Legislative Process

100. Deputy Pádraig O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Defence the timeline for progressing the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2026 through the Dáil and Seanad, given that it was published in late June 2026 and is due to come before the Dáil early in this Oireachtas session; and whether the Bill remains on track for enactment by the end of the year. [69260/26]

111. Deputy James Geoghegan asked the Minister for Defence to outline the constitutional protections relating to Ireland's participation in an EU common defence, including those introduced following the Nice treaty referendum in 2002; to clarify whether the proposed reforms to the triple lock have any implications for these protections; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [77518/26]

113. Deputy John Clendennen asked the Minister for Defence the way in which the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2026 will ensure that Ireland’s long-standing policy of military neutrality is maintained while providing greater autonomy in the deployment of Defence Forces personnel overseas. [77379/26]

Will the Minister provide a timeline for the progression of the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2026, given it was published in late June 2026 and is due to come before the Dáil early in this Oireachtas session? Does it remain on track for enactment by the end of the year?

I propose to take Questions Nos. 100, 111 and 113 together. As the Deputy stated, the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2026 was published in June of this year. It is a priority for the Government and we are committed to progressing it through the remaining Stages in both Houses as early as possible. While the precise scheduling of legislation is ultimately a matter for the Oireachtas, the Bill is on track and it is our objective that it be enacted by the end of the year. The reforms contained in the Bill do not alter Ireland's policy of military neutrality. They do not impact it in any way. They do not change, weaken or qualify in any way what is set out in the Constitution regarding Ireland's participation in any potential European common defence mechanism, which does not currently exist. Ireland's policy of military neutrality is characterised by our non-membership of military alliances. That position remains unchanged. The purpose of the legislation is simply to address a practical problem. Under the current system, larger overseas deployments require a mandate from the UN Security Council. In certain circumstances, that can prevent Ireland from participating in missions that are fully consistent with the principles of the UN Charter simply because a permanent member of the Security Council has exercised, or threatened to exercise, its veto. That happened again only last week in respect of a mission in which we are not involved. The Government's view is that we make the decisions on whether our personnel serve overseas in the interest of peace and that such decisions should not be blocked by external powers acting in pursuit of their own geopolitical interests. Unfortunately, such pursuit is happening at the Security Council. That is why the Bill proposes to replace the existing concept of an international United Nations force with the broader concept of a "relevant international force". This will allow Ireland to consider participation in missions conducted in accordance with international law and the principles of the UN Charter whether they are organised by the UN, the European Union, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE, or other international organisations. This is consistent with what is required in neutral countries such as Switzerland and Austria. It is important to note that the key safeguards remain. Government and Dáil approval will continue to be required. Compliance with international law and the principles of the UN Charter remains central to the framework. The Bill broadens our options in pursuit of peace while preserving democratic oversight and accountability. The question of overseas deployments is completely unrelated to the issue of participation in a common EU defence. We inserted a provision in our Constitution following the Nice treaty referendum, which was reaffirmed by the Lisbon treaty referendum in 2009, stating that we cannot take a decision to join a common defence if the European Council were to make such a decision. We cannot do so without a referendum to seek the approval of the Irish people. Before even doing that, there would have to be a unanimous decision by every single EU member state to establish a common defence, of which there is very little prospect. The legally binding Lisbon treaty protocols remain in place, despite what some in the Opposition seemed to think in the debate two weeks ago. The same parties opposed the protocols at the time, although one of them claimed credit for them in that debate. Security and defence are matters for member states and we have full sovereignty and control over all such decisions. The Defence (Amendment) Bill expressly states that nothing in it shall be construed as authorising the State to become a member of an international organisation of which we are not already a member. To be clear for the benefit of the Deputies who asked these questions, the Bill is not about joining military alliances, it is not about joining a common European defence, which does not currently exist, and it is not about changing our military neutrality. The constitutional protections secured by the Irish people in the Nice and Lisbon treaty referendums remain intact. Nothing in the Bill changes that or can circumvent those provisions.

