Vol. 1085 No. 3
65. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Minister for Defence if she will outline her proposals to remove the triple lock neutrality protection; when she intends to bring forward a Bill in relation to same; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [33425/26]
The volatile nature of the world underlines all the more the reason that Ireland needs to maintain an independent foreign policy. Central to that policy, as was articulated by members of the Government while in opposition is the triple lock. This is a crucial protection for our neutrality. I would like an update as to where this legislation stands and what consideration the Minister has given to the pre-legislative scrutiny report from the committee.
I fully agree with the Deputy. We can all see that we are living in a very changed world and a more complex world, particularly when it comes to our overall security environment. That being said, I want to make it absolutely clear that the Government has no desire to change our position and our policy of military neutrality. This is something that is long-standing and something that the vast majority of people in this country support. However, it is my intention and the intention of Government to change the terms of how our Defence Forces can be deployed overseas. I, and I think many colleagues in this House, believe that it is untenable to continue with the current policy. Essentially, we have a situation whereby other countries, many of which are at war or in conflict at the moment, are able to make a decision that impacts on our sovereign decision-making process when it comes to where and how we deploy our troops. That position is untenable.
Any considerations on international peacekeeping engagements should be within Ireland's exclusive sovereign control. It should be our own decision-making process and it should be purely within the remit of Government here so that we can have these debates in the Oireachtas with people who have been democratically elected by the people of this country. This is a very strong belief and firm view that I have. I thank the committee for the excellent work it did on the pre-legislative scrutiny. This legislation has gone through a number of stages at this point. I have considered carefully a number of recommendations from the report and brought this to Cabinet recently. Drafting work is under way to progress some of the recommendations, specifically around the international obligations but also in terms of annual reporting. I accept that where one element is removed from what has been a long-standing process, we have to make sure that any mechanism we have in the Oireachtas and across the committees has a level of oversight and scrutiny. What was stressed by the committee is that in any changes that are made, it is very clear that any peacekeeping mission that will be approved will be in line with and grounded firmly by the principles of the UN Charter and international law.
That is something the committee has stated very clearly.
The Minister thanked the committee and I acknowledge that. It was under a different Minister, and I would say it is not an unheard-of occurrence, but it is remarkable that Government TDs and Senators on the committee were whipped to prevent extra hearings because there was such a rush in terms of this legislation, and now it is many months since that process was concluded. I find that hard to understand. We had a desire within the committee to ensure that it would see full scrutiny. Members of the committee were clearly whipped to prevent the extension of it. That was a tremendous shame.
I would make the point to the Minister that the triple lock is a protection for future Governments as well. More importantly, I would make the point that it is our decision. The Defence (Amendment) Act is Irish legislation. It is legislation constructed and passed by these two Houses on the basis that our troops should serve on peacekeeping missions that are mandated by the UN. If we are going to be serving on peacekeeping missions that are not mandated by the UN, under which auspices are we undertaking those peacekeeping missions or other missions generally?
The Deputy said this is about protecting future Governments that might decide to deploy our troops to missions that are not based on the UN Charter and are not upholding and protecting fundamental principles of international law. What I am saying very clearly is that the legislation would have this enshrined in it. It would be very clear as to how and when our troops could be deployed. There would be a level of oversight within the Oireachtas. It would have to be voted through by a democratically elected Government. There would also be a level of oversight within the committee, depending on when or how many troops are being deployed. That would also be included in the legislation.
We have a situation emerging at the moment. We now have some of the final members from the 128th Infantry Battalion who are going out to UNIFIL. That mission has not been continued because we know it would have been vetoed. If it had been vetoed and if a vote had gone through last year, our troops would have had to have left immediately. Decades-long service of Lebanon peacekeeping troops would have ended immediately. We would have had no ability to send our troops back unless we had a new mission put in place, be it a common security and defence policy, CSDP, mission, which is something at which we are looking at the moment. Moreover, and on top of that, we now have another mission, Operation Irini, that we are looking at very carefully but which very soon, in the coming weeks, could come to an end because it looks as though that mandate is not going to be renewed. What we want that mandate for is to be able to monitor the shadow fleet in our waters that is causing huge challenges and that is funding the war in Ukraine. There is also a potential environmental disaster looming with any of these ships. How do we know it is going to be blocked? We know the Russian person who is perpetrating these crimes is on the committee and is able to do it. The idea that Russia would be able to stop us from keeping our troops on a mission in the Mediterranean that would monitor what are illegal ships is absolutely crazy. It is crazy that we are in a situation that, as a country, we cannot deploy our troops because a country like Russia is going to be able to stop us.
