Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 16 July 2026
125. Deputy Pádraig O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Defence when legislation to amend the triple lock mechanism for the deployment of the Defence Forces overseas will be introduced, the expected timeline for its passage and implementation and if she will make a statement on the matter. [53891/26]
View answer140. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Defence if she will withdraw legislation to abolish the triple lock until a referendum on military neutrality to let the people decide and if she will make a statement on the matter. [53909/26]
View answer157. Deputy Sinéad Gibney asked the Minister for Defence the status of her plans to abolish the triple lock and if she will make a statement on the matter. [54106/26]
View answer185. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Defence if changes to the triple lock mechanism will include a provision that troops can be sent abroad in accordance with the articles of the UN charter and military neutrality and if she will make a statement on the matter. [53908/26]
View answerI will build on the Minister's conversations with Deputy Ó Laoghaire and ask about the status of her plans to abolish the triple lock, the timelines and so forth as regards the legislation that is intended to be discussed later this year.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 125, 140, 157 and 185 together.
I am taking this question on behalf of the Minister. A commitment to reform what is known as the triple lock was set out in the programme for Government. The rationale for this reform is that the current requirement for a UN Security Council constrains Ireland's ability to participate in peacekeeping and crisis management operations because of the use, or threat of use, of a veto by any permanent member of the UN Security Council. The Government considers that decisions regarding the deployment of Irish personnel should be taken in this Dáil and by this Government under our Constitution and legislation rather than being dependent on factors outside the State's control.
The purpose of the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2026 is to consolidate, with amendments, the existing provisions of the Defence Acts relating to the despatch of members of the Defence Forces for service outside the State. The Government approved the text of the Bill on 9 June 2026. The Bill has been published and will be progressed through the Houses of the Oireachtas in the autumn term.
The principal change is the removal of the requirement for a UN mandate as a condition for the deployment of members of the Defence Forces overseas, but the Bill retains existing requirements for both Government approval and Dáil approval before such a deployment can take place. Crucially, the legislation also continues to ensure and require that deployments take place as part of an international force, which could be the UN, the EU or the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe or another regional organisations-----
Could it be NATO?
-----in accordance with UN principles and, of course, in accordance with our own Constitution, which commits us to peace and friendly relations among nations.
The triple lock is a statutory mechanism. The reforms are designed to ensure that Ireland can continue to make an effective contribution to international peace support and crisis management missions while preserving our policy of military neutrality and maintaining robust democratic oversight of overseas deployments.
The Bill contains clear safeguards. Overseas deployments will continue to be limited to missions conducted for the purposes of peacekeeping, conflict prevention and the strengthening of international security consistent with the UN Charter and international law. The Bill ensures that Ireland's participation in overseas missions will continue to be grounded in our Constitution; in international law, to which the Constitution subjects itself; and the principles of the UN Charter. Any deployment will remain subject to democratic oversight through the approval of the Government and the Dáil.
I am curious as to why the Minister has chosen not to take this question. In her earlier exchange with Deputy Ó Laoghaire, she said that she welcomed debate. For continuity, I intended to pick up on some of the things the Minister said, so it is a shame that we are chopping and changing.
The triple lock and the UN constitute international law in action. That it is what we are looking at. It is not, as the Minister of State has reduced it to, a veto. That is not what is happening here. Throughout this debate, the Department and the Government have displayed a lack of appetite to reform the Security Council or to get General Assembly approval. They have tried nothing and yet they are all out of ideas.
The uniting for peace resolution has been used in the past. Any time we raise these as suggestions, they are batted off as being too hard or too complex but the Government has not made the effort. At a time when international law is so precarious and the United Nations is under so much pressure, this is not the approach we need. What we need is collaboration, co-operation and an upholding of the global order.
I, too, want to ask about the senior Minister. This came up at the Dáil reform committee last week. It is very peculiar that a senior Minister is here and has answered previous questions on the triple lock today and then – no offence meant - we have the junior Minister answering these questions, which precisely prevents the continuation of the debate. The same thing happened previously.
We are all on the same page.
If you are, why are you not answering?
Deputy Byrne is at the Department of Defence as well.
Hopefully the junior Minister will be able to clarify. The Minister, Deputy McEntee, said earlier to Deputy Ó Laoghaire, "The people I speak to do not like the fact that Russia has essentially removed, or will remove in the coming months, all our peacekeeping troops from UNIFIL". I ask the junior Minister to clarify on the Minister's behalf that presumably she did not mean Russia but, rather, the US and Israel, and that is misinformation she read into the record. I also ask him to clarify why the draft Bill refers to principles of the UN Charter rather than articles of the UN Charter. Is it because the Government does not want to be bound by international law, which is very clear in its conditions, but, rather, by general principles of the UN Charter?