I thank the Minister. We have debated this issue extensively within our own party. I am sure similar conversations are being had right across the Government. The focus of my question is explicitly on the timing of the legislation. The Minister reiterated what was stated in the reply to a previous parliamentary question I submitted a number of weeks ago, namely, that the intention is still to enact the Bill by the end of the year. With that in mind, I have a couple of direct questions. I do not expect the Minister of State to be able to answer them all, but he might give his views. The first is on Committee Stage. How quickly is that likely to come about? Are we talking about two, three or four weeks' time? The second question is on Report and Final Stages and when he expects those to be taken in the House. Third, will the Seanad and the Senators who anticipate a debate on this be allocated appropriate time? Finally, on the powers in the Bill to make commencement orders, once the legislation is enacted, when does the Minister of State envisage signing those orders? I am asking these questions about timing because there is an awful lot to fit in before Christmas. My concern is that we will try to rush this through instead of allowing meaningful debate.

Many people at home are worried that the assurances they voted on in the Nice and Lisbon referendums are somehow being eroded. Those assurances were about Ireland retaining control over its own defence policy and preserving our traditional policy of neutrality. The Seville Declarations provided further reassurance on those points. Will the Minister of State confirm clearly for the House that those assurances remain unchanged, that Ireland retains full control over its own defence policy and that the proposed reforms to the triple lock do not affect the constitutional protections relating to an EU common defence endorsed by the Irish people through the Nice and Lisbon treaties?

I start by acknowledging the RTÉ production last night, "Busted", a three-part series on anti-drug operations. We see the best of our gardaí, our Defence Forces and our customs officials, and the skills, expertise and sophistication with which they execute their job, while we have a debate here about keeping them at home and not allowing them to fulfil their true potential. It is astonishing to observe the charade of the Opposition in recent weeks on this. I will ask three questions. Is there any risk or any potential circumstance in which Ireland could abandon its neutrality as a result of this legislation? Is there any risk or any potential circumstance in which we would no longer recognise the United Nations? Is there any risk or any potential circumstance in which the Government could send troops anywhere overseas without the consent of this House?

On the timing of the legislation, whenever we want to pass legislation or change a law, there should be a reason to do it. There should be a problem we want to solve. That is always what we are trying to do with legislation. The problem here, as the Minister has outlined clearly, is that the UN mandate for UNIFIL has ended. Our troops want to continue their service abroad if the Government decides it is appropriate. The Minister also said something important earlier about the safety of Irish soldiers in Lebanon in the context of this debate. I urge Deputies opposite, Senators participating in the debate and certain sections of the clickbait media to listen carefully to what the Minister said tonight about the safety of Irish troops abroad. It is important to keep our debates in the House to facts and to what is written in the legislation.

It is our ambition to finish this legislation before Christmas. Time is a matter for the Houses, but there has been adequate time so far. Nobody was refused speaking time the last time. One thing is clear, and this is key to the misinformation: the constitutional-----

The Government has given three-minute slots. That is a joke. The Government tried to pretend it did not guillotine it because we were all forced into one slot. That is a joke. It guillotined it and tried to ram it through. It keeps trying to ram it through.

We have all read "Nineteen Eighty-Four". We do not need to hear the Minister of State's doublespeak.

The constitutional protections the Irish people voted for in the Nice treaty and Lisbon treaty referendums are fully intact. They are still there. Every time the European Union talks about anything to do with defence policy, because of the Lisbon protocol that is still in our Constitution and in the EU treaties, it says this is without prejudice to the defence policies of certain member states, in other words, Ireland and three other member states of the European Union. Every time an utterance or a publication is made, our officials make sure that is written in the document because we are a neutral country, and our officials and Ministers make sure that continues. The protections we voted for in Nice and Lisbon that are in our Constitution are still in our Constitution. Decisions on the dispatch of Irish troops abroad are a matter for the Government and the Dáil. They can only be made in accordance with the Constitution and the law. The Constitution mandates that we work towards peace and friendly relations among the nations. That is what is required by our Constitution, the fundamental law of this land. It is written in Article 29. This legislation provides for peacekeeping, peace enforcement and conflict prevention. Peace enforcement, which is something our soldiers have always done in many missions-----

With the UN.