The Minister spoke about the SCDP and potential deployment. Could she elaborate on that? Is she saying there would potentially be a CSDP deployment to Lebanon in place of UNIFIL? Could she please clarify that?
The issue in relation to the protection of future Governments is crucially important. That is my view, and I think it is the view of the people. Our troops have served under the UN flag with incredible distinction. I think it is profoundly dangerous that UNIFIL is coming to an end. I really regret that decision. It is important that we continue to push for UN reform. I would like to hear the Minister say some more about that. Ultimately, if we are not deploying troops under a UN flag, they are going to be deployed in another context. It is not difficult at all to see circumstances where if we remove the triple lock, pressure comes on a future Irish Government to deploy troops to a scenario or theatre that would clearly endanger our neutrality. The Minister has said that the Irish people support neutrality. This potentially brings future Irish Governments into a position where they are pressurised into deploying troops in situations that would undermine our neutrality.
The first thing to say is that any change to our triple lock does not change our position of neutrality. Our position of neutrality is about joining military alliances. If we are to deploy troops under this new legislation, it would have to align with, adhered to and be firmly grounded in the principles of the UN Charter and international law. That would be our law, so to do anything other than that would be to breach our law. This would be overseen by committees and by the Chamber. We fully support the UN. I make this point every single time I engage with it at an international level and it knows that. However, we know that the structure is not working at the moment. The fact is Russia would able to stop a mission that is currently under way in the Mediterranean in which our troops participate. They do a really important job in terms of arms. We want to now use that mission to be able to monitor the Russian shadow fleets - an illegal fleet that is funding an illegal war and a maritime disaster ready to happen. The fact that Russia would be able to block that does not make any sense. It is taking away our sovereign ability to make a decision as to where we send our troops but it is also stopping us from doing what we should be doing and that is monitoring its illegal activity and making sure we do everything in our power to stop it from being able to wage the war it is waging and possibly more beyond that.
In terms of making it clear around the overall missions, again, it would not be within our power to send our troops to anything other than peacekeeping missions or, as we have seen in recent times because of the conflicts happening around the world, where we need to get people out safely. That is something we really need to be able to do.
We can do that.
66. Deputy Duncan Smith asked the Minister for Defence the timeline for the increase of cadet pay in the Defence Forces; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [33427/26]
The world is changing, and national defence is becoming more important by the day. The Government is slow-walking change, though, to the pay and conditions of our Defence Forces, particularly for our cadets. It is simply unacceptable. The question I want to ask the Minister today is about the timeline for the increase of cadet pay in the Defence Forces.
I fully agree. The world is changing. We need to expand our Defence Forces. We need to enhance our capabilities. However, we need to make sure we have the men and women in our Defence Forces to be able to operate and be able to grow in the way we need to. That means looking to retain those we have but also encouraging more and supporting our cadets as well.
As the Deputy will be aware, there has been significant progress made more broadly in terms of pay and conditions for the Defence Forces personnel, particularly over the past six years. There has been a renewed focus, and rightly so, in making sure we increase pay and that the pay is reflective of the work and training that is happening. I met with representatives of RACO on 22 January 2026 and they, of course, raised the issue of cadet pay with me. It is an issue that is currently on the conciliation and arbitration agenda. I have agreed on top of that to give further consideration to the issue and the process that is ongoing. I outlined at that meeting, however, that any cost-increasing claims must be addressed within the parameters of public pay policy. I think we all know that but we want to make sure that structure is progressing and that claim is progressing as well.
