from playing its part internationally and is something we need to be ashamed of. This is not the case. Our personnel can participate in international military training, undertaking humanitarian operations of any size, responding to natural disasters and emergencies and engaging in overseas activities that do not require triple lock approval. They can go on rescue missions and do all of those things. The Irish people know that; they are not stupid. We can strengthen our maritime security, protect our undersea infrastructure, improve our cybersecurity, invest in air surveillance and enhance our capacity to respond to emerging threats. We can improve military readiness, modernise equipment, invest in our barracks and, crucially, address the recruitment and retention crisis that continues to undermine our Defence Forces. Not one of those priorities requires the abolition of the triple lock. The real obstacle to strengthening our Defence Forces are decades of underinvestment, inadequate infrastructure and the failure of successive Governments to properly support the men and the women who serve our State. I want to take this opportunity today to thank each and every one of those who has served and continues to serve. The triple lock is not responsible for the crumbling barracks or the personnel shortages. Yet, rather than tackling these challenges, the Government has chosen to dismantle an important safeguard of Irish neutrality as its priority. Let us be honest with the people around the triple lock. It ensures that certain overseas deployments require Government and Dáil approval and a United Nations mandate. Its removal would fundamentally change the safeguards governing Ireland's participation in overseas military operations. It would transfer greater discretion to the Government of the day, weakening an important democratic and international check. This has serious implications for our neutrality, and the Irish people deserve honesty about those implications. The Government is acting against their expressed wishes. I recognise the genuine difficulties facing the United Nations Security Council, but the answer to a dysfunctional Security Council is not to abandon the UN framework. The answer is to reform it. Ireland should be leading international efforts to reform the council, to challenge the misuse of the veto, to strengthen accountability and to ensure that international peacekeeping is not paralysed by geopolitical interests. We should be using our diplomatic influence to build alliances for meaningful UN reform, not just using its shortcomings as an excuse to remove safeguards at home. Ireland's military neutrality has given us a distinctive and respected voice internationally. It allows us to advocate for peace, diplomacy, international law and conflict resolution, independent of military alliances. That independence is worth protecting, and the people living on this island think it is worth protecting. Sinn Féin will oppose the Minister’s attempts to abolish the triple lock, invest in our Defence Forces, reform the United Nations and protect our neutrality. If the Government insists on fundamentally changing the safeguards underpinning our neutrality, it should put it to the people in a referendum. If it is not brave enough to let the Irish people have their say, then it should stand aside and let a Government that will do so.

The Social Democrats strongly oppose this Bill, but not all elements of it. As Deputy Ó Laoghaire pointed out, there are some important parts of it regarding disciplinary procedures and so on. However, the removal of the triple lock is an erosion of our neutrality. Although the Government will not admit that, that is the basis on which we oppose this Bill. The Taoiseach called it "reform" earlier, and in their opening comments the Minister and Minister of State have used the term “reform”. It is not reform, and therefore, the Government has no mandate. It is the abolition of the triple lock. It is the removal of the triple lock, with no comparable replacement, and I am going to get into some detail on that. The Government has no mandate. Fine Gael, in its manifesto for the 2024 election, was silent on this. Fianna Fáil talked about sensible reform. The programme for Government refers to reform while maintaining Irish neutrality, which this Bill does not do. I will refer to some of the experts who have testified to that in committee. I have criticised the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond for his position in not supporting Irish neutrality, but I have come around to the fact that at least he is open and transparent about it because that is less than I can say for the rest of the Fine Gael Cabinet members and TDs who speak on this issue. They do not support neutrality. They never have and never will, as long as they are in power. The Bill finally puts the nail in the coffin of Irish neutrality and allows Fine Gael to pursue its goals, namely, to drag us towards militarisation along with its EPP partners. Fianna Fáil has at least in the past had strong support for Irish neutrality, going back decades with people like Frank Aitken who was instrumental in the development of Irish foreign policy and the multilateralism that is a cornerstone of that. Of course, this is why we are seeing a schism in the Fianna Fáil membership, whereby some of its TDs are seeing through the Government spin and recognise that this is an absolute nail in the coffin of Irish neutrality. I urge the rest of its Deputies to please tune in to and listen to the debate and hear what the Opposition is saying. The Opposition is completely united and is working together to open the eyes of the public, who are with us on this, and those of the Government Deputies who are being hoodwinked by the Cabinet spin. The cross-party work on this has been incredibly strong. I am proud to be a part of the Irish Neutrality League, along with Members present today and others. Of course, Catherine Connolly, before she was elected to Áras an Uachtaráin, was a founder of the Irish Neutrality League. I want to get past the politics and into some of the policy of this and have a look at what is being proposed by the Government because that is important. The Bill is suggesting that we go from a clear legal mechanism, which acts as a backstop for Irish neutrality in the deployment of our troops, to what will essentially be a set of vague words and terms that do not have legal standing and that will inform our military deployment policy. There will be no comparable legal certainty. I will address the Minister’s call for other ways in which we could satisfy the triple lock. Ultimately, what the Bill will do is bring us from peacekeeping to military deployment for regional interests. One of the most tangible examples of this change is what I heard during the pre-legislative scrutiny debate in the defence committee. In an exchange between Deputy Murphy and the Minister’s Department's head of defence and security policy, the Deputy asked the Minister’s colleague, who is here with us today, whether if the legal framework being proposed in the Bill was in place in 2003 there would have been anything stopping us from sending troops to invade Iraq. The answer was “No”. There would have been nothing in place for us to stop it. There would have been no legal backstop and no triple lock to prevent the Government of the day potentially sending troops to Iraq. It was startling to hear that, because the UK and the US claimed at the time that what they did was in compliance with the UN Charter, which is exactly what the Government is trying to replace our triple lock with, namely, adherence to the UN Charter, a term so vague that it is meaningless. Trite phrases like the "UN Charter" mean nothing when those kinds of invasion are overseen without UN oversight. That is the point. The UN mandate is the only show in town when it comes to multilateralism and the Government is choosing to remove it. This Bill will allow missions with no UN mandate as long as they are "consistent with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations" but who is to determine if a regional organisation or body operates in a manner consistent with the UN Charter, especially when there is no Security Council or General Assembly oversight? That is the role of the UN and it is a role the Government is actively seeking to erode. I will speak to some of the missions that have been referenced throughout the debates on the triple lock and this specific Bill. There has been a lot of misrepresentation of those missions and the missions the Government purportedly wants to go on, so I will delve into some of them. At Leaders' Questions earlier, the Taoiseach made great statements about how Irish troops had been instrumental in delivering humanitarian aid to Chad. I agree, but the Government's proposed non-triple lock missions have no humanitarian functions - not in the new functions for Operation IRINI and not in the EU missions in Lebanon. The new Lebanon mission - we have to clarify this - is not a peacekeeping mission. This is not hyperbole or hysterics. The EU mission does not have a peacekeeping function. It is a training mission to train the Lebanese military. The main similarity it has with UNIFIL is simply that it takes place in Lebanon.

And we currently do not need the triple lock for that.

We only need to look at the disaster of the EU training mission in Mali to see the problem with these kinds of mission but crucial to the discussion on this Bill is that these are not peacekeeping missions.

Just on a point of information that does not currently require-----

Please let me finish.

Now I would like to talk about the-----

There is disinformation being thrown out here.

But it is disinformation.

I will address the non-renewal of mandates because that is one of the key points that the Government puts forward around this. Have there been any new UN-founded missions since 2014? The answer is "No" and we all know that. However, have there been mandate renewals and mandates for regional missions? The answer is "Yes". These include Operation Sophia for search and rescue in the Mediterranean and enforcing the Libyan arms embargo, the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, UNDOF, peacekeeping mission in the Golan Heights, which Ireland pulled out of in 2024, and the Haiti mission that was approved by the Security Council in 2023 and began in 2024. The Government's dialogue around this is an attempt to misdirect the Irish public. It cannot get a mandate from the UN for peacekeeping, so it is going to get rid of the triple lock so that it can send troops on non-peacekeeping missions with no UN mandate. There are 11 UN peacekeeping missions currently. There are also more missions globally that have a UN mandate, such as the Haiti mission. The new Lebanon mission is not a peacekeeping mission, so how exactly is our peacekeeping tradition being protected? In the few minutes I have left, I want to pick up on some of the points that the Minister and Minister of State made in their opening statements. The Minister specifically asked us for alternatives. The Government says it is looking to collaborate. I find that hard to stomach when it continues to hold that removal of the triple lock does not compromise our neutrality, but nonetheless and on that basis, what of the uniting for peace resolution and the use of the General Assembly, the Government's pursuit of which I have asked for proof of time and again? The Taoiseach was at the UN General Assembly recently. Did he raise this? Did he talk about how we would like the General Assembly to satisfy our triple lock as outlined in the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006? I do not think he did.

Yes. Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle.

That is in the legislation.

It is covered.

The General Assembly is increasingly being seen as a crucial mechanism to get past what we all know to be issues with the veto by the permanent members of the Security Council, but beyond that the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006 clearly states: "International United Nations Force" means an international force or body established, mandated, authorised, endorsed, supported, approved or otherwise sanctioned by a resolution of the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations; Thus, even beyond the uniting for peace resolution that is available to the Government to satisfy the triple lock but that the Government has failed to pursue, a mission does not even have to be a Security Council mandate or a mission set up via the General Assembly, just endorsed or supported. It is extremely generous language that allows for flexibility in the face of any Security Council deadlock, which we all acknowledge is an issue. In that context, the Government's histrionics over the permanent five members and the veto do not stand up to scrutiny. No new mandate was sought for Operation IRINI and, crucially, it is not a peacekeeping mission. The Minister spoke about four members of the Defence Forces having to withdraw immediately but that is false. They were not legally compelled to withdraw immediately because that was well under the existing limit of 12 deployed without the UN mandate,-----

No.

No, that is the point I made.

It has nothing to do with numbers.

-----which is what the Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, then confirmed in his contribution.

I made the point-----

-----that the figure of 12 related to Dáil approval.

Okay. I am only trying to help the debate.

Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle. Finally, in terms of picking up on points that the Minister and Minister of State have put forward, the Minister of State said that the new definition still allowed us to participate in new UN missions and to take part in missions from the "OSCE, the EU or other regional arrangements". We can already do that. We already have. We just require a UN mandate because that is the guarantee given to the people in the Seville declarations. The invention of the Common Security and Defence Policy, Partnership for Peace and other EU mechanisms poses a threat to Irish neutrality. They run the risk of us not acting for human rights, not acting for the greater good and not acting for multilateralism and international law but for European interests. This is a bloc that has been consistently out of step with Irish foreign policy on the genocide in Gaza, our commitments to humanitarian aid and human rights. Nobody is raising an issue with the Government's changes on civilian evacuation operations, so those points are misleading. I will finish with a couple of quotes from the pre-legislative scrutiny when we had both Professor Ray Murphy and Mr. Joe Noonan in speaking to us. I will read what Professor Murphy said because they were such powerful words. He said: We are removing the requirement for the UN to approve and give legitimacy to Ireland's participation in an international force abroad. By doing so, we are joining all of those states that we are critical of, and that are rendering the United Nations dysfunctional ... He also said: Allowing Irish forces to go to non-UN-approved forces is opening a carte blanche for major operations of a nature which we cannot predict. If we send forces on the ground, as part of an EU or NATO force ... [will] we become embroiled in an actual armed conflict and be a party to a conflict? Those are powerful statements in the context of this debate. They tell us that we are threatening Irish neutrality. That is what is happening here no matter what the Government says or how much it denies that the Bill is a threat to our neutrality. That is exactly what it is. It is an abolition of Irish neutrality through the abolition of the triple lock. As others have, I reiterate the Social Democrats' support for Óglaigh na hÉireann and recognition of the unbroken record of peacekeeping we are proud to hold as a nation state. We, as other parties do, support the mid-level funding that would see our Defence Forces brought back up to a level of functionality from where it is now that the Minister and Minister of State's Governments have allowed it to deteriorate to. This is vital legislation and it vital for us to debate it properly. We also object to the guillotine that is being applied today. I urge Government TDs to tune in and listen to their consciences because if they hold Irish neutrality dear, they must see through the spin of this Cabinet. What is being put forward is completely disingenuous. That this can be passed and we can maintain our neutral status as a nation state is nonsensical and we have to see through that.

The Minister of State's interrupting of my colleague was really out of line but it suggests that he knows this is a complete betrayal of the people's desire for Ireland to remain a neutral country. Even more than that, this is Fianna Fáil betraying its promises and going back on them. Fine Gael has always been very interested in pulling us into deeper militarisation and military links but for Fianna Fáil, this is deeply politically damaging and the Minister of State knows it. That is why he is squirming and intervening and why the Taoiseach was so riled by it. I have rarely seen such a U-turn. Fianna Fáil was so explicit. The Taoiseach said in 2013 that the triple lock was core to our neutrality. The Taoiseach, Deputy Micheál Martin, said that, so what has changed? How is it now no longer the case? If we come forward to 2020, Fianna Fáil's manifesto sets it out so clearly. Fianna Fáil reaffirmed its commitment to the retention of the triple lock of the UN mandate authorisation and Government and Dáil approval prior to committing Defence Forces personnel on overseas service. Fianna Fáil's 2020 manifesto said it, so what has changed? How is Fianna Fáil now somehow claiming that getting rid of the triple lock has no impact on our neutrality? Of course it does. It absolutely does. This is abandoning our neutrality. What is really sad about this legislation and what the Government is doing is that not only is it abandoning our neutrality, it is abandoning the UN. It is giving up on the United Nations and the decades of work done to build it up as something that could try to get international peace. The Government is undermining Ireland's role as a global neutral force and peacekeeper by abandoning the UN. It knows that there are potential pathways to use the UN, like the General Assembly, as has been set out by my colleague, but it is giving up on those. That is deeply disappointing because it sends out the message that Ireland, just like so many others such as the US, no longer believes that the UN is reformable and can be a core institution globally. The US, Russia, Israel - all the aggressors are delighted with that. Ireland, one of the countries that stood up as a neutral country behind the UN, no matter what, is now saying that the UN no longer works as an international institution of peace. That is a very sad day. It is a much more profound implication of this legislation than has been considered and is being put across. I want to echo the point that this is anti-democratic. The Government did not get approval for this in its manifestos, programme for Government or the general election and the matter should be put to the people. It is very clear that there is overwhelming support for our neutrality in its current form among the Irish people. Tá tacaíocht ollmhór i measc mhuintir na hÉireann dár neodracht mar atá sí faoi láthair. Tá sé sin thar a bheith soiléir. It is a very sad day for our neutrality and Ireland's role, which is being lost as a global peacemaker.