-----was inserted into the legislation at the request of the defence committee, which is chaired by Sinn Féin.

I anticipate there will be hundreds of amendments when this progresses. To reiterate my question about timing, those amendments should be heard and given a platform. Second, the Minister of State is right that there is a lot of misinformation in this debate. We, as well as the Government, have to hold our hands up and say we can do a better job of explaining it to people. I suggest an information campaign explicitly going through the facts of what this legislation is likely to change would separate fact from fiction. That would be a worthwhile exercise for the Government to consider.

I would like to speak again about the genuine concern among people at home listening to this that changes to the triple lock could somehow lead Ireland into becoming part of what many describe as the EU army. It is important that we address those concerns clearly in this House because people deserve to understand what this legislation does and, just as importantly, what it does not do. Whatever anyone's view of the triple lock, participation in an EU common defence remains a separate constitutional matter. Will the Minister of State confirm that the Irish people would have to approve a constitutional change before Ireland could participate in any EU common defence arrangement and that the proposed reforms to the triple lock do not in any way, shape or form alter that requirement? That reassurance would be particularly important to the Irish public at this moment in light of the misinformation constantly being spread by members of the Opposition.

I do not believe that any one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council should effectively have the power to prevent Ireland from participating in overseas peacekeeping missions. I agree with the Minister of State on the clickbait media. Bad news travels around the world before good news gets out of bed. We have a problem here. Deputy O'Sullivan has touched on the misinformation. The Government will have to apply resources and run a campaign to address this and ensure the facts are filtering through because, at the moment, they are not. Deputy Callaghan spoke about an EU army, but there are also concerns that we will explore NATO as an option in the near future. Will the Minister of State give us categorical clarification that we will not explore either of those options at any time in the future?

I believe there is €200 million floating around in the communications Department.

Deputy O'Sullivan is correct that there will be lots of amendments, but when we read the Bill and the parts of it that relate to this, it is short. It could not be simpler. It concerns peacekeeping, peace enforcement, conflict prevention, the types of organisations with which we can go on a mission and the other long list of items we need to provide for. Deputy Clendennen mentioned drugs. There is an organisation called MAOC (N), or Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre - Narcotics, of which we are a founding member, that intercepts drugs in the Atlantic. It is in Portugal. We have a garda there because we do not need a UN mandate to send gardaí abroad. When we joined as a founding member, we told them we would give them a ship. We said we could help out, but we could not. We could not send a naval vessel into the Atlantic because of the triple lock, because it did not have a UN Security Council mandate. A separate provision in this legislation will allow that. It is these types of practical things with which we are mostly concerned. If there were ever to be a European army - it will never happen - or a common defence arrangement, in the first instance, every member state would have to agree to it. Second, any member state could veto such an arrangement. There is no prospect of it ever happening. If it did and if everyone said that it could go ahead, we would have to have a referendum on the matter. We could not join in the absence of a referendum of the people. That is in our Constitution.

What about NATO?

That is written in the sacred text.

No one is talking about NATO.

That is written in the sacred text of our basic law.

We are not thinking of joining NATO.

I am not saying it. Micheál Martin said he would not need a referendum. I was just checking.

The reform of the triple lock does not in any way impact on that. To be clear, nobody on this or any side has suggested that we would join NATO. That is not happening. We could not join it anyway. It has a 5% of GDP spending commitment. We could not pay that. It is not going to happen. It would not let us in. That is the reality, because we could not meet that spending target. We want to increase defence spending and we are doing that but there is no way we would meet the conditions of membership of NATO. It is not going to happen. It is not on the horizon. What we are trying to do here is solve a practical problem whereby Russia, in the case of the west African mission that was stopped last week, China, in the case of North Macedonia 25 years ago, and the US, in the case of UNIFIL, have stopped peacekeeping missions and, effectively, made decisions for us. That is what the legislation is trying to achieve and what it will bring to an end.