The Deputy will be aware as well that different pay scales apply during training, obviously, for different periods for cadets and recruits. The current pay scale applicable to cadets ranges from €26,248 to €39,026, depending on their qualification. In addition, cadets are provided with accommodation and meals free of charge for the duration of their training as part of their overall package. What is important here as well is that we are investing in where they are staying and where they are eating their meals. In the past two weeks alone, I opened quite a large new canteen facility, essentially, in the barracks in Dundalk. In the past two weeks, I also opened accommodation in Haulbowline for a significant number of new recruits. We want to make sure we are investing significantly in where they are staying, where they are being fed and where they are training and in their gym where they need to do their training. This year alone about €70 million is being spent specifically for accommodation. That is an investment in the men and women of our Defence Forces.
At the same time, I appreciate that when it comes to overall pay and cadet pay, in particular, we need to make quicker progress through the conciliation and arbitration agenda. This is something on which I have committed to working with them.
Those improvements in accommodation and other physical places, such as barracks, etc., are welcome. I and Deputy Ó Laoghaire have just come from the Joint Committee on Defence and National Security, and that came up and was complimented. It simply is not enough to talk about action when it comes to pay. I accept the Minister's bona fides in terms of wanting to improve this but it is worth putting on record that cadet pay remains the lowest in the Defence Forces at just €503 per week compared to €550 for a recruit. It rises to €627 after 12 weeks. Cadets remain on this pay for the entirety of their first year while recruits can move to a weekly salary of €814 after six months. They are paid significantly less than enlisted recruits despite being in full-time training for commission leadership and bearing far greater responsibility. In fact, in their first year, cadets earn 47% less than their enlisted counterparts. This can have knock-on impacts for their pension entitlements. I know there is a process under way but we need a timeline. I accept the Minister's bona fides but we need to see real progress on this for the cadets.
I agree. I would like to see things move on. I would like to see a resolution as quickly as possible. It is obviously going through the process. Again, the current public service pay agreement to which the members of the Permanent Defence Forces are party provides for that local bargaining process. It provides for that 3% of basic pay, with the 1% to be paid from the current agreement and the balance to be addressed in any successor pay agreement.
There is an opportunity beyond the current engagement to examine pay and conditions, including cadet pay, through that process. There is a number of different ways in which we can look at this.
It is encouraging, not only for cadets. However, if you look at the number of applications for cadets in 2022, it was 1,297. If you fast-forward to this year, it is 2,878. We are seeing a significant increase in the number of applications, more broadly, across the Defence Forces. There were 16,500 applications last year and up to the end of March of this year alone, there have been 7,000.
There is a significant increase in interest and I think it is because we are investing more. We are clear that we want to expand the Defence Forces. We want to invest in the men and women who are there but we want to invest in greater capabilities. There are more opportunities, be it in the Naval Service, the Air Corps or the Army, for people and that is reflected in the overall figures.
Certainly, we are trending away from the recruitment and retention crisis that we have seen in the Defence Forces. We are not quite there yet and still have a bit to go.
In terms of cadet pay, the long-term impacts of it and why it needs to be resolved, it can become financially illogical to become a cadet. Under the single pension scheme, earnings are averaged across an entire career meaning that paying cadets the existing poverty-level wage does lasting damage to their pension entitlements. It is not as enticing an offer to young people as it could be if we get through this process as quickly, as expeditiously and as beneficially as possible for the cadets. These young cadets will have dependants in the future and an increasing amount of responsibilities, like most people, as they go through life.
There is an increase in recruitment but we will have a problem with retention unless this pay and pensions issue is resolved for cadets. I urge the Minister to put every pressure on to get this resolved as soon as possible.
I stress that the claim was received by the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers. The claim is being dealt with under the conciliation and arbitration scheme for members of the Permanent Defence Forces. The Deputy will appreciate the discussions under the conciliation and arbitration scheme are confidential but I look forward to, and hope we can have, that constructive engagement and that conclusion reached as soon as possible.
The Deputy is correct. There is quite a variation from €26,248 to €39,026. I would stress, however, that if you are a cadet coming in, your accommodation is paid for and your food is paid for. Obviously, for a lot of people, that would account for a significant portion of any wage that they would get on a weekly or a monthly basis.