I usually keep my contributions in this House to health issues and focus my work on health policy, but I asked for time on this debate because I felt strongly that this was the wrong decision. I think it is a decision that the Government and the Irish people are going to regret. I urge the Government to reconsider it, to take this slower and to not rush it through the House because it has profound changes for our nation, our sense of who we are and our place in the world. There are members of the Minister's party - Fine Gael Members of this Parliament - who openly talk about wanting to join NATO. If we are honest about it, that is the direction of travel in which Fine Gael wants to take us. Meanwhile, Fianna Fáil is just happy to be in power. The fact that the Fianna Fáil Ministers of State are squirming beside the Minister tell us exactly how uncomfortable they are.

I am the biggest advocate for this.

But they are going along with Fine Gael on this. Eroding our neutrality erodes our soft power and influence in the world. We have a place in the world where we can focus on peacebuilding and peacekeeping. That is crucial. That is the role the Irish people want us to have on the world stage. We have a huge influence in the world because of our neutrality and our track record around peacekeeping and peacebuilding. When international law is under attack, we need to defend the UN. We need to lean into multilateralism. We need to be that voice in the world saying that there is a different way. When there is a rise in militarism, we can say that neutrality and de-escalation are a way forward. Fundamentally, I think that the Irish people agree with the Opposition on this and that, if we put this to the people, we would get a very clear result. The overwhelming majority of Irish people support neutrality and the triple lock. I urge the Minister to please reconsider this, take this slower and stop rushing this through the House.

This is the wrong decision.

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak about this legislation. I have been following the debate on this closely for a number of months. Some facts have been getting lost in the debate that I am glad to put on the record. The Fianna Fáil Party manifesto for the general election promised to reform the triple lock. The election saw Fianna Fáil - my party - returned as the largest party to Dáil Éireann with the highest vote share. The subsequent programme for Government, agreed with Fine Gael and the group of Independents, reaffirmed the pledge to reform the triple lock.

So why does the Government not reform it?

Thankfully, we do not do government by referendum in this country. We have seen how that has worked out for others - not so well. This is a democratically elected Government following through on a commitment, a commitment we made because we needed this reform. The need for this reform is clear because, while we have a proud history of peacekeeping in this country, the United Nations Security Council is dysfunctional. It has not approved any new peacekeeping missions since 2014. We are seeing very real implications of this dysfunction. At the end of this year, we are going to be forced to withdraw from Lebanon after almost 50 years. We are losing a real presence, history and a voice for Ireland in Lebanon against our own foreign policy objectives due to dysfunction outside of our control. There have been suggestions that we can reform the UN Security Council from within. That is wishful thinking. The possibility of that reform is remote. The main participants in the UN Security Council are determined to damage the operation of the United Nations to the greatest possible extent in respect of international law. It is also regrettable that much of the debate has been hijacked by blatant misinformation and populism.

Hear, hear.

Ireland is neutral. We cherish that neutrality and will continue to do so. This legislative reform has no effect on that. It is a simple fact that military neutrality is defined by non-participation in military alliances, common or mutual defence arrangements or active armed conflicts between other nations. Therefore, our military neutrality is not changing as a result of this legislative reform. The democratically elected Dáil will have the final approval of any future measures, rather than any rogue superpower. How is that not sensible reform? Do Deputies not trust themselves?

We do not trust the Government.

It is necessary and sensible reform. We live in a different world now from the one we lived in until recently. In these changed circumstances, to say that Ireland cannot do internationally what it used to be able to do because one of five nuclear powers says "No" does not make sense any more.

I am glad that the Government is following through on this commitment.

Speaking as the only current Member of this House who has served in the Permanent Defence Force and as a UN peacekeeper, I want to address some of the claims that have been made about this legislation. Sinn Féin's continual mislabelling of legislation calling the triple lock a neutrality protection mechanism is disingenuous. In listening to some of the other Opposition contributions, one would think that Ireland was completely abandoning its neutrality and we were turning our back on the United Nations or preparing to join NATO. None of these things is happening. Our military neutrality remains. Our full commitment to the United Nations remains, and our obligations under international law and the principles of the UN Charter remain. The question at the heart of this debate is very simple: should Ireland decide where our Irish peacekeeping troops are deployed or should that decision remain dependent on the five permanent members of the UN Security Council? I believe that Ireland should decide. I have worn the Irish flag on my shoulder, and I understand what it means to represent this country. I also understand the professionalism of the Defence Forces and the importance of military advice in decisions about overseas deployments. However, what has changed is the world around us. The UN Security Council has not established a new peacekeeping mission since 2014, yet nobody in this House could suggest that the world has become a safer place in those intervening 12 years. Our commitment to the UN is unwavering but we must also recognise that the Security Council, in its current form, is increasingly paralysed by the veto powers of the permanent five. Reforming the triple lock does not mean abandoning neutrality. Military neutrality and the triple lock are not the same thing. Our neutrality is a long-standing policy of the State. The triple lock is a legal mechanism. We can reform that mechanism without changing our neutrality and, importantly, removing the UN Security Council requirement does not remove democratic accountability. Professional military advice remains central. Government approval remains and Dáil oversight remains. Future deployments will continue to be governed by international law, the principles of the UN Charter, our neutrality policy and Irish democratic safeguards. I also welcome the provision arising from the Ward report. Having served, I know that discipline is fundamental to military life. I welcome the provisions that are strengthening suspension powers and reporting obligations where personnel face criminal charges.

Reforming the triple lock is the right thing to do for the men and women of the Irish Defence Forces, Irish security, Irish sovereignty and Irish neutrality. I am disappointed by the Opposition's continued false framing of this debate. This legislation very simply proposes to remove the ability of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to prevent the Irish Government and the Dáil from deciding where and when to send our peacekeepers. To put it another way, the Opposition wants the UN Security Council to retain the power to stop us sending our peacekeepers overseas. Let us be fair to the UN Security Council members. In deciding whether to bring a vote to the UN Security Council, the impact in Ireland is not top of their considerations or, most likely, even a consideration at all. The impact on Ireland is of no importance to them but, obviously, it is of huge consequence to us. There have been no new peacekeeping or peace important missions approved by the UN Security Council since 2014. That is 12 years. In those 12 years, other countries - other neutral countries - have participated in new missions but Ireland could not. Now, as we know, the UN Security Council mandate for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, in Lebanon is coming to an end. Three generations of Irish peacekeepers have proudly served in Lebanon and the Opposition seems to be happy that there will not be a fourth. Perhaps members of the Opposition does not really want Ireland to work for peace at all. Perhaps they just prefer talking about it but are not really interested in doing the hard work to secure peace. I have a couple of questions for the Opposition. How does the requirement for a UN Security Council mandate, which would include the approval of the US before we can consider sending our peacekeepers overseas, actually protect our neutrality? That is the same US whose President recently visited this island, which many members of the Opposition objected to, yet at the same time, they are okay with that President's Administration getting to decide if we can send our peacekeepers overseas. How does the requirement for the approval of Russia protect our neutrality? The Opposition is happy to allow the country that illegally invaded Ukraine four years ago, bringing war to Europe and death, disruption and hardship to Ukraine, to have a voice on where we, a neutral country, can send our peacekeepers? How does the requirement for the approval of the UK protect our neutrality? Sinn Féin rejects in principle the authority of the UK over Northern Ireland, yet it is happy for the UK to decide where the Irish men and women of our Defence Forces can serve overseas. This does not make any sense to me. Why does the Opposition not trust the public on this? We are fortunate to live in a parliamentary democracy, which is not what some of the members of the UN Security Council permanent five are. The public elected us to this Chamber, which decides where we send our peacekeepers, and these are the other parts of the triple lock we should be talking about.

Then why did Fine Gael not put it in its manifesto?

Put it in the manifesto.

The Government and the Dáil have to approve where we deploy our peacekeepers.

I welcome the debate today. I want to thank everyone who has been in touch with me with feedback. Their concerns about the triple lock are heartfelt and come from a genuine pride in our peacekeepers and a deep attachment to neutrality. I welcome the feedback and constructive debate here today. Nothing in this Bill, though, changes Ireland’s traditional position of military neutrality. Ireland is not joining a military alliance, there are no plans to change that by this Government and any change would require a referendum. This Bill relates to UN peacekeeping. Irish troops have served in UN missions since 1958. Our Defence Forces have distinguished themselves on more than 76,000 individual tours of duty; and 48 Irish soldiers have given their lives for peace in Lebanon alone. Frank Aiken did much to shape that tradition. As Minister for External Affairs, he gave Ireland an independent voice at the United Nations. In 1960, as our troops left for the Congo, the Dáil first legislated for UN service. At that time, Seán Lemass told this House that the UN Charter obliges every member to give the UN every assistance but he also warned that the Security Council had only too often in the past been hamstrung by the exercise of the veto. The world has changed radically since 1960. Today, the veto has deadlocked the Security Council. It has not set up any new UN peacekeeping missions since 2014. These challenges were debated ahead of the last general election and in the Fianna Fáil manifesto, it promised reform. The programme for Government, approved by this very House, committed to reform and action. Ireland is an independent State. Our right to set our own foreign economic policy was hard won and developed step by step from the 1930s under the leadership of de Valera, Aiken and Lemass. Clearly, we must be realistic about the international order but the decision on where our peacekeepers serve must be made here in this House by the elected representatives of Dáil Éireann, not by others in far-flung capitals representing their own interests. As the Labour Party's William Norton TD said in the House in 1960, "this Parliament is the custodian of the interests of the nation" and I agree with him. No state should have a veto over Irish or economic policy. Under this Bill, every deployment needs a Government decision, it must be consistent with the UN Charter, and any contingent of more than 50 personnel needs the approval of this House. This brings Ireland in line with our European partners, including neutral Austria, and it is entirely within our rights as a sovereign member of the United Nations. This Bill facilitates our proud tradition of UN peacekeeping and I will be supporting it.

What has changed? In Fianna Fáil's 2020 general election manifesto, it stated that if in government, it wanted to fully maintain neutrality and the triple lock. Sinn Féin believes that Ireland’s neutrality is a strength that is supported by the Irish people but Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in government are trying to change the role of Irish troops from peacemakers to conflict participants. No Irish parent wants to see their child in a conflict role or being deployed into European militarisation. The Irish people want to see more defence combined with neutrality. An Taoiseach made a solemn declaration to the Irish people prior to the second Nice and Lisbon referendums. These solemn declarations were intended to ease the fear of the Irish public regarding European militarisation and they did this through a promise to the Irish people. Those promises were to protect the triple lock. In 2013, an Taoiseach told this House that the triple lock was the core of Irish neutrality. Has Micheál Martin now rejected this statement as today he says the exact opposite? He maintained that he is now removing the triple lock so that we can continue to take part in peacekeeping missions. I accept issues exist with the Security Council authorisation and recognise and commend the position of the Government regarding the necessary reform. Circumstances have changed, yes, but an Taoiseach's statements and promises to the Irish people were resolute and absolute. An Taoiseach likes to speak to his brand of politics of being of substance.

If so, put a referendum to the people-----

-----and stop the bullying tactics to make the decisions for the people of Ireland. Let the Irish people have their say and protect our neutrality.

Let us just get to the nub of the issue. Members of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil know that neutrality is cherished by our people - this proud legacy we inherited. Deputy Devlin talked about Frank Aiken and I completely agree. It is a proud legacy. That policy of neutrality was not to sit idly by. That was to allow us to have peacekeepers. It was to allow us to be in the defence of human rights internationally and be involved in peace and conflict resolution internationally. We had the credibility and independence to do all of that. That is the reason, after the rejection of the first Lisbon treaty by the Irish people, the then Government, led by Fianna Fáil, made the solemn declaration that has evolved into the triple lock. There was a solemn declaration and an assurance offered to the Irish people in order to get them to vote for the Lisbon proposition the second time around. The Government knows this. What we are saying is that in order to honour that solemn declaration, the Irish people have to have their say in this matter. It could not be simpler. It is not about Sinn Féin, the Social Democrats, the Labour Party, People Before Profit, Aontú or Independent Ireland, or about a range of Opposition parties; it is about the Irish people. The Minister knows this, and any attempt to walk away from that is deeply shameful and dishonest. It is as simple as that. This is a cherished principle for the Irish people. It has been a strength for us internationally. The Minister cannot undo it without putting it to the Irish people. It is as simple as that.

I noted that, in her opening statement, the Minister framed this debate quite narrowly, as she has done in previous statements on the issue and during Private Members' business. She framed it largely in terms of the UN Security Council being an impediment that simply needs to be removed to allow for more agile and sophisticated foreign policy decisions, implying that anyone who thinks otherwise is prehistoric and unsophisticated in their thinking. The Minister does this in a hurried and rushed fashion. There are two things at play here. One, I believe the Minister knows she does not have the support of the Irish people here and that she is unsure of her own policy on this. She knows she did not get a mandate for this from the voters, nor is it in the programme for Government. What is in the programme for Government is a reform of the triple lock. What most of us in opposition have been proposing through pre-legislative scrutiny and through debate has been a reform of the triple lock because the UN Security Council is broken. I am not advocating for it to return to its former glories. The power of the nuclear five to exercise a veto is a Cold War construct and it is undemocratic. The Cold War ended a long time ago and we need a new way, or more accurately, not necessarily a new way but a different instrument to achieve our triple lock objectives. We can do that through a Uniting for Peace resolution and a motion of assent in the General Assembly. We know it is not a binding motion, but we know it would at least maintain an important lock in the triple lock. I do not believe the triple lock is the full manifestation or expression of Irish neutrality. I believe it is part of it, and an important part of it at that. What the triple lock is and what it represents is our strong expression of and commitment to the UN and the goals of a global effort towards peace. The triple lock, as it has existed over the last quarter of a century or so, has codified our link to the primary multilateral institution in the world, the UN, in terms of peacekeeping and personnel deployment. We have been proud of this. It has been a good thing. The Government has flipped on this in the last number of months and has presented it as a bad thing, saying we are the only ones who do this and that we must surely be mad. The question we should be asking is why others are not doing this. Why are others not strengthening their links with the UN and codifying their links with it in relation to the promotion and securing of peace? We are actually doing something right, not wrong, and we should be promoting that with our European partners and beyond because the UN Security Council is broken. When the Cold War ended, and the end of history was falsely declared, there was brief hope in the 1990s of a more peaceful world order, but that has been shattered in this millennium with the events of 11 September 2001, Afghanistan, Iraq, terrorism, AI weaponry, drone warfare, grey-zone attacks, asymmetric threats and, of course, genocide. All the alliances have been obliterated and the countries of the world are grasping for new certainties. Within this, Ireland, no longer a small nation, but a middle power, is struggling to find its place. We are in danger of making the wrong choices. With this Bill, we are making a wrong choice, a choice that is opening us up to risk: risk to our own security, risk to our troops, and risk to our reputation and our culture of being a powerful voice for peace in the world. Ireland is a member of two multilateral institutions, the EU and the UN. I will return to the EU. The UN is at its weakest in its history because it is under attack by the great hegemonic Cold War powers. The UN Security Council is paralysed and, yes, it has not agreed a new peacekeeping mission since 2014 in the Central African Republic. What is more, the UN Security Council is allowing peacekeeping missions to lapse, most pertinently for Ireland, the UNIFIL mission in Lebanon, which will come to an end later this year. Operation Irini, which has been placed front and centre by the Minister in her arguments as to why the triple lock must be removed rather than reformed, is something we believe could have been retained if she had followed what we in the Opposition are proposing in terms of reform rather than throwing the entire triple lock out. One important question needs to be asked honestly of all of us in this House. Do we support the deployment of Irish troops as part of UN missions such as UNIFIL? Perhaps not all in this House do, but we in the Labour Party do, and we do so without equivocation. In fact, we believe missions are enhanced by the presence of Óglaigh na hÉireann, which brings not only experience and expertise to peacekeeping missions but also a culture of non-offensive warfare, a culture of peacemaking and a culture that can be hard to quantify but impossible to deny. I want to see Ireland continue to be able to provide this in a shifting world, and that is going to give rise to difficult questions, questions I have been asking myself and that we have been discussing in the Labour Party for many months. The answer to those questions ultimately comes back, we believe, to the UN. As Deputy Gibney stated, the UN is the only show in town when it comes to peacekeeping, and we cannot turn our back on it. The UN may fail when the great powers damage it, but it will definitely fail when the middle and smaller nations walk away. That is what we are in danger of doing. I do not believe Ireland can reform the UN on its own, and I am not going to, in bad faith, pretend we have answers or say UN reform is the answer, because I have not heard anyone express a true pathway for UN reform that is actually going to work. It is going to be complex and will have to be done within the UN over many years. However, we do not need UN reform to continue to use the triple lock effectively. We can do it through the Uniting for Peace mechanism and through motions of assent in the General Assembly. Why has the Government shifted from its own election manifestos and its own programme for Government? I would relish a debate on the triple lock in terms of reform. It would be very interesting, but we are not having that. We are having a debate about the triple lock's removal. Where is the pressure coming from? It is not coming from the Irish people because they support it. They support the UN. This is deep within their marrow. The pressure is coming from Europe. I am not someone who is mistrustful of Europe or conspiratorial about it, but the facts are the facts. Europe and the European neighbourhood are now at the forefront of traditional warfare owing to Russia's attack on Ukraine, grey-zone attacks in relation to the Baltic states and other threats, including threats in the North Atlantic. European member states are on a pathway and a programme for rearmament and remilitarisation. Again, this is not a conspiratorial assertion; this is a fact. Poland will have one of the largest armies in the world. It is spending 5% of its GDP on arms. It will have a 300,000-strong standing army and 200,000 reserves, amounting to half a million. It is doing that because it feels a threat from Russia. It is a member state of the EU. We had ambassadors from the Baltic states, including Finland, in committee last week speaking about the threats they are under, and they are arming at a rate too. These are members of the EU. This is the international institution of which we are a part, and this is the international institution that will be progressing EU-led peacekeeping, peace enforcement and security missions in the future. The first one will not be a replacement for UNIFIL, but it is what is coming next. It will not be in southern Lebanon; it will be in central Lebanon, and its mission will be to train the Lebanese army against Hezbollah. It may have a knock-on impact with regard to Israel but it will not be on the southern border. It is what comes next. What will come after that? Will it be Ukraine, Poland, the Baltics, Türkiye, the Mediterranean or the north Atlantic? These are the questions we will answer. The EU is evolving rapidly with regard to a common defence union. We had Professor John O'Brennan in the foreign affairs committee. Granted, he was not talking about the triple lock. He was talking about the European Union's evolution. He is saying that the EU is living in an uncomfortable world, which I do not think any of us can deny, and the hegemonic ambitions of the United States, China and Russia, versus the weakening of multilateralism and the trend away from soft power, such as trade, for which the EU was founded, to hard power, which is not a natural competence of the EU, will accelerate the creation of a European defence union. His view, which I share, is that it probably will not be a coercive union and members probably will not be compelled to join but it will ask significant questions of EU member states individually and collectively. By untethering us from the United Nations and from having that guardrail, this Bill means that we are operating within the milieu of an EU that is evolving rapidly and will be faced with tough security and defence questions. Bear in mind, this Government has not produced a national security strategy that it said it would. It was in its programme for Government under reform of the triple lock, by the way, but it has not been published yet. We have to go on trust if we are to support this Bill, which we will not be supporting. It is hard to trust a Government on this issue when it is not being open and honest about the true nature of why this is being removed. Some of the security interests in Europe will match Irish interests. I want to see the north Atlantic secured. We have issues with our undersea cables and so on, and all of this is related. However, the European Union can change. The UK is not in it any more. Spain could have a change of government. Germany is currently being run by a centre-right or a right-wing government, if you ask me. That could move to AfD. France could be ruled by Le Pen. These are not fantastical ideas. They are things that could definitely happen. What does the EU look like in a security, defence and peace enforcement scenario when its two biggest powers are being run by the far right? These are genuine questions and concerns that cannot be dismissed. Keeping the triple lock does not remove them or answer them and I am not saying it does. The Labour Party believes that it brings these decisions to another forum. It is the most global forum, which we have trusted for decades, the United Nations. It is a forum that the Government parties, as well as almost all of us in opposition, have been proud of for many years. In fact, those in Fianna Fáil are tying themselves in knots to say how proud they are of their links to the United Nations, Frank Aiken and so on for many years. That is the one truth of this Bill. In this area, this Government is removing us and untethering us. We can do much of what we need for peacekeeping by going through the UN General Assembly and getting motions of assent. It is unwieldy but international diplomacy is unwieldy. The UN is unwieldy and imperfect. We talk about being agile. In our manifestos, we and others in opposition said that we would increase the number of troops for rapid deployment to extract citizens and so on. That is not a problem. We agree with all that. When it comes to the deployment of troops in a multilateral force, we have to have the UN involved. If we turn our backs on the UN, we are turning our backs on the only hope of a multilateral institution that can help bring about peace in the world that exists now. That might sound highfalutin but it is the only thing we have. I do not think the EU is there yet. The EU is fighting a number of battles with other hegemonic powers. It wants to be at the table. It wants to be like China, like America and like Russia. It wants to have that power. Tricky times are ahead. We do not have the depth of discussion and policy required. I do not think we have the robustness and honesty in government to be able to enter that world at this time, because we have not had the discussions. This Government, whether through this Second Stage debate or through truncating pre-legislative scrutiny, has not allowed enough discussion. I know what it will do when this gets to Committee Stage. It will shorten that too and try to rush this through before Christmas. I am frustrated by others with regard to how neutrality is discussed. I do not think it is discussed well in this Chamber. It is far more complex than is indicated in this Chamber and in others. We need to have proper discussions about defence and security. It is true and certain that with this Bill, this Government is throwing huge risk and uncertainty over the deployment of our troops and our foreign, defence and security policies. It is doing this under pressure from Europe, which is understandable pressure, because some European states are under huge threat, which I understand. We do not need to, and we should not, remove the triple lock. We should look at strengthening the UN with our voice and our deeds. This Government will look back on this as a real regret, because it will be the moment that it turned its back, in a security framework, on the United Nations. It should not do it. Much of the Opposition will work with the Government through Committee Stage to pull back from this. We have a few weeks to do it and I ask the Government to do it. This is the wrong move.

Ireland has a proud tradition of peacekeeping. For 60 years, Irish men and women have served overseas, protecting civilians, monitoring ceasefires and making communities safe. This legislation is about ensuring that contribution can continue. It does not alter Ireland's policy of neutrality. It does not commit us to membership of a military alliance or oblige us to participate in any particular overseas operation. It reforms the mechanism through which we decide where our personnel can serve. The triple lock currently requires Government approval, Dáil approval and a United Nations mandate for deployments overseas. That mechanism is no longer working as it should. It leaves us vulnerable to decisions by countries whose interests and priorities may be very different from our own. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council, through the use or threat of a veto, can block Ireland's participation in peacekeeping missions, irrespective of the wishes of the Irish Government or Dáil Éireann. We have already seen the practical consequences of the existing arrangements. In May, Irish personnel had to cease their participation in Operation Irini in the Mediterranean after the relevant Security Council authorisation expired. I listened to former Deputy Cathal Berry, a former Army Ranger, on the radio this morning as he explained that the Kremlin refused to extend the UN mandate. About 20 other countries stayed in the Mediterranean while Ireland was the only participating country to withdraw. With UNIFIL's operational mandate scheduled to end this December, we are also seeing this issue emerge in Lebanon. These are not hypothetical concerns. They are real limitations with real consequences for our Defence Forces and our international engagement. Without reform, our options will narrow and our ability to sustain the peacekeeping contribution we have made for more than six decades will be constrained. I respect the concerns people have raised. Sending Irish personnel overseas is a serious responsibility. It deserves careful scrutiny, clear legal safeguards and democratic accountability. Government approval and Dáil scrutiny remain central to the proposed arrangements. Missions must be consistent with the UN Charter and international law. Removing the requirement for a UN mandate does not remove our responsibility to uphold those principles. That responsibility must guide every decision we make. Our tradition of neutrality has helped make Ireland a distinctive and valued contributor to international peacekeeping, and we should protect that tradition. However, since when did the independence of a sovereign nation depend on securing the permission of the world's most powerful states? I believe that those who oppose this reform must address the consequences of leaving the existing arrangements unchanged. How do they propose to sustain Ireland's peacekeeping contribution when mandates expire?

This is an important debate. Any decision that we make with regard to defence, security or foreign policy must be in line with our values, which are consistency with international law and respect for human rights, for the rule of law and for democracy. This country has always been very committed to multilateralism. The parties on this side have always been strong supporters of the United Nations, and only the parties on this side have been strong supporters of the European Union since Ireland joined it. When questions about multilateralism come up, it needs to be remembered that it was the leader of Sinn Féin who shared a platform with Nigel Farage during one of the referendums and one of the parties opposite supported Brexit. When it comes to multilateralism and the role of Ireland, it is a bit rich for some in the Opposition to start citing previous referendum commitments. For the purpose of this debate, I chose to go back into the history and read the debates in July 1946 when it came to Ireland joining the United Nations, and then the debates around the adoption of the Defence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1960, which led to the first time we committed troops to the Congo. I will quote Éamon de Valera from 1946 when, during the post-war period, he spoke about Ireland joining the UN. He said: Some people think that all that is necessary in order to keep out of war is to declare that one is neutral. That is not sufficient. I would like our people and the members of this House to bear in mind that for six years of war the question as to whether our neutrality would be respected or not depended ultimately upon the will of, perhaps, two men. De Valera warned about the danger of the State being too reliant on the decisions of foreign powers. He certainly would not have been happy with the idea of the UK continuing to hold a veto over Irish foreign policy or decisions on peacekeeping troops. In 1960, when the issue was Congo, we were at the height of the Cold War. The big debate then was about whether the UN would just decide to order our troops in. Seán Lemass, the then Taoiseach, pointed out the Bill then provided "that, except in certain clearly defined cases, the exercise of this power will be subject to the approval of Dáil Éireann in each instance." His emphasis was on the decision having to be taken by the Dáil, referencing the Constitution. This is about our peacekeeping. As others have said, this is not going to be an easy decision in any circumstance. The decisions have to be in line with the values we set out. We should listen to our peacekeepers on this issue.

This is a very serious and significant debate. Perhaps the most serious debate that any nation state can have is where it sends its defence forces and what are the circumstances under which it sends its defence forces abroad. It is, of course, incredibly important in this country because we are so proud of our neutrality, the strength of our neutrality and what our neutrality does for this country. We are also really proud of our peacekeeping forces. I have heard many Opposition Members telling us what the Irish public think. I believe the Irish public are incredibly proud of the men and women who are currently serving abroad and those who have served abroad in the past. There are two fundamental lies that have underpinned the Opposition debate in respect of the issues that pertain to this Bill. The first is that this Bill represents some form of attack on multilateralism and the United Nations. The second lie is that this somehow represents a transition from Ireland being peacemakers to being conflict makers, as I heard one Sinn Féin TD say, and forming part of conflict. It is very difficult. I think Deputy Farrell is giving out to me for using the word "lie".

Is he allowed to say "lie"?

It was a lie.

I will say "untruth" if that solves the issue.

You said it now.

Just to let the Chair know, I will be coming back on those comments.

No, I am watching here. I will not be accused of being a liar by anyone. If Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael want to go down that road, I will go down it with them.

I do not think Sinn Féin has any credibility with the public when it comes to telling people where the Defence Forces are going to enter conflict or where any Irish man or woman is going to enter conflict versus the defence of peace. For decades in this country, Sinn Féin and its predecessors sent men and women into conflict when others were looking for peace, so it has no credibility. Leaving aside the fact that Sinn Féin has no credibility, its claims are simply not true. To the first point, the idea that Ireland is somehow undermining the United Nations because the United Nations Security Council is preventing peace missions from taking place is frankly ridiculous.

Which missions? Name them.

A point Deputy Gibney completely ignored in her submission is that the legislation makes it very clear that peacekeeping missions that are sanctioned, not just by the United Nations Security Council but by the General Assembly, can and would be carried out by the Defence Forces in Ireland with the approval of Dáil Éireann. There is nothing in this Bill that is in any shape or form undermining multilateralism. It is quite the opposite.