More broadly, we need to make sure we are doing everything that we can to focus on increased recruitment and retention. We have a defence sector working group, which was established to examine the representative associations' proposals. We are working with RACO and PDFORRA proposals under local bargaining. What that is doing is identifying measures to increase recruitment and retention, with a particular emphasis on the Naval Service because with the new national maritime security strategy and with the need for us to do more when it comes to maritime security, our focus on the Naval Service is important and the cadets within that. We are seeing an increase in numbers also.
67. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Minister for Defence further to recent Dáil Éireann debates, her views on past health and safety measures in the Air Corps; the actions she intends to take to support former aircraft maintenance and ancillary personnel; whether she intends to ensure their medical needs are met; and the other supports that can be offered to the category affected as a whole. [33426/26]
Since our last engagement on this issue, we have had the "RTÉ Investigates" documentary, considerable reporting by Neil Michael from the Irish Examiner, and many disturbing and worrying disclosures and descriptions of what was going on. It is clear that Air Corps personnel were exposed to unsafe working conditions and to dangerous chemicals and there seems to be a strong correlation to very serious illness and bad health outcomes. These are people who served the State. They should get support. What does the Minister intend to do about it and how does she intend to ensure that they are looked after?
I thank the Deputy for raising this. I acknowledge the Deputy's engagement around the issue. I welcome the opportunity to set out the position as it stands. As there are multiple ongoing cases before the courts, as I have stated previously, I am limited in terms of what I can say so that I do not prejudice any of the ongoing litigation. The Deputy has said previously that it is possible to discuss both but I always want to be careful in that regard.
The advice available to me is that any view I have here needs to be carefully expressed so that we do not undermine the current process. Each claim has to receive the necessary case-specific analysis and consideration because what is clear is that each individual case is different to a certain extent.
I had a number of briefs from my officials on this. I then requested further detailed analysis from them. I have received that and carefully considered it. I convened a meeting with the Attorney General, representatives from the State Claims Agency and officials from my Department to discuss the matter further, having sought various different advices.
There are accusations that the State is prolonging legal proceedings as a deliberate tactic but that is not the case. It is important to stress that at every step of the way, the engagement that we have had, be it through the State Claims Agency working with individuals, has been to try to find a resolution and to work constructively with them.
The State Claims Agency has confirmed to me that it has made representations to the legal representatives of the litigants to explore the possibility of mediation to find a resolution to this issue. This is the way we want to move forward - that we can mediate and find a way forward - but those approaches have been rejected pending the cases having been set down for hearing.
I would encourage all those involved. We want to find a way forward. We do not want this to have to go to a court setting. There is an offer there from the State Claims Agency to work with it and with its legal representatives. We all want to find a mutually agreeable resolution, taking into consider what people have gone through and the current individual situation for those involved in this overall. I would encourage them to take up that offer and to engage more broadly with us.
To be honest, that is a frustrating response because the Minister is well aware that I have outlined the point in the past. I would say there are issues in relation to the handling of the State Claims Agency of these cases. It is not appropriate for us to get into individual cases. I have never asked the Minister to do so. I have never tried to discuss individual cases in this Chamber, with the Minister or her predecessor. The issue here is in relation to a category of people who were acting in the service of the State. They were supporting the Defence Forces in terms of maintenance of aircraft. As the Air Corps Chemical Abuse Survivors group outlined, there have been 130 potential premature deaths. Clearly, we need to get to the bottom of that.
I am not asking for an update on the legal side, although I think there are issues in relation to the State Claims Agency's approach. What I am asking for is what the Minister proposes to do, and which we discussed previously, in terms of the whole category, a potential package of health supports and health safeguarding, including forms of screening, and an accountability mechanism. There has to be an accountability mechanism as well.
There are 22 active cases before the courts, which we are trying to engage with. Like the Deputy, I want to understand whether this is something that is happening on a wider scale but at the same time, we have to identify whether or not there is a consistent pattern here. Work has been done within the Department to see whether this is something that has been happening on a broader scale and whether there is a consistent pattern beyond the 22 people the Deputy is talking about here, and even within those cases where there is not a consistent pattern in terms of health implications or issues that have come to the fore. I am not for a second disputing the fact that the people who we are engaging with have health concerns and have had health concerns. There has never been a dispute that there needed to be better measures in place in terms of health and safety, whether it was gloves or handling. Whether the exposure had the overall effect, as has been set out by the individuals in the 22 active cases, is what is being discussed and engaged with at present. I would encourage all those to engage further in a mediation process that we have been actively trying to pursue because I think this the best route to be able to come to a conclusion for all of the individuals concerned.