I tend to try to approach the problems we face in this Chamber from a pragmatic perspective but they have to be based on core principles. Let me, therefore, outline in clear terms what I believe on this. First, I believe fundamentally in Ireland's military neutrality and do not believe in us being part of military alliances. Second, I believe in our tradition of peacekeeping and I want to see that continue. Third, I believe in the sovereignty of Ireland and this Parliament to make decisions with regard to Ireland. If we take those three core principles and apply them to the problem we will have from next January, when hundreds of Irish peacekeepers for the first time in many decades will be left in Ireland rather than being out around the world providing peacekeeping solutions, how do we, as a Chamber, resolve that? Many in the Opposition might say they do not want to fix the problem and we should leave peacekeepers in Ireland until we can get a UN mandate in this decade or the next decade. Most Irish people believe what the Irish Defence Forces have done in Lebanon is important. In Lebanon in particular, the Defence Forces have kept the aggression of Israel in check in many parts, and I want Irish peacekeepers to stay there.

As part of an EU mission.

Let me say this without interruption. I believe in the sovereignty of Ireland. We fought for hundreds of years to make our own-----

There were two referendums.

Let me make the points without interruption.

There were two referendums.

Two referendums decided the triple lock.

It is not true.

Respect the rest of us.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle. I said I believe in the sovereignty of the Irish people and of this Parliament, and I really do. I believe that, regardless of one's political view, the Government formed by this Chamber are the people responsible for governing Ireland. That is exactly what the Constitution says. External relations shall be exercised by the Government. I cannot understand how parties that mistrust the British Government on so many issues are willing to give Britain a veto over where we send our troops and that mistrust the American Government on so many issues are willing to give Donald Trump a veto on us sending troops to Lebanon. Why do we not trust this place? The word "trust" was used by Deputies opposite. I will finish on this point. Ultimately, the Opposition does not trust this Government on lots of issues. We have political differences. I understand that. However, if the Deputies opposite were elected to govern in the morning, while they might make different decisions than we would, I would trust in-----

-----their right and mandate from the Irish people to make those decisions, because I abide by the Constitution.

I do not believe anybody outside this island should be dictating-----

I was interrupted.

You gave me 20 seconds.

Ceann Comhairle, you continue to allow people to be browbeaten in this Chamber. I lost a minute of my three minutes while we have other speakers-----

Take a minute back.

It is obvious that some Members of this House have no right to speak in this House.

Take an extra minute.

Earlier today, the Minister claimed that the Government has a mandate to remove the triple lock. To be honest, I find that to be an astonishing claim. Every single opinion poll repeatedly shows overwhelming public support for our neutrality and for retaining the triple lock. Even a majority of the Government parties' voters want to see it protected. The Government has never sought a mandate to weaken our neutrality. No members of this Government were elected on the promise to abolish the triple lock. No member of this Government got elected on the promise to abolish the triple lock. There was no commitment in the manifestos of Fianna Fail or Fine Gael to do so. Let us be clear that the only mandate they have is to protect the triple lock. Irish neutrality is not theirs to change, and the triple lock is not theirs to dismantle. If the Government wants to make any changes to our neutrality, then it must go the people. It is their right and their right alone to decide the future of our neutrality. The Minister said earlier today that all TDs will get to have their say on the legislation tonight. I urge all Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Deputies, as well as those Independent backbenchers propping up this Government, to act on the Minister’s words and have their say. I urge them to represent their constituents who overwhelmingly oppose this attack on our neutrality. I urge them to vote to keep the triple lock and protect our neutrality. This is a question for the Irish people. It is a question that has been promised to the Irish people through referendums. They want this kept. It should not be the decision of a Minister, Taoiseach or Tánaiste to scrap this. The Irish people want it to stay. The Irish people are proud of our neutrality. The triple lock should stay. I will be watching closely as to how people vote tonight.

It is good to start with the Taoiseach's own words, namely that the triple lock is !at the core of Irish neutrality" and that UN peacekeeping is the core of Irish neutrality. That is what the Taoiseach said. My constituency colleague, Fianna Fáil TD, Deputy Pádraig O'Sullivan, said on "The Tonight Show" last night that it is regrettable that more time was not given to the debate. This is one of the most major decisions that any of us will make as a TD, and it is probably one of the major decisions this Government will make. History will look back at our speeches. I listened to a Deputy talking about going back to look at speeches from the forties and other times. People will look at what we say tonight. This is history. What the Government is doing is fundamentally wrong. The Irish people voted twice, in the Nice and Lisbon referendums, and sent a clear message that they want to protect Irish neutrality. They do not want Europe to drag us into any conflicts. I heard a Deputy talk a while ago about conflicts, although I cannot remember who it was. Does that Deputy remember that people in his party flew the swastika in Dublin and Galway when they sailed to Spain to attack the Spanish people, whereas Frank Ryan and his men went over there to stand up for the Spanish people?

That is not true.

Let us remember that. If Members wish to talk about history, let us remember that. Was that the right decision to fly the swastika? By God, then they come into the Chamber, accuse the Opposition and say Sinn Féin are liars. They cannot stand over their argument. That Deputy never withdrew his statement. It is because they know the Irish people do not want this. They know they cannot go to the people. They know it will be rejected. Is there a man or a woman in here with a backbone to stand up for the people? I think not.

Seán Russell.

I have seen a lot of dishonest and disingenuous arguments and debates in the Dáil but this is the worst. The Government cannot possibly believe what it is saying. It knows what it is saying is not true. The Minister of State is fond of saying over and over again that we are reforming the triple lock but the reason for that is that is all he has a mandate for. Fine Gael has no mandate whatsoever on this. It did not mention it. I am sure the Independents did not mention it either. Fianna Fáil has a mandate to protect Irish military neutrality and to reform the triple lock. The Government is not telling the truth, nor is the Minister of State when he pretends that something is being reformed when, in fact, it is being scrapped. Will anyone refer to the triple lock if the Government has its way with this? It will be gone, of course. No one will call it the triple lock anymore. If there are three locks and one is done away with, then it is not a triple lock anymore. It will, therefore, not be reformed. The Government’s own civil servants accepted that. We are also meant to accept the idea that this has nothing to do with neutrality. We are all meant to forget the discussions we had over the past years in which the Government very openly said it wanted to have a discussion about neutrality. Michéal Martin said that neutrality was simply a policy issue that can change at any time and called for a reflection on military non-alignment in Ireland and our military neutrality. Everyone with eyes to see knew what the Government was doing. The Government took advantage of the situation and fear created by Putin’s invasion of Ukraine to try to scrap our neutrality. It ran into strong public opinion, and so simply devised a new tactic to redefine what neutrality is. Listening to the Minister’s speeches, neutrality simply means not joining NATO now. That is all it means. We could send troops to Iraq-----

No, we could not.

We could send troops to Iraq and we would still be neutral because the Government has simply redefined neutrality as not joining a military alliance.

That would be unconstitutional.

What is his definition then?

Article 29 of the-----

The Minister of State can provide his definition of neutrality in his reply.

The Government has redefined neutrality as simply not being in a military alliance, and that is not for no reason. Interestingly and very worryingly, in the senior Minister’s speech today, on the one hand she told us that this is nothing to do with neutrality and that there is no threat to neutrality. On the other hand, however, she said, "Putting neutrality in our Constitution would undoubtedly prevent us from engaging in any meaningful way with other countries on security or defence matters". What? On the one hand, we are a neutral country and we should not worry about a threat to neutrality but, on the other hand, we cannot put it in our Constitution that governs what governments can do because that would prevent us engaging with others. Who will we be engaging with? Is it NATO? Would it be a problem to the Government’s participation almost every single month in meetings in NATO headquarters? Would it be a problem with the agenda that anyone with eyes can see that Micheál Martin is absolutely rearing to have Ireland more and more integrated into a Western military alliance? Are we expected to forget that Michéal Martin signed up to facilitate the US invasion of Iraq? We are expected to forget all of this and simply trust the Government. We do not trust it. We do not trust governments that have supported and facilitated US imperialist invasions over decades. Of course we do not trust the Government. Finally, we have the red herring of the veto. It is a nonsense. There is no veto. The UN General Assembly can, currently, unlock the triple lock. That is in the legislation as it currently stands. All of this is framed with the idea about a country of sovereign choosing where it sends peacekeepers. It is not just the triple lock that stops us choosing where we send peacekeepers; there is also international law. International law and the UN Charter say that we cannot just send troops wherever we want. What the triple lock does is it enshrines international law into Irish law. The Government wants to get rid of it so that it can send troops to participate in illegal wars. The Government needs to tell us the illegal wars it wants us to participate in.

This Bill represents an historic betrayal of this country’s tradition of neutrality, instigated by people like Wolfe Tone and later by James Connolly, Pádraig Pearse and Constance Markievicz. The Government is betraying that tradition, and it has no right to do so because that tradition of neutrality is the property of the people of this country, not of any government. Let us be clear that, if this passes, there is nothing to stop the Irish Government sending Irish troops abroad in military adventures and wars involving, according to the new wording, any "regional arrangement or body that operates in a manner consistent with the Charter of the United Nations and international law". By whom is that defined? Yesterday, I attended the funeral of Denis Halliday, a former UN Assistant Secretary General from this country and a fantastic activist. I stood on the platforms with him in 2003 when Fianna Fáil facilitated the US military to go through Shannon Airport to commit an illegal war against Iraq, which claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. US troops were allowed to go through Shannon Airport. Denis Halliday resigned from the United Nations because of the sanctions regime that claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. When those criminal sanctions were imposed, they were apparently in line with international law but, in fact, what was done to the Iraqi people was criminal and murderous. It was claimed to be done in the name of international law and in line with the Charter. Anybody can claim them and indeed Donald Trump, if pushed, would probably claim his actions are in line with international law and the Charter of the United Nations. What the Government is actually doing is removing the block on the Irish Government being able to deploy troops in those situations. Would the Government send young people to die in wars in which they did not want to die?

No.

It is doing it right now. I was talking to Ukrainians who fled to this country because they do not want to fight for either Zelenskyy or Putin and they looked for refuge. If refuge is about anything, it is about providing refuge to people who do not want to fight in wars but the Irish Government is checking people's papers and if they do not have a pass on conscription they are being sent back to fight and die in a war they do not want to fight in. The Government is doing it to the Ukrainians who it claims to support and to be concerned about. Would the Government do it to young Irish people too? Yes, it would, just like it lets the US military through Shannon to conduct a criminal war, invites President Trump, who is up to his neck in the genocide that Israel is committing, and will not impose sanctions on that regime because it is pals with Trump. That is the truth of it. The UN is far from perfect. It is very far from perfect but the one thing the veto does is prevent us from being involved in military conflict where the big powers are at loggerheads with each other. That is the whole point and that goes right back to Wolfe Tone and Connolly and that we do not side with empires.

There needs to be a level of honesty about what is being put forward here. The Government is not being honest about what is happening here. It is doing away with multilateralism and having UN approval so that Ireland can participate in what the Bill refers to as other regional arrangements and relevant international forces. Who defines that?

It is in the legislation.

The fact is this Bill is not a small change or a modification to our defence and foreign policy and it is misleading spin to say otherwise. It is a complete change of our position as a State and how we deal with international relations and the UN. It is not reform of the triple lock; it is the abolition of it. It is yet another move, on top of what Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have been doing for the last 20 years or so, to undermine our position as a neutral State. This includes misinformation and arms industry propaganda pumped out, day after day, participation in joint NATO missions, and the scandalous use of Shannon Airport by the US war machine to carry out its illegal oil wars in the Middle East. I could go on and on. This misinformation from Government Ministers and spokespersons has included such nonsense as the claim that we cannot deploy more than 12 troops for rescue missions and the like unless the UN Security Council approves it. Some of them were saying this until recently but of course we can do that, as confirmed by the Minister many times and as confirmed in the legislation. There is no limit on what can be deployed for missions related to rescue, natural disasters or for humanitarian purposes. Another example is the claim that we will not be able to participate in peacekeeping missions but there are 11 active peacekeeping missions already in the world. Another claim is that we need to modernise our Defence Forces. Of course we do and we should not be leaving it until now to do it. That needed to be resourced, our personnel needed to be paid properly and our Defence Forces needed to be modernised long ago. That should have happened and nothing in the triple lock stops us from doing that. Another suggestion is that Russia will use the power of veto that the five permanent members of the Security Council have to block resolutions on peacekeeping. Which ones? There was only one resolution, in 1999, that was vetoed by China. In fact, since 2020 and 2024, 264 out of 284 UN resolutions were passed by the Security Council, with only 20 rejected. This happened without anyone exercising a veto. The Government might look at those facts. On the issue of democracy, solemn national declarations, not wishy-washy statements, were attached to both the Lisbon and Nice treaties and endorsed by the Irish people to protect the triple lock. The triple lock is writ large in those declarations. I urge Government Ministers to check those two declarations. I have read them carefully and the triple lock is there in them to protect our neutrality, which people were concerned about. Any attempt to change the law or to undo those national declarations by the sovereign people is wrong. It is theirs to change only and not holding a referendum is a denial of democracy and a slap in the face to Irish citizens. Despite saturation levels of coverage to drop neutrality and the triple lock, successive opinion polls show that the majority of the electorate wants to retain our neutrality. Our neutrality has given us a level of credibility internationally and is our best defence against aggression because we do not pose a threat to other countries. We should work with other neutral and non-aligned countries to build multilateralism. I accept that the UN needs to be reformed but we should work to reform it and not join in with the warmongers, those who are beating the war drums at the behest of the arms industry and western superpowers.

This Bill proposes a fundamental change to Ireland's long-standing approach to overseas military deployments. Despite the significance of this Bill, the Government will guillotine the debate in this House, denying Members the scrutiny and debate that such a proposal deserves. Whatever your view on the triple lock, surely we can all agree that legislation of this magnitude warrants careful examination. This Bill is not a minor technical amendment. It removes a core plank that has shaped Irish defence policy for decades. It changes the legal basis on which members of our Defence Forces can be deployed overseas on peace enforcement missions, yet the Government seems determined to use its majority to curtail debate and avoid the detailed scrutiny that a change of this nature demands. That is disgraceful. The central purpose of this Bill it to remove the requirement for a UN mandate before Irish troops can participate in certain overseas missions. The existing requirement for a UN mandate will be removed and replaced with a new framework allowing participation in a much broader range of international forces. Crucially, the Bill does not draw a distinction between peacekeeping and peace enforcement. The Green Party does not support that change. We do not believe that Irish troops should participate in peace enforcement missions without a UN mandate. Peace enforcement missions are fundamentally different from traditional peacekeeping operations. Peacekeeping missions generally operate with the consent of the parties involved in a conflict but peace enforcement missions, by contrast, can involve deployment where such consent does not exist. They carry different risks, different political implications and different consequences for our country's international standing. In those circumstances, we believe that the legitimacy confirmed by a UN mandate remains essential. The debate around the triple lock has been framed by the Government as a debate about the legitimacy of the UN Security Council. This framing is wrong. Supporting the triple lock does not mean believing that the UN is perfect; it is not. The UN needs reform. The operation of the Security Council needs reform. There is a strong case for giving a greater role to the General Assembly and for modernising structures that reflect the realities of 1945 rather than those of today, but acknowledging the need for reform is not a reason to abandon the institution. At a time when multilateralism is under pressure all over the world, when international law is increasingly challenged and when powerful states are seeking to act outside international norms, Ireland should be strengthening its commitment to international institutions, not weakening it. For small countries such as Ireland, the UN has always mattered. It is one of the few places where countries of our size can influence global affairs on the basis of principle rather than power. Our proud record in UN peacekeeping demonstrates exactly that. The Government argues that removing the triple lock will increase flexibility but flexibility should never come at the expense of legitimacy, nor should this debate be presented as a choice between supporting the triple lock and supporting our Defence Forces. Improving the capacity of our Defence Forces does not require us to abandon an important safeguard governing overseas deployment. These are separate questions and should be treated as such. Ultimately, this debate is about the kind of country Ireland wants to be. Do we want to remain committed to the multilateral approach that has guided Irish foreign policy for generations? Do we continue to insist that peace enforcement operations involving Irish troops should carry the legitimacy of a UN mandate? Do we recognise that as a small state, our interests are best served by strengthening international institutions rather than weakening them? The Green Party's answer to each of those questions is "Yes" and for this reason, I will oppose this Bill.

Irish neutrality and the triple lock are the property of the Irish people. They are not the property of any individual Taoiseach, Tánaiste, Minister or political party. Any proposed change must be put to the Irish people. The triple lock has already been endorsed by the Irish people in two sovereign referendums. These were the second referendums on both the Nice and Lisbon treaties, and it has been acknowledged in the EU Seville Declaration. It was also specifically referenced in the explanatory booklet delivered to every house in the country prior to the second referendum on the Lisbon treaty. Any change must be put to the Irish people. We need to be clear that the Bill does not reform or amend the triple lock; it removes and abolishes the triple lock. If the triple lock is abolished then any Irish Government will be able to send Irish soldiers to any conflict around the world through a simple Government majority. These missions will not be peacekeeping missions; they will be peace enforcement missions. They will be aggressive and military fighting missions with everything this entails. It has been suggested by some people that the triple lock impinges on our ability to protect our own people and our own country. This is not so. This failure lies at the feet of the Minister, the Government and previous Governments. Fine Gael has been in power since 2011 and Fianna Fáil since at least 2016. The fact our Defence Forces have been so run down, to the extent that we do not have enough sailors to man our ships or enough airmen to fly our planes, the reduction in our soldier numbers, the closure of our military barracks such as Kickham Barracks in Clonmel, and the poor pay and conditions of our soldiers, is the responsibility of the Government. It has nothing to do with the triple lock. The suggestion that permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a veto on Irish peacekeeping missions is deeply dishonest. The fact is that the Irish people have themselves, in two sovereign referendums, with no outside interference, decided on the basis on which Irish soldiers can be involved in peacekeeping missions. I want to address Fianna Fáil TDs, who have the power to stop this Bill. I call on each and every one of them to do so tonight. The triple lock is Fianna Fáil. The triple lock is Fianna Fáil history. Éamon de Valera, the founder of Fianna Fáil, a Taoiseach and a President, put peaceful settlement of international disputes into the Constitution. He declared Irish neutrality in 1939. Bertie Ahern, a former Fianna Fáil Taoiseach, put the triple lock into the Nice treaty. Brian Cowen, a former Fianna Fáil Taoiseach, put the triple lock into the Lisbon treaty. Bertie Ahern says he is opposed to the abolition of the triple lock. Éamon Ó Cuív, a former Minister and deputy leader of Fianna Fáil, says he is opposed to the abolition of the triple lock. Deputy Willie O'Dea, former Minister for Defence, says he is opposed to the abolition of triple lock. Even the current Taoiseach has said that the triple lock is at the core of our neutrality. The question for Fianna Fáil TDs tonight is whether they will disown their own history-----

I will tell you about history.

-----or whether they going to stand up for neutrality and for the triple lock, which is a core value for Fianna Fáil. This is a watershed moment for Fianna Fáil tonight.

This is obviously a difficult debate for many and it is very important that we do get to have this discussion on the importance of democracy. It also shows us the importance of legislation and this is ultimately what we are deciding tonight. The ability of Irish people to make their own decisions is something that has been forgotten on the far side of the House. I represent North Kildare, which is a constituency with a high number of Defence Forces personnel, some of whom are based in the Curragh and many others who travel into Dublin on a daily basis, to Baldonnel or different areas around Dublin. It is important that we are making reforms. I thank the Minister, Deputy McEntee, for her work and her Department's work on reform of disciplinary procedures. This is badly needed and they are fully welcomed. The main topic of contention we are talking about in this debate is the triple lock. The triple lock allows five permanent members of the UN to decide where we send our troops. These countries are China, Russia, France, the UK and the United States. They get to tell us what we do with our troops and how to run our country. Our country was founded over 100 years ago and it has changed, and we have a proud tradition. We have a tradition of helping other countries. We have a tradition of sending peacekeeping forces as we wished and we were neutral even prior to the UN. This will change nothing. Instead, these changes will renew our ability to pursue an independent, neutral foreign policy, where we as an Irish people decide, and do not have the decisions made in the Kremlin, Washington or even London. The Opposition would typically have significant issues with it if they were making decisions for our State. We have the ability to act what translates as our values into actions. The people whom Irish personnel have protected have looked at Irish people as peacekeepers and as some of the best people they could ever hope to have. There is no reason we cannot continue this tradition, However, we have been stopped from having this tradition and could well be stopped in the future, and this is what we are trying to change here tonight. We are willing to act in the defence of international law and the UN Charter and not just speak about it. We are willing to help where we can. Ireland will remain a neutral country as we pride ourselves on being one and nothing will change in this regard.

It is very worrying to listen to some of the contributions from the Opposition on the Bill. It is absolutely incredible that our Opposition disrespect and do not trust our Defence Forces, do not trust our independent State and do not trust our sovereignty, and want others to make decisions for us. This independence and the proud tradition of neutrality our State proclaims is of huge significance. I hold these things very dear as does everyone on these benches. The only people I hear suggesting that Ireland is about to abandon its neutrality are Members of the Opposition and shame on them all. I have sat outside and inside these Houses with some of the very same people, listening to them pontificate about misinformation, disinformation and the dangers of frightening people with things that simply are not true. I agree with them. Misinformation is a serious issue but surely the same standards should apply to all issues and not just when it is politically expedient for people and when it suits the Opposition. Frightening people about Irish neutrality makes a great headline but does not make for good politics and certainly does not make for honest debate. From a Louth perspective, and I will give Deputy Healy a little bit of history, the former Minister for defence and for external affairs, Frank Aiken, who is often spoken about as a reason to keep the triple lock, spoke about the rationale.

Fianna Fáil history.

I would say that he would absolutely hate that there is a foreign influence on Óglaigh na hÉireann. Frank Aiken oversaw the first peacekeeping mission without the triple lock. Was he not neutral? Were our soldiers doing something wrong without the triple lock? Absolutely not. During his many years at the UN, just like he fought for independence, he spent much of his political life championing the rights of independence of small sovereign states. He was very clear about Ireland's international position. He said at the UN that we are not in NATO but that did not mean that we should be regarded as neutral. I disagree with him on that because we are neutral. He also stated that on the contrary, we have emphasised over and over again that we are on the side of western democracies. That is something we do not hear very often and it is from our own Frank Aiken. He understood perfectly well that military neutrality did not mean political neutrality. He understood that Ireland could stand on its own two feet, remain outside military alliances and still have a strong voice in the world. Above all, he understood sovereignty. He was a man who commanded soldiers during the struggle for independence and lived through partition. He understood better than most what it meant for Ireland to make its own decisions. I believe we did a disservice to Frank Aiken's legacy by accepting a system that would allow foreign governments to have an effective veto over certain decisions concerning the deployment of our own Óglaigh na hÉireann. I do not believe this is what Frank Aiken envisaged for our independent State. There is so much to this that I support but we cannot put up with hypocrisy from the Opposition. I am sure we are well-versed with the hypocrisy we heard from them today. The main Opposition party are often infantilised by the Brits and of course they do not want to take the Brits out of politics. They want decisions to be at the mercy of London, Moscow, Washington, Beijing or Paris.

I actually agree with Frank Aiken, which is not necessarily a comfortable position for me to be in, but I do not think we are neutral either. I am glad we are not neutral. We are not neutral on Gaza. We are not neutral on Ukraine.

That is political neutrality.

We are not neutral on human rights abuses or breaches of international law and I am glad that we are not. I am much prouder of a country that is willing to stand up and speak for what is right and lawful than anything else. I do, however, believe in our military non-alignment. That is a principle close to the hearts of the Irish people. The notion that young Irish men and women would be sent off to fight in foreign wars is something we abhor, and that is not what this is about. We have an incredibly proud tradition of peacekeeping. It is not peace enforcement, but peacekeeping. The reality, however, is that our policy on peacekeeping and our ability to engage in peacekeeping is determined not by us as a sovereign State of more than 100 years standing but by a committee of many countries, some of whom are rogue states, in my opinion, sitting around the Security Council table. Countries like Russia, China and even now the United States are not reliable partners in terms of international peace. They are certainly not countries I want deciding whether our troops can serve in a peacekeeping mission abroad or not. We are grown-ups now. Let us behave like grown-ups. Let us take back our self-imposed restrictions on our ability to determine where our military goes. Let us take them back and decide where we are. Let us be also clear, however, that a decision to remove the triple lock is not a vote of no confidence in the UN. Deputy O’Gorman is quite right. The UN is really important for Ireland and our role in the UN is really important and it is something that people feel very strongly about and are very proud of but the removal of the triple lock would actually allow us to make sovereign decisions as a sovereign country and a member of the global community. Additionally, one of the red herrings in this debate is the Seville Declaration from 2002. The Seville Declaration did not create the triple lock nor, in fact, did it enshrine it in Irish law. We did that ourselves. The Seville Declaration was the European Union, at our request, giving an assurance to Irish people that our policy on military non-alignment would be respected. That policy is not changing. That neutrality is not changing, as some people are saying. People are saying that if we remove the triple lock, the Irish Government will be able to make a decision about where troops are deployed. Yes, it will. As the sovereign representatives of the people of Ireland, it will.

The people have spoken already. They have said it twice.

Deputy Healy is the one who said that.

Twice.

Let Deputy Healy tell me this. I ask him to identify the party in this Chamber that is proposing to be involved in wars abroad. I ask him to identify the group in this Chamber that is telling us we want to get rid of this policy of military non-alignment. There is no such group. There is no such party. How can the Deputy have a fear that is well-founded that we are somehow going to trample on that policy of military non-alignment when nobody in here is suggesting we should do that? What we should do instead is trust in the sovereignty of this Chamber and the Government of this country to make serious decisions for this country.

Ireland is a mature representative republic and democracy, and we fought long and hard for our independence and the right to make decisions as a sovereign nation. It is simply inexplicable to me that the Opposition is purporting to oppose a situation where we are going to take back that right to make our own decisions by our own public representatives, our elected representatives, and an elected Government. We are uniquely positioned in the world as the only country that subcontracts out our decision-making to a third party. That third party is now not just a group of democratic nations but a group of nations not functioning normally. We have got Russia, China and the United States under Trump. Another part of this I cannot understand, again from Sinn Féin, is that we allow the United Kingdom to make decisions about where we deploy our troops, our Defence Forces, on a peacekeeping mission. There is a conflation of this argument with the loss of neutrality. The suggestion that the reform of the triple lock, or taking back the triple lock, is the loss of neutrality is simply a false narrative. We are not neutral. We are politically aligned to the European Union and to democracies in the West. We are militarily neutral, and rightly so. We have very little to offer militarily to any third force if we were so minded. I just want to reiterate what my colleagues have said on this side of the House. The suggestion that any party in this Dáil, in this Parliament, is suggesting that we are going to embark on wars of adventure and send our young people across Europe or elsewhere in the world to participate in wars of adventure with empires is simply not credible. Abolishing the triple lock does not mean that we abandon multilateralism. We should also think about our own armed forces, our Defence Forces, in terms of their contribution as peacekeepers. It is a very proud tradition but, most importantly, it allows our Defence Forces to develop experience and training that keeps them in full readiness, rather than being cocooned in Ireland. People have quoted history. Seán Lemass was absolutely clear that we were not politically neutral. He was absolutely clear about that but we are militarily neutral. The repeal of the triple lock will not affect that position.

Micheál Martin called the triple lock the core of Ireland’s military neutrality, and now he wants to get rid of it. The question must be asked: whose interest is the Taoiseach serving and what price is he willing to ask young Irish people to pay for his personal ambitions? The triple lock means Irish troops can only be sent overseas as part of an international force with Government sign-off, with Dáil approval and with the UN mandate. Our military neutrality keeps us out of those military blocs and those conflicts that are not ours to fight. It prevents craven Irish leaders falling to outside pressure and sending our young people to fight in military missions shaped by the big powers. It gives us the credibility to speak up for peace, for justice and international law, and it has long underpinned our proud tradition of peacekeeping. The UN absolutely needs reform but do not use its limitations as an excuse to scrap our neutrality. Spare us this talk of sovereignty as well. We remember Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael bending to the Troika. We remember Ministers gutting legislation after late-night phone calls from the embassy. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael were paid off with cushy jobs, or more often, just a few slaps on the back. The Irish people do not trust the Government to stand up to international pressure. At Nice and Lisbon, the people were asked to vote with guarantees of neutrality, including the triple lock. Now, the Government wants to remove that safeguard without asking the people. It can tie itself up in legal niceties but why is it afraid of a referendum? If it really believes it is right, let the Irish people make their decision. Put it to the people because Irish neutrality belongs to the Irish people, and not to Micheál Martin, not to Simon Harris, and not to this or any Government.