If there is a pattern, we are not going to find that out in the High Court. That will be found out through a process the Department seems to be considering. A memo was due to be brought to the Minister in the first quarter but we are past the first quarter now. That is what I recall the Minister saying. Has the Minister considered this memo in relation to a whole-category approach?
I ask the Minister to not go back into the legal cases. The clear example is in relation to Australia where the Australian air force saw that there was an issue, it engaged with the group and the people retained their right to take cases as they saw fit but there was health screening, an accountability mechanism and health supports. There is nothing preventing the Minister from doing that. When will she make a decision as to whether the Government will put in place a process such as there was in Australia - a study of health outcomes, identifying whether there is causation and ensuring support for people who are very sick? Among these people, there have been heart conditions, colorectal cancer and suicides.
Clearly there is a need for things like routine cardiac screening. These are all things that can be done without any reference to the court cases. When will the Minister make a decision on a solution for the whole category?
The Deputy referenced Australia. The case in Australia involved de-seal and reseal programmes. The maintenance workers were quite literally required to physically climb into fuel tanks of F111 fighter jets. They worked in extremely cramped conditions for extended periods with chronic confined exposure to concentrated hazardous substances. Nobody has suggested at any point that this is in any way aligned with the conditions in the Air Corps.
No, but it still goes on.
We have said very clearly that there need to be better health and safety standards. That is something that has been made very clear and those changes have been made. As the Deputy has outlined, we have a significant number of different conditions that have come to the fore with the litigants who have been mentioned. However, it has not yet been identified whether this was specific to the exposure.
We should find out.
I told the Deputy that there was a body of work being done initially to see if there is a connection. Is there an increased level of particular types of health complications? Was there an increased level within the Air Corps during that time because of that exposure?
When will we find out?
That body of work is still under way at the moment. I do not think we can say this is the same as Australia.
I hear the Minister saying that but when will we find out?
That work is under way and I will bring that to the Dáil and to the Deputy's attention when I can. If people have been harmed here, I want to make sure we know about it. I also want to make sure that those involved in the process can engage with us and come to a conclusion on that process.
68. Deputy Seamus Healy asked the Minister for Defence if she plans to introduce the defence (amendment) Bill to provide for the abolition of the triple lock; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [33645/26]
Is it the Government's intention to proceed with the proposed defence (amendment) Bill to provide for the abolition of the triple lock, which is against the expressed wish of the Irish people as expressed in two referendums on the Nice and Lisbon treaties?
As set out by the Minister earlier in this session, the purpose of the defence (amendment) Bill is to consolidate the existing provisions of the Defence Acts concerning the despatch of members of the Defence Forces for service outside the State. In effect, the requirement for a UN mandate will be removed. It will modify the existing requirement regarding the so-called triple lock mechanism in relation to the despatch of the Defence Forces for service outside the State as part of an international United Nations force.
It is important to note that the Bill will also seek to amend the Defence Act to provide for the suspension of members of the Defence Forces, thereby giving effect to recommendations in the 2024 Ward report on the management of members of the Defence Forces charged with, or convicted of, serious criminal offences.
There has been extensive engagement between the Department and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel on the drafting of the Bill, and the Minister intends to bring the Bill to the Government for approval shortly.
As previously outlined to the House, the continued reliance on a UN Security Council mandate can have direct practical consequences for Ireland’s peacekeeping engagements. A very recent and tangible example is in relation to UNIFIL. We saw one power exercising its veto at the UN Security Council. Had the mandate for UNIFIL not been renewed - as was the case for a short period of time - Ireland would have been legally obliged to plan for the immediate withdrawal of Defence Forces personnel from that mission. Similar issues arise in respect of other operations, with concerns arising in relation to the upcoming renewal of the UN mandate of Operation Irini in the Mediterranean in early June. The outcome is currently unclear and if this mandate is not renewed, it would necessitate the immediate withdrawal of Irish troops under the current legislative provisions. The mission would continue nonetheless in its humanitarian work and its work to prevent illegal weapons coming into Europe because it is an EU mission.