The United Nations is a vital international body that so many countries around the world pay such respect to. It was founded after the two World Wars to try to ensure we would never be in that place again. It is so important that we remain part of that and continue to be an integral part of that whole idea that the countries of the world can come together to ensure that peace can be delivered. That is why it is so important that we keep the triple lock, that we keep our independence and that we keep the United Nations as central to that. The United Nations needs reform. Of course, it is not perfect but the distance we see ourselves travelling now is towards some kind of European military union, which is on the cards. If we look around Europe and ask what that context will look like in the future, in many of the countries, the key countries in Europe, which are the power blocs of Europe, Germany, France and Italy, we see very fascist regimes potentially coming into power. If we are going to be part of that, where is that influence going to bring us? Where is it going to see Ireland end up and, indeed, so many other countries in the world who look to the people we talk about as being the problem with the triple lock, the Putins and the Trumps of the world? They are the heroes of many of the people who could be in power in Europe in the next decade. We have to be very careful what we sign up to and what we move away from. It is vitally important that we understand that the Irish people of all generations, from young to old, recognise that our neutrality is absolutely vital. They see, as they have been told by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael and other Governments in the past, that the triple lock is an integral part of that. To dismantle that and take it away is simply duplicity. We cannot do that. If the Government wants to do that, it should hold a referendum and ask the people. I know what the answer will be, as does everyone else, and that is why this Government will not do that. It will try to have a sleight of hand to remove the triple lock behind people’s backs and that simply is not good enough. The Government can use any excuse it likes but it should recognise the people of Ireland do not want this to happen. If it is going to happen, put it to a referendum and see what they say. The Government will get its answer.

The core of this Bill is about making it easier for Irish troops to be deployed overseas. For this to happen, Independent Ireland is very strong in its belief that the people of Ireland will have to have their say. This would be by holding a referendum, simply. What is the Minister afraid of? If she is convinced it is right, is she saying the people of Ireland are stupid? No, put it to the people and let them make their minds up and then we will walk clear here, if that is acceptable to the people of Ireland, but it will not be accepted by the people of Ireland. It will be totally rejected. The Government is afraid to put it to them and shamefully is pushing this through. This is why Independent Ireland cannot support this in its current form. For decades Ireland's long-standing approach has been built around what people know as the triple lock - Government approval, Dáil approval and United Nations authorisation. This legislation removes one of those safeguards. The Government argues that the United Nations system can be blocked by vetoes and that Ireland needs greater flexibility but the answer to frustrations within the UN cannot be to weaken our own protections. The United Nations mandate requirement has always provided an important test of international legitimacy. It ensured that Irish troops were participating in missions that had broad international backing rather than becoming involved in operations driven by the interests of larger powers and political blocs. Once that safeguard is removed the threshold for participation becomes lower. The Government can call it reform but the public will see it for what it is - a significant change in how decisions are made about sending Irish servicemen and women overseas. We should always be honest with the people. This Bill does not abolish military neutrality and does not sign Ireland up to a military alliance. But it does weaken one of the key protections that has helped reassure generations of Irish people that our Defence Forces will only serve overseas under clear international authority. This is a very significant step. I am equally concerned about the reduction in parliamentary oversight. Under the current arrangements, deployment above 12 personnel generally requires Dáil approval. This Bill increases that threshold to 50 personnel, which is more than a fourfold increase. The Government says this is needed for operational flexibility. If that is the case then let the Government make the evidence-based case for it. What we should not do is give future governments broader powers to deploy substantial numbers of troops overseas while reducing the direct role of the Dáil. Informing an Oireachtas committee after a decision has been made is not the same as obtaining the approval of the elected representatives of the Irish people before that decision is made. Those are very different things. Independent Ireland believes that reforms to discipline, accountability, evacuation operations and the protection of Irish citizens abroad should be dealt with on their own merits. Those measures should not be used to justify the removal of the UN element of the triple lock or the dilution of parliamentary scrutiny. Our Defence Forces have built a proud reputation throughout the world as peacekeepers. They deserve clear rules, clear accountability and public confidence in the missions they undertake. For those reasons, I call on the Government to reconsider these proposals, and retain the requirements for a UN authorisation and maintain strong Dáil oversight over the overseas military deployments. Ireland's neutrality, the authority of this House and the confidence of the Irish people should not be weakened by this legislation. When I look around I do not see the Independents that are supporting the Government. Are they going to support this nonsense tonight? Are they going to railroad over the Irish people's viewpoints of this? There is a national outcry. I call on every Independent that supports this Government to stand up tonight and support the people of Ireland and vote this out, and vote for the ordinary people who are begging them to do so because they know what the Government is up to.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I was thinking today that it is no wonder the public are losing complete faith in politics considering what the present leader of this country stated in 2013 or 2014 about the triple lock and then he tries to defend something today. That is hypocrisy, in my opinion. You do not do that. People lose faith if you act that way. We remember the Nice treaty. The medicine we seem to dose out to the Irish people is that if they do not what is believed to be what Europe wants then we will go back to the polls again for a second time. We have done it in two treaties. We told people not worry, that we will protect X, Y and Z. What have we done? What have we done on the migration side of it? Under the Lisbon treaty we have decided to give what we had away. We had a right to decide ourselves. What have we done under the Nice treaty? The same thing when it comes to this and then you wonder why people do not vote and lose hope in politicians right across the board. Look at the United Nations. At the moment we have a few guys around the world. Donald Trump is doing what he wants. Putin will do what he wants. Netanyahu will do what he wants. Someone will come out and say it is a war crime, but every single country in Europe let a plane fly right across for a guy to go to America, across their airspace, and they said nothing. They closed their eyes. We were complicit with those people but still we will go out in suits and shake hands, talk to each other and look important, as if it is a big deal. Ireland made a big thing out of getting a seat at the United Nations table and now we are saying we need to pull things back from them. You would wonder are we talking out of two sides of our mouth or what are we playing at. You would also wonder what are we doing when a few years ago, in the Taoiseach's own constituency, we did not have the personnel for the vessels that were actually to support and protect our country. That was some statement. At the moment, under the EU Presidency, there are other vessels offshore. The first thing you would want to do when you go looking after defence is to start protecting your own backdoor but we are not doing it at the moment. We are reliant and we have decided to rely on others. Imagine, we had vessels down in Cork and because of pay and conditions people had left and walked away, and then we talk about ourselves as if we are going to be the Messiah that is going to keep peace around the world, that we are going to send X amount of people and they are going to look after it, while at the same time when they talk about drones, when there are people coming into this country, supposedly drones going around beside them, we cannot give or write a report on them, and no-one knows where they came from, what they did, whether they disappeared and what happened to them. We do not know but then we are going to make sure that we will give away any bit. Who is calling the shots? I would love to know what is the endgame in all of this. Who is promised what? That is the answer that I would love to know and it would be a sad day if we decided tonight to give away this.

When the people rejected the Nice treaty and then the Lisbon treaty, they did it on a promise that the triple lock would stay - a UN mandate, a Government decision and the adoption and approval of this House. That promise won the vote of subsequent referendums afterwards. I know because I canvassed for them at the time and that was the deal, the deal this Government is trying to break tonight. In 2013, the Taoiseach told this House that the triple lock was at the core of Irish neutrality. The Fianna Fáil 2020 manifesto committed itself to keeping it. The reality is that nobody has voted or given a mandate for this legislative change. We must then ask ourselves in this House the following. Who and what has changed the Taoiseach's mind? It is not coming from Dublin, it certainly is not coming from Cork and it looks like to me that it is either coming from Brussels or perhaps Paris. We must, therefore, look at the old quote by Cicero: "Cui bono?", "Who benefits?". We know one thing for sure, Irish neutrality does not benefit. Everyone in this building knows that the Fianna Fáil backbenchers are uneasy in this debate tonight. We hear it in the corridors and the whispers in the tearooms. I am surprised when people invoke the name for Frank Aiken in the House. I imagine that man is spinning in his grave when he looks at Fianna Fáil today and who leads Fianna Fáil today. We will see what those backbenchers who are shouting and roaring in the corridors here tonight about their leader, what they will do when the division is called but I would not hold my breath for any of them to grow a spine. After all, we saw what they did during the presidential election. Our neutrality has been one of Ireland's defending and defining strengths since the foundation of this State. It has helped establish the identity of the State as an independent nation that is committed to peacemaking, diplomacy and international law.

If the Government is secure on this then call a referendum.

Irish neutrality and the triple lock belong to the Irish people. Micheál Martin said a number of years ago that the triple lock was the core part of our neutrality. Why has the Taoiseach now changed his mind? That is the question we must understand because it is not coming from the Irish people, it is not coming from the Opposition, and it is certainly not coming from the backbenches of Fianna Fáil. What is the interest here? Is it a plush job in the next number of years? It is not coming from the Irish people. In fact, the Irish people effectively passed the triple lock by way of a referendum. Over 20 years ago the people voted against the Nice treaty, and they did so because they had concerns about neutrality and the potential of the erosion of Irish neutrality. To allay those concerns, the Taoiseach at the time, Fianna Fáil Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, guaranteed the triple lock in law. Subsequently, the second Nice treaty was passed as a result of the reassurance provided to the Irish people at the time. Essentially, the triple lock was passed by way of referendum. That is what happened. We all know that is why the second Nice treaty was passed. We in Aontú are very clear. If this was passed by way of referendum, let us put it to the people by way of referendum. Let the people have their decision. I have listened to speeches about sovereignty from Government TDs. Sovereignty is letting the people decide. The people should decide this by way of referendum. The Minister talks about sovereignty but this is the same Government that handed Brussels control over our migration policy. The EU migration and asylum pact was passed by this Government and decisions will now will be made by Brussels in terms of how many asylum seekers we will take and what fines we may face if we cannot take them. Is that what the Minister means by sovereignty? The treatment by this Government of the Irish people and the absolute nonsense it is feeding them is an utter disgrace. What about the people involved in fisheries in this country and how they were treated? Where is their sovereignty? The Government again handed control over to Brussels. The truth is that the Irish people support the triple lock, and that is why the Government will not put this to a referendum. It has absolutely nothing to do with sovereignty. The Taoiseach knows that this would not pass by way of referendum and that is why he has called a quick vote here tonight.

People around the country are absolutely shocked with what is happening today. This Bill is one of the most shocking attacks on Irish democracy I have ever seen. This Bill puts the Irish Government directly in conflict with the democratic decisions of the people of this country. Irish neutrality is one of the most important foreign policies of this country. The policy of peace is more important than ever. This is a time of great instability. The whole world is starting to tool up in terms of militarism, and the EU has morphed from a peace project to one that is openly preparing for war. The second importance of Irish neutrality is the issue of sovereignty. The Irish Government is actively seeking to outsource Irish foreign and military policy to the EU. The EU is pushing hard for the development of an EU defence union and ultimately, an EU army. The EU military hawks are circling, and Micheál Martin is bending the knee. Macron has stated that 26 countries have now pledged to put boots on the ground in Ukraine, and the Government radically seeks to speed up the accession of Ukraine into the EU. This Bill could put Irish men and women in the way of conflict, and if we go down this road, ultimately, this country will have very little say over the decisions that are made. Small countries are sceptical at the intentions of military blocks because military blocks make military decisions on the basis of their own self-interest and economic objectives. To look at another small country, for example, Denmark participated in Iraq as well as in the war in Afghanistan. It lost as many soldiers per capita as the US. The Government will dress this up in the whole idea of peace, but peace is a euphemism. Remember that America attacked Iraq on the basis of peace, and it led to the deaths of 600,000 people. The Government is stating, and this is such rubbish, that the reason this is happening is because the triple lock puts Russia, the US, and China in charge. The whole idea of the triple lock is that when military blocks such as Russia, China and the US are in opposition in the security council, taking sides with either group is, by definition, military alignment. Micheál Martin is shredding the democratic will of the Irish people. We know that the triple lock is directly linked to the second Nice referendum. However, Micheál Martin is also shredding the core values of Fianna Fáil. What is the difference between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael if we take this away? It is interesting because Micheál Martin is on his last legs as leader of Fianna Fáil, but he is acting as a wrecking ball to the core values of Fianna Fáil on his way out. I appeal to backbenchers in Fianna Fáil to stand up for peace and neutrality, and vote against this Fine Gael Bill.

Like others, I value our neutrality, and insofar as it is reflected in our Constitution, we have a number of checks and balances. Article 29 commits Ireland to peace, international justice and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Following the Lisbon Treaty, it also explicitly provides that Ireland shall not adopt any decision relating to a common defence of the European Union. I am comfortable with these arrangements remaining as they are, although some argue that Ireland should be prepared to demonstrate greater military solidarity with other European states, particularly the smaller Baltic nations and others like Poland if they are faced with real and serious aggression, and that aggression is becoming a higher risk. It is a legitimate debate to have, even within our own European affairs committee. However, it would represent a profound change in Irish policy, and that sort of thing should only occur after a proper discussion. That type of debate should ultimately go to a vote of the Irish people. At the same time, I acknowledge that there is a practical issue with the current triple lock mechanism, as I said in previous contributions, because the UN Security Council can and has been paralysed by the veto of permanent members, and that is likely to go on for quite a while. Any General Assembly recommendations are not legally binding, so if we want to have peacekeeping missions which might otherwise command broad international support, we have to find other ways around it. We have earned enormous respect for our participation in operations over the years. We have served with distinction in Lebanon, the Golan Heights, and Chad. We sacrificed our lives in these and other places like Congo, and we should ensure that genuine peacekeeping operations can continue into the future. I am going to put out something I have raised before, which is that while I am not wedded to any single mechanism, one option to keep a triple lock, if we get rid of that of the UN, is to require a supermajority in both Houses of the Oireachtas. I mentioned 80% at one stage, and perhaps that is too high. Perhaps it should be two thirds. We need to have a chat about it, but the assent of Dáil and Seanad Éireann before troops are deployed on missions which currently require triple lock assent could be a workable solution. It could not be said that the Government of the day, with a couple of people in the majority, can make such decisions. It needs wider debate, and that is the political consensus as representative democracy. Obviously, we need to discuss other constitutional issues down the line in terms of changing any sort of military alliance within the European context. We cannot separate this debate from the condition of our Defence Forces, as we have so many long-standing deficiencies in terms of recruitment, retention, abuse of members, gaps in maritime surveillance and air-defence radar coverage. The report on the Commission of the Defence Forces highlighted the need for substantial reform and investment. We also had the issues of pay and conditions. This week, the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers expressed huge frustration over delays in delivering promised improvements and pointed to a ruling upheld by the Council of Europe that Defence Forces personnel are not being adequately compensated through pay or time off for overtime and public holiday works. They are earning as little as €4 per hour for certain duties that, in any other circumstance, would be called overtime. Whatever our views on this triple lock debate, we should have common agreement in this House that the men and women who serve our State deserve fair remuneration and conditions. I am paired tonight, so I cannot get to vote on Second Stage. As is, I would vote against it, but I look forward, assuming it is passed, to having further discussions on this matter.

There is so much hysteria on the Opposition benches today, so let me reassure people from the outset that his debate is not about ending Irish neutrality, it is not about joining NATO and it definitely is not about creating a European army. This debate is about one thing. It is about our independence and whether we in Ireland should retain the sovereign right to decide for ourselves when and where we participate in peacekeeping missions. For decades, Ireland has earned an international reputation far beyond its size through the courage and professionalism of its Defence Forces. No country in the world has a longer unbroken record of service in UN peacekeeping than Ireland. Every day since June 1958, Irish men and women have served under the blue helmet in the pursuit of peace. This is not just part of our history; it is part of who we are as a nation - a peaceful nation. However, the uncomfortable truth is that the triple lock means we cannot do that any more. The triple lock was meant to ensure continuity in peacekeeping and sadly that is no longer the world we live in. Today, it does quite the opposite. The Security Council can effectively veto whether or where Ireland sends its Defence Forces. The Opposition cannot credibly claim to defend Irish sovereignty. Sinn Féin, the party whose very name means "ourselves alone", would leave Ireland dependent on a system where Russia or China can determine where Ireland sends its peacekeepers. Sinn Féin, ironically, would allow Britain more say than our Parliament over where we deploy our peacekeepers. This House is elected by the people of Ireland. The Irish Government is elected by Members of this House and ultimately the Opposition does not trust the elected representatives of the people. If you believe in Irish democracy, you should have the confidence to allow democratic decisions to be made here in this House by Members sent here by the people. Let me reassure everyone again. When it comes to deploying peacekeepers or Irish troops, any deployment will still have to comply with the United Nations Charter and international law. A majority of elected representatives in this House will still be required to support it, and Government approval will still be required. The Opposition is trying to confuse and bewilder people. A number of things can be true at the same time. It is true that our commitment to the UN is unwavering and no Government has defended the UN more than the Government of Ireland, as evidenced by its defence of UNRWA. It is also true that the desire of Ireland to continue its valuable-----

-----work as an international peacekeeper remains steadfast.

Finally, it is true that we equally want-----

-----the preservation of our tradition of military neutrality.

The triple lock is a mechanism that governs the deployment of our Army personnel overseas. The reality is it is a system that is broken and the legislation being brought forward by the Minister is about fixing it. These changes will renew our peacekeeping. Tonight I think of my cousin who serves in the Defence Forces. Marie Carrigy served in the Golan Heights, Congo and Lebanon and is currently abroad serving on a UN mission. If we do not fix a broken triple lock, Ireland will no longer be able to contribute to peacekeeping in the way we have done for the past 60 years. From 1972 until the barracks closed in 2009, hundreds of members from Sean Connolly Barracks in Longford served as Defence Forces members on peacekeeping duties, particularly in Lebanon. One of the most recent deployments to Lebanon was led by Lieutenant Colonel Mark Lennon with a significant number of members who are now in Custume Barracks in Athlone. What the triple lock does is allow the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to veto where we send our peacekeepers. They dictate what members of our Defence Forces do. We must be able to make our own democratic decisions about where we send our peacekeepers. Decisions about where we send them should be made in Ireland by the democratically elected Dáil, as Deputy Lahart has said, not by Russia, the United States or Vladimir Putin. Strong safeguards will remain. It will need Government approval, Dáil oversight and strict adherence to the UN Charter and international law. These changes will renew our ability to pursue an independent and neutral foreign policy and an ability to act in a way that translates our values as a country into actions. There is a reassertion and strengthening of our neutrality because this will allow us to choose where we send our peacekeepers in defence of the principles of the UN charter, which we have done for decades. The people Irish personnel have protected need countries that are willing to act in defence of international law and the UN Charter, not just words.

I am regularly contacted regarding the triple lock and fully recognise that strongly held beliefs exist on all sides of this debate. I have met members of the Defence Forces who strongly support the proposed changes and I have heard firmly held opposition from others. In my view, legitimate arguments have been advanced on both sides and I do not believe sufficient clear and accessible information has been provided to the public on either the existing triple lock arrangements or the proposed reforms. I was one of those people who sought additional time to consider the Bill given its significance for Ireland's longstanding approach to peacekeeping and foreign policy. Having carefully considered the legislation, I believe it is important to focus on what the proposed changes actually involve. Ireland has a proud and respected record of participation in the United Nations peacekeeping missions and nothing in this legislation diminishes that commitment. The legislation relates to peacekeeping operations and not a change to Ireland's policy of military neutrality. A central issue is the current requirement for a UN Security Council mandate before Ireland can participate in certain peacekeeping missions. Under the existing system, a permanent member of the Security Council can effectively prevent Ireland's participation through the use of its veto. The concern is a significant factor behind the proposed legislation. The Bill would remove the requirement for a UN Security Council mandate when deploying personnel to an international force engaged in peace operation. The proposed changes do not diminish Ireland's commitment to the United Nations. Rather, they address the ability of individual permanent members of the Security Council to exercise a veto over Irish participation. The Sinn Féin motion does not adequately reflect the increasingly complex international security environment or the difficult foreign security and defence policy decisions facing the State. It also incorrectly categorises change to the triple lock as a change to Ireland's longstanding policy of military neutrality. Ireland’s neutrality is defined by our non-membership of military alliances and common mutual defence arrangements. That position will not change. The proposed amendments will strengthen Ireland's ability to pursue independent foreign policy by removing the power of permanent members of the UN Security Council to veto such Irish sovereign decisions. In particular, neither Russia nor any other permanent Security Council member would be able to prevent Ireland from participating in peacekeeping missions approved by the Oireachtas. Any deployment of Defence Forces personnel overseas would still require Government and Dáil approval. The legislation does not alter Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality, nor does it affect the constitutional protections and guarantees endorsed by the people in the Nice and Lisbon treaty referendums regarding participation in common European defence arrangements.

The Minister and Minister of State are welcome. I agree with a lot of what has been said on all sides. The United Nations needs reform. If we were establishing the United Nations today, I do not think anyone would construct it in a way that there would be five countries with a veto, although one may argue that some of those countries would not join a body like the United Nations if they did not have such a veto. It is not a perfect body, but it is an important one that is respected in many parts of the world. We have had a strong voice in that regard. I agree that neutrality is important in the view of Irish people. We have a proud record as a militarily neutral country. I am of the view that our neutrality is not impacted by the changes and reforms being proposed today in relation to the triple lock. As a former member of the defence and security committee, I sat through the pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill, when we heard testimonies over a long number of sessions. I am happy to be able to support this Bill on foot of that. I believe that strong safeguards will remain - Government approval, Dáil oversight and strict adherence to the United Nations Charter and international law. Ireland remains committed to peacekeeping principles guided by international law, and that has to be the basis of our foreign and defence policy. Tá veto ag gach ceann de na cúig buanbhaill de chuid Chomhairle Slándála na Náisiún Aontaithe. Ciallaíonn sé seo gur féidir le haon cheann acu bac a chur ar chinntí an Chomhairle Slándála, lena n-áirítear cinntí a bhaineann le síochánaíocht agus oibríochtaí slándála idirnáisiúnta. Tá sé ag cur bac ar fhórsaí cosanta na misin shíochánta a dhéanamh, a bhfuil siad bródúil astu le blianta fada. Níor tugadh cead d’aon mhisean nua síochánaíochta ó 2014 mar gheall ar an tsáinn sa Chomhairle Slándála. B’éigean dúinn tarraingt siar ó oibríocht chabhlaigh sa Mheánmhuir mar chuaigh ceadú Chomhairle Slándála na Náisiún Aontaithe in éag. Ag deireadh na bliana, beidh orainn tarraingt siar ón Liobáin tar éis beagnach 50 bliain. There is and has been an impact due to the veto, not just on new missions since 2014 but on the continuation of some of the missions that we are part of. One in particular is the mission in Lebanon, where we have a proud record of peacekeeping, and which encourages many people to join the Defence Forces in order to be part of the peacekeeping forces overseas. Many people they know, perhaps family members, would have served on such missions. It is important that reform allows the democratically elected Irish Government to be able to send peacekeeping forces on such missions.

Deputy Micheál Martin does not own Irish neutrality. Irish neutrality is the cherished possession of each and every citizen on our island. The leader of Fianna Fáil may hold the title of An Taoiseach, but he would do well to remember that this is a title bestowed on him by the very Irish people who own our neutrality. The promise of neutrality was secured, ironclad, in the clauses of the Nice and Lisbon treaties that Ireland and Sinn Féin fought so hard to secure. To go back on that promise of the triple lock is an affront to the democratically expressed wish of the people, and to do so would bring shame to this House. Yet the Taoiseach continues to hurl insult after insult at the intelligence of the Irish people as he suggests that we simply do not understand the implications of the triple lock that we voted for. In May, an Teachta Réada Cronin and I convened a very well-attended public meeting i gCill Dara on neutrality and the triple lock. It was very clear that our constituents understood and cherished the triple lock. The Nice and Lisbon treaties were supposed to put this question to bed. Yet here we are today, as the Taoiseach poses as judge, jury and executioner, forcing a political stroke on this House that will have ramifications on my constituents and around this island for years to come. The Taoiseach may view this Bill as a political game, as a win for himself on his imaginary scorecard, but for my constituents in Kildare, particularly the vast number who serve in the Defence Forces and their families, this is an affront to them. It is not for the Taoiseach to play politics with people’s livelihoods and safety as he hurtles us towards war games with his pals in the EU and NATO. This House agonised over PESCO and the European common defence policy in order to protect our neutrality. The mind boggles at what has changed since then - that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater in the abandonment of our cherished neutrality. Ní le Rialtas na hÉireann neodracht na tíre seo. Ní liomsa í ach oiread. Is le muintir na hÉireann í agus is faoi mhuintir na hÉireann atá sé aon ghné di a athrú. Caithfidh aon athrú a thiocfaidh uirthi nó ar an nglas triarach a chur go reifreann láithreach.

If we go out on the street at this point in time and ask people what their view is on the triple lock, if we ask them their view on the idea of neutrality and an independent foreign policy for Ireland, we will find they have an absolute belief in that. We all know the history of Ireland. It is a history of occupation, persecution and colonialism at its abject worst, and we still deal with the issues of partition and the fact that Britain has a say in the Six Counties. We know what imperial misadventure looks like. That is why the Irish people have an absolute love of independent foreign policy. What they also have is an absolute respect for those who have engaged in peacekeeping. I think of the sacrifices that have been made by Michael McNeela, Seán Rooney and many others. What are we doing if we move away from the triple lock? It reveals our intention and shows the world that we are not secure in our position of neutrality. It shows that we are not secure in our position on the necessity and importance of the UN mandate, with all the difficulties that exist today. Now is not the time to move away from multilateralism. Now is not the time to abandon international law. What we need to see, if this Government really wants to make this move, is that it has the bravery and courage to go to the Irish people. That will not happen because the Irish people have absolute support for an independent foreign policy, as well as an absolute fear of moving away from neutrality in a very dangerous world and of the particular moves that are being made by those who believe might is right.

I approach this Bill with very serious concerns, particularly regarding the proposed changes to the triple lock mechanism and the direction of travel it signals for Irish foreign and defence policy. Let us be accurate and clear. Military neutrality is not some outdated concept that the teacher likes to talk about - or did a couple of years ago - that can be discerned according to the convenience of the Government. Neutrality has been a central pillar of the State since its foundation. It is part of who we are as a people. It has shaped our international reputation and allowed Ireland to be respected across the world as an honest broker, a peacekeeper and a humanitarian nation. I compliment our peacekeepers going back to the Congo and since then for the obair stairiúil they did all over the world in very challenging situations. That is why the attempt to weaken and fundamentally alter safeguards surrounding the deployment of Irish troops overseas should not be decided solely within the walls of an teach sin, Leinster House. If the Government believes that the Irish people want a different approach to neutrality, then it should have the courage to say that and put that question directly to daoine na hÉireann, the Irish people. The Government's record with referendums has not been good in recent years, as the Aire agus Aire Stáit will know - they are from the same constituency, Meath East. The people have consistently supported Ireland's neutral status. It is not the property of any Government Minister or political party. It belongs to daoine na hÉireann, the Irish people, and they should have the final say on any significant changes to the principles that underpin it. I am deeply concerned that the Government is seeking to chip away at democratic oversight and increase the threshold for Dáil approval for deployments from 12 to 50 personnel, which is another little one that has been slipped in. We are told this is merely administrative. How could it be an administrative change to go from 12 to 50? It is a practical measure. The argument simply does not stand up. When it comes to sending the proud members of our Defence Forces abroad, democratic accountability should be strengthened, not lessened. I also have concerns regarding the expansion of missions outside traditional peacekeeping roles, including military security duties and close protection operations. I want the Defence Forces to be properly funded, which they are not, properly equipped and properly respected. As I said, its members have served us over many decades in many areas, and they need to be supported, not demonised and neglected by the Government. It is fine for Ministers to go over on St. Patrick’s Day and tell them how great they are, but the Ministers have a different plan. This House must be very careful before dismantling safeguards that have served this country well for generations. If there is to be any fundamental change to the triple lock or Ireland's long-standing policy of military neutrality, the matter should be put before the people of Ireland. Anything less would be a travesty. The Government will not put it to the people. Cén fáth? Because it is afraid of its life of the people. The people elected the Government but they have grown tired of it. I served with the Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, in the party. My father was a founding member of Fianna Fáil. He served 14 months in prison during the War of Independence. He was a proud founding member. Fianna Fáil has abandoned the principles of Seán Lemass, Eamon de Valera and all our forefathers, including Bertie Ahern and Brian Cowen. Fianna Fáil Deputies would sell their soul now for sixpence at the corner of a street. The Taoiseach, Deputy Micheál Martin, wants to bring people with him on his journey that he started a few years ago. He held his workshops all over the country, kind of roadshows - you would think it was a circus coming to town. It was a circus. He was told but he did not listen. Bhí a chluasa dúnta aige. He should have listened to the people. The Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, and I have debated this many times. I have stronger words to describe the Taoiseach but I will not use them here tonight, and what he is doing to the people of Ireland, to our reputation abroad, all in the self-interest of himself, the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, and a few more capital beggars who want to be with him to get big jobs in Europe and further away, under the World Economic Forum or wherever else he can, and to hell with the people of Ireland. Bí ag éisteacht le daoine na hÉireann. They are the people who put you in here. They pay your wages. Respect them.