The Bill also provides for reinforced safeguards governing any future overseas deployments. While the UN Security Council mandate requirement is being removed, the legislation expressly requires that all such deployments be consistent with the principles of the UN Charter and with international law.
Neutrality and a triple lock have served his country well. The current Taoiseach is on record as saying that the triple lock is the core of Irish neutrality. Of course, that neutrality goes back over 100 years to when James Connolly erected a banner on Liberty Hall declaring that, "We serve neither King nor Kaiser, but Ireland". It also goes back to hugely successful protests against conscription in Ireland during the First World War. It goes back to Article 29 of Bunreacht na hÉireann, Éamon de Valera's Constitution, which speaks of "adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination." It goes back to Éamon de Valera's declaration of neutrality in 1939.
The triple lock itself has been endorsed by the sovereign Irish people in two referendums, the second referendum on the Nice treaty and the second referendum on the Lisbon treaty. Solemn national declarations have been added to those treaties. Successive polls have shown support for the retention of neutrality, the core of which is the triple lock. I believe it is now time to abandon this proposal. Of course peace missions can be authorised by the UN General Assembly as well as the Security Council.
The Deputy is correct that under Article 29 of the Constitution, Ireland's international relations are founded upon international justice and morality. Our Constitution affirms our "devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations". That is not changing. That is in our Constitution. That is the entire basis on which the Government exercises its foreign policy. The removal of the triple lock in current circumstances has no impact whatsoever on Ireland's policy of military neutrality. All it means is that we are not giving the authority to any of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to determine what our foreign policy is in terms of our peacekeeping missions. It is a fact that the UNIFIL mission was stopped, effectively, by one member of the UN Security Council. It is also a fact that if a mission were to continue, for example under EU auspices, in Lebanon, it is entirely unclear as to whether Ireland could take part in that without a UN Security Council mandate. Operation Irini would continue as a very effective peacekeeping mission but Ireland would not be able to be part of it without a UN Security Council mandate.
Irish peacekeepers who have served throughout the world for decades know the value of the triple lock. Neutrality has been an invaluable component of Ireland's foreign policy. This country's involvement in and reputation for peacekeeping gives moral legitimacy to our voice for the international rule of law and peaceful resolution of conflicts. Former Defence Force members with first-hand experience of peacekeeping and conflict have spoken in defence of the triple lock. These people include Senator Tom Clonan who stated that it gives international status as an impartial voice for peace and de-escalation of armed conflict. Gerry Rooney, a former secretary general of the PDFORRA, which represents about 7,000 members of the Defence Forces, is also on record as saying that maintaining the triple lock and strengthening the engagement of the United Nations would be a more effective path for sustaining Ireland's peacekeeping role and neutrality. I believe that abolition of the triple lock undermines our peacekeeping role in the world.
All deployments of Irish troops abroad under this legislation have to be consistent with the principles of the UN Charter and international law. I have already said that I agree with the Deputy in relation to the Constitution. However, I suggest that nobody in this House agrees with the decision of the UN Security Council to end peacekeeping duties in Lebanon.
What about the General Assembly?
The General Assembly has not put forward any proposal in relation to that and it is not practical for us to-----
The General Assembly is entitled to call for peacekeeping missions.
There have been no proposals in the General Assembly to continue a mission in Lebanon. At the end of the day the Security Council is the authoritative body on international security. That is just the reality of the situation. We have an incredibly proud track record of peacekeeping under our Constitution and consistent with UN principles. We would like that to continue. In the current environment it literally cannot continue in Lebanon because of the decision of the UN Security Council. That mandate is coming to an end because of a decision effectively of one country. If another peacekeeping mission were agreed, for example at EU level, we could not take part in it under the current legislation. All we are trying to do is to make our own sovereign decisions and continue the peacekeeping work that we have done over many generations.