I am glad to get the opportunity to speak on this. One of the big differences between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael going back the years was that Fine Gael wanted to get rid of the triple lock and Fianna Fáil did not. Even Deputy Micheál Martin in 2013 said it was at the heart and core of our neutrality. I cannot understand how he has changed so much to be in line with Fine Gael. It seems to me that there is no reason for having two different names now because everything they are doing is so united. There is no difference in the world between them. When a referendum on one of the treaties was going against them, they came out and said that the triple lock would never be got rid of. Here we are tonight and the Government is proposing to do just that. It is very unfair for it to use its majority in this way. It has a majority and will win this vote. If the Government was so sure of what it is doing, why does it not call a referendum and let the people of Ireland decide? They are the people who put me, the Ministers opposite and all of us in here. Get them to give the answer as to whether they want to get rid of it. Everything they are doing is showing me that all they want is to be stuck and suiting von der Leyen. Every time she says something, they jump. I am very sorry that this is happening. I got hundreds of emails and phone calls telling me to vote against this tonight. I will be doing just that. I always believed in our neutrality. This is only another chip out of it now. The Taoiseach is saying the reason for getting rid of it is so he can be involved in all the peacekeeping he wants to be. That is not right. We are a sovereign State and we can send our troops to any part of the world.

We cannot. The law prevents us.

We are a sovereign State and we should be able to do just that.

The triple lock is stopping us.

I will not interrupt the Minister of State, that is not the way that I was brought up.

That is what we are trying to change.

That is what the Government is saying but it is not right. It is the argument those opposite are using but it is just not right. Using this as an excuse to get rid of the triple lock is sacrilegious. Dev kept us out of the Second World War and kept our neutrality but the Deputies across from me will not do that. They would not have the guts to do something like that. It is very hurtful that the people of Ireland are being excluded from this massive decision. I cannot understand. I know there are backbenchers in Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael who are totally and absolutely against this. They just have to do what they are told. It is wrong to be forcing people who have their own long-held ideas. If the Government was fair about it, it would not be putting the Whip on those kind of fellas. If they will not give the people of Ireland a chance to decide, they should at least give one to the TDs around the country who fought hard to get elected and come here to do this job tonight, and not make them vote against their will. That is very wrong. It increases my idea that Deputies cannot represent the people the way they want to if they are not Independent because they will be forced to do what they do not want by the parties in power. There is no difference in the world now between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. Fine Gael wanted this all the time, at least the hierarchy of the party did. Fianna Fáil did not. Here we are tonight, they are both joining forces to get rid of the triple lock. They are chipping away at our neutrality. We see other things that are happening. The CAP budget is being reduced because we are putting more into defence. That is God's honest truth. I am thinking of the farmers around Ireland, the fellas in the hills and glens of Kerry who I know, who are only barely surviving. By accepting this, and they are not standing up for the people in that either, those opposite are hurting their own people. Hundreds of people have been on to me to vote against this tonight and I will be doing just that. I am glad to be here to do that. I am very sorry that this is happening. It should have been put to a referendum and the people given a chance.

Tá áthas orm an deis seo a fháil labhairt ar an mBille Cosanta (Leasú), 2026. I am very concerned over this Bill. I strongly oppose it and will be voting against it tonight. Many in this House have the same concerns. I have received so much correspondence from my constituents. Only yesterday I spoke to many constituents in Edenderry and other areas in north Offaly and this was the topic of conversation. They wanted me to vote against the Bill. There is massive concern among people in this country. It is absolutely shameful that they do not have a say in this. The people of this country should have a say in such an important national issue. People are strongly opposed and very concerned. Like every Member of this House, I recognise that Europe faces significant security challenges. Conflict continues in multiple regions, as we know. Governments have a responsibility to assess those risks at all times and to ensure that their citizens are protected. Acknowledging those realities does not oblige us to abandon long-standing principles that have served this State well. In the past, Eamon de Valera was very strong on this principle of neutrality. It is shameful to see that our neutrality is being chipped away. Periods of uncertainty are precisely when we should be more careful about dismantling the safeguards that were established for good reason and have served us well. What concerns me most of all is that the debate surrounding this legislation has become increasingly detached from a broader discussion about the direction in which Europe is moving. Across the European Union, defence spending is increasing at an unprecedented rate. EU member state defence expenditure is projected to rise from approximately €259 billion in 2021 to €454 billion in 2026, while the European Commission defence initiative seeks to mobilise more than €800 billion in additional defence-related investment. I am not against investment in our own Defence Forces, which of course should have been done, or military spending in general. I wonder about the agenda behind it all because they are not putting as much effort into a CAP budget or ensuring food security. It seems that military spending is far more important for the Government's EU masters than issues like food security, which is concerning and disturbing. These developments may be supported by many, while others have reservations, but what cannot be denied is that they represent a profound shift in European priorities. In that context, it is entirely legitimate to ask difficult questions. Are we witnessing a proportionate response to genuine security concerns or are we gradually accepting the view that ever-increasing military expenditure is itself the measure of security? Where is our sovereignty? We should be able to make our own decisions on these matters. Irish sovereignty is being eroded all the time. These considerations have often been absent from the discussion. Ireland's policy of military neutrality emerged not from isolationism or indifference but from a determination to maintain an independent foreign policy and independent judgment on questions of war and peace. Neutrality has allowed Ireland to make a distinctive contribution internationally. It has strengthened our credibility in peacekeeping missions, humanitarian efforts and diplomatic initiatives. It has enabled Irish troops to serve with distinction across the world while maintaining broad public confidence at home. Most importantly, neutrality has ensured that decisions involving the deployment of Irish personnel overseas have been subject to particularly high thresholds of security and legitimacy. This is where the triple lock comes in. The triple lock represented a deliberate recognition that the deployment of Irish troops overseas should carry three separate forms of approval - Government approval, Dáil approval and international legitimacy through the United Nations. No government argues that removing the UN element simply reflects changing geopolitical realities. I respectfully disagree with this. The difficulty is not that the Government wishes to respond to changing circumstances, but the difficulty is that it is proposing to remove an important restraint at precisely the moment when Europe is experiencing an unprecedented expansion of defence structures, defence budgets and military ambitions. That inevitably raises very serious questions, particularly when major defence firms have significantly expanded their lobbying operations in Brussels and as EU defence policy and procurement become increasingly central to the European project. To be absolutely clear, raising those concerns is not anti-European, it is not anti-defence and it is certainly not anti-military. Ireland's neutrality has served our State and people well. It has protected our independence of judgment, it has enhanced our international standing and it remains one of the defining characteristics of Irish foreign policy. At a time when military spending is rising sharply across Europe, the appropriate response is not to weaken democratic safeguards around overseas deployments; it is to strengthen them and to maintain what has served us well. Dismantling the triple lock will be a terrible mistake. I hope that Government TDs will not go along blindly with their Government leaders but, rather, will do the right thing by the Irish people and the people they serve and vote against it. For that reason and for the sake of preserving the principles that have guided Ireland's international engagement for decades, I cannot and will not be supporting this Bill. I urge all here to think seriously about this.

I thank all the Deputies who took part in this debate. It is important that we have an opportunity to discuss what is a really important matter for everybody in this country. I wish to touch on a number of points that have been raised, but also to restate a number of positions. First, many Deputies have claimed this is being rushed. It is important to remind colleagues that this Bill was published in June following the pre-legislative scrutiny that took place last summer. We are now only on Second Stage of the debate. I have not heard that there is any Deputy who has had not an opportunity to speak on this. We will have many more opportunities to speak on it. Second, I am not sure if I have been in a debate for some time where the Opposition was so sure and clear about what Fine Gael stood for, who we were, what Fianna Fáil stood for and what our ambitions, objectives and secret motives are behind all of this. Let me clarify for the Opposition on behalf of Fine Gael. Indeed, I think I speak for many in our Government. The objectives and intention behind this legislation are quite simple and clear. The legislation that we are proposing is to make sure that as a country - a sovereign independent country - that we and only we have the right to decide where we send our peacekeeping troops. Frankly, I am quite confused sitting here listening to the contributions. We have heard from many members of Sinn Féin, and we have just heard from Deputy Nolan, that we should make our own decisions and that we are an independent sovereign country. Where is our sovereignty? How do we keep our independence? How do we make sure that we have an independent foreign policy? I agree with all of this. However, they are talking out of both sides of their mouths because while they want us to have an independent foreign policy whereby we make our own decisions, members of Sinn Féin, the Labour Party, the Social Democrats, the Green Party, the Independent groupings and the technical groupings are all sitting here this evening and basically saying that China, the UK, France, the US and Russia - a country that is murdering citizens every single day in Ukraine and attacking members of the EU - should have a say in where we send our peacekeeping troops. That is what the Opposition parties are saying. They are saying that on one hand we should make our decisions and yet they are saying here this evening that they want those five permanent members of the UN Security Council to continue to have a say in where we send our troops. This legislation will mean that we can continue our proud tradition of peacekeeping. There are UN mandated missions that are still there that we are part of, and we will continue to contribute to. There are missions that do not require the triple lock or a UN-mandated mission. There are maritime missions, missions on cybersecurity, training missions and missions around demining that do not require the triple lock but that we choose to be part of. We choose whether we take part in these missions. Due to the triple lock, there are missions that we cannot choose. As an independent country, we cannot decide to be part of them. That is the crux of what we are trying to achieve here. I wish to point to some of the comments that were made about the UN and that this is the demise of Ireland's participation in and support for the UN. I suggest that the Deputies who have said that should actually visit the UN. They might spend a week, as I and many others in government have, at the UN General Assembly. They might talk to the General Secretary. They might talk to many of the 193 member countries, all of which see Ireland as a driving force in supporting the UN and the protection of basic human rights, human dignity, the international rules-based system and multilateralism. We will continue to drive forward in our pursuit to protect those who are the furthest behind and those who need our help the most. For us to do that, it is not just words that are needed; we have to be able to participate. We have to be able to continue to ensure that those words and values are translated through our Defence Forces peacekeeping missions. Quite frankly, that will not be possible for so many missions and in so many situations if the triple lock remains. I wish to restate again that this legislation will ensure that our Defence Forces can continue to participate in UN-led and UN-organised missions. That will not change. We will have a choice, as we do now. It will also enable the Defence Forces to participate in missions organised or led by, for example, the OSCE, the EU and other regional arrangements. Any mission would only occur where it operates in a manner consistent with the Charter of the United Nations and international law. That is what we are proposing here this evening. That is our overall objective. There is not a single country in the world or a single member of the United Nations other than Ireland that requires a UN Security Council mandate to help us, tell us or assist us in where we send our troops. We are an independent sovereign country. That decision should be left to every single Member in this House, those of us who are democratically elected.

Taking hold of reality does not mean letting go of our ideals. In reforming the triple lock, we are doing so in a manner that remains fully consistent with our laws, our Constitution and the morals that found the laws in our Constitution. We will always act, and are required to act, in accordance with our obligations under international law. Reform of the triple lock meets our manifesto commitment from Fianna Fáil's point of view and our programme for Government commitments. The question before us is a straightforward one, namely, do we believe decisions about where Irish peacekeepers serve should be made by Ireland, as Deputy Healy-Rae said, or should those decisions be made by others. I believe those decisions should be made by Ireland. There is a misconception in the Opposition at the heart of this debate. We currently require a UN mandate - Deputy Gibney was incorrect on this - to send even one member of the Defence Forces abroad for peacekeeping. The 12 figure quoted by many people refers to the threshold for Dáil approval. That is part of the reason we need reform. The consequences of failing to reform the triple lock are not hypothetical. We were forced to leave, by law, Operation Irini in the Mediterranean. Everybody else stayed behind. Our soldiers, who had been proudly serving in the most humanitarian of ways, had to go home. That operation continues without the Irish. The triple lock meant we could not even come to the Dáil to ask if it was okay for us to keep our soldiers there. We simply did not have the option once the mandate expired in New York. How can we avoid that situation happening again? The Opposition does not have a clear answer to that. If we want our peacekeeping tradition to continue, we must reform the triple lock, and if we value our sovereignty, we must exercise it. If we value the United Nations, we should continue to support it, to defend its charter and to work for reform, and that is why we have written that into the law. On Ireland’s military neutrality, there is no provision in the Bill that changes that. It provides for peacekeeping, peace enforcement and conflict prevention. I do not know whether Deputy Bennett misread the legislation or was deliberately putting misinformation into the House when she spoke of making our soldiers conflict participants. That was egregiously wrong and the record of the House should be corrected. It is scary to people out there and it is not true. It is not what is written in the legislation. If it was simply a mistake in that she saw "conflict prevention" and read "conflict participation", then she should say she made a mistake. Article 29 of our Constitution affirms Ireland’s "devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality". That constitutional provision is still there. Many Opposition Members mentioned the Lisbon protocol and how important that was. I have news for them. The Lisbon protocol is attached to the Lisbon treaty, which is in our Constitution. We cannot change that in this House. We would have to have a referendum. The Lisbon protocol stays. It remains the law of the European Union and the law of Ireland. Fianna Fáil is the party of Frank Aiken. When I went to the UN Security Council to advocate for the renewal of Operation Althea in 2022, the experience demonstrated to me why we needed reform. I had absolutely no certainty that day as to whether Russia or any other country would veto the renewal. Ireland would have been required to withdraw its contingent from that operation in Bosnia if Russia had decided on the day to veto. Diplomacy won on that occasion but it did not in the case of Operation Irini and it certainly did not in the case of UNIFIL when the United States prevented the continuation of that mission. I contested the election as a Fianna Fáil candidate with a manifesto that promised sensible reform of the triple lock while continuing to protect our military neutrality. Following the mandate we received at that election, I am proud to serve as a Minister of State at the Department of Defence with a programme for Government that includes reform of the triple lock. By reforming the triple lock Ireland ensures we can continue to stand with other nations in the pursuit of peace abroad while ensuring sovereignty over our own peacekeeping decisions. We have no time to lose. I look forward to engaging with Members further in this House and Seanad Éireann. I commend the Bill to the House.