We are bound by international law. We are bound by international law since our Constitution came into force and we continue to be bound by international law and always will be, no matter what happens to this legislation. International law governs what we do as a Government. Article 29 of the Constitution constrains us and we have to operate in accordance with its principles. Article 29 requires us to promote international law, friendly relations among the nations and peace, essentially. Those are legal requirements, not simply objectives. To be clear, any deployment by the Irish Government and the Dáil of troops abroad has to be as part of an international force. That can mean the UN, the EU, the OSCE or other regional organisations.
Can the Minister of State confirm it can mean NATO?
That can mean those.
Yes. Is that a "Yes", then? Thank you.
Switzerland, the classical neutral country that is not even a member of the European Union and will never join the European Union, it is so neutral and independent, accepts UN, EU and OSCE mandates. I understand the situation is similar in Austria, which is another neutral country. By the way, it is also similar in Germany. I cannot find any other country in the world where the government has to go to the UN. There have been problems at the UN Security Council.
The truth is that if the triple lock continues, Irish peacekeeping comes to an end. The facts bear that out. We have already seen it this year with Operation Irini, which the Deputy has now started to criticise. Our people left on that day and the mission continues. Frankly, we are the big losers in that because our people, our Defence Forces members who are ultimately there to protect this State and its people, are losing the experience and superb training they were getting because of the veto at the UN Security Council and the actions of one member. UNIFIL is coming to an end of the year. We will have more members of the Defence Forces working in office roles in Brussels than we will on peacekeeping missions at the end of the year because of the triple lock and the fact that the United Nations is not mandating any more peacekeeping missions. That is what this legislation is addressing and what we need to do to ensure we continue to play our role internationally but also, crucially, to ensure that incredible experience that members of our Defence Forces get abroad can be transferred and translated into an Irish experience. I saw them in action recently, protecting senior-level guests coming to the opening ceremony of the European Presidency. I thank our troops for all they are doing at home and abroad.
When the Minister of State referred to office roles in Brussels, was he describing roles in NATO headquarters?
The international forces the Minister of State is describing are exactly like the coalition that invaded Iraq. It was clarified at the defence committee that, should the triple lock not have been in place, we would have been in a position to deploy troops to Iraq.
I again go back to the point that the Government's whole argument on this is dependent on the fact that it continues to maintain it supports neutrality. Once we cut that out from underneath its argument, everything else collapses. I maintain that is indeed the position. What the Minister of State is describing about the triple lock being this big bad beast that is preventing the Government from doing everything is just not true. What is true is that the Government wishes to pivot from peacekeeping towards the deployment of troops for regional interests. That is the actual truth. Once we start to pick that apart, it is clear the public does not agree with the Government. In poll after poll, members of the public do not agree with it. Councils throughout the country do not agree and have voted to protect the triple lock. The Government's backbenchers are revolting; they too do not agree.
The Minister of State assured us we are bound by international law but then went on to talk about the fact that he wants to deploy troops outside the framework of international law. That is why the Government is getting rid of the triple lock. All the triple lock does is ensure that we only can send troops in line with international law. The Minister of State, Deputy Troy, stated, "Ireland's position on the use of force where there is no UN mandate or authorisation is well established and known. For fear that anyone is in any doubt, let me be clear: it is wrong and it is illegal." The UN Charter is really clear. A country can use its troops when it is being attacked - which the triple lock does not apply to - or when it is for a UN-authorised peacekeeping mission. The Government wants to send troops abroad outside of that framework. Its defence is that we should not worry because the Government is only going to send them as part of an international force. I do not think anyone here thinks the Government is going to invade a country all by itself. Can the Minister of State confirm that NATO would be a designated international force under the draft legislation to get rid of the triple lock?
To be clear on what our troops will be doing, they will be doing peacekeeping, peace enforcement and conflict prevention. That is what the law says; not what the Deputy imagines it to be. We are bound by our Constitution and international law. The legislation changes nothing in that regard. Ireland has been a member of Partnership for Peace for more than 25 years. We heard the same scare stories more than 25 years ago about Ireland joining Partnership for Peace but people do not seem to realise we are in it. Some Members who sit on the benches opposite visited our troops in Kosovo where they are engaged in incredibly important peacekeeping work. That is a NATO operation operating under a UN mandate. Our troops have been there for more than 20 years and are doing an excellent job. We are very proud of the work they do in what are often very dangerous circumstances.
Let us be 100% clear: our troops will only ever do peacekeeping, peace enforcement or conflict prevention in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter and, of course, as with every action of this Government, in accordance with the Constitution. We cannot go beyond our Constitution and Article 29. We want to continue the role we have played. That role is unfortunately coming to an end for the vast majority of our troops. The number of Irish peacekeepers will reduce by approximately 90% because of the triple lock requirements and the inaction of the United Nations. Deputy Murphy said he does not believe Irish troops will be sent out to war, etc., and he is absolutely correct in saying that-----
Just by yourself.
The Deputy is absolutely correct. I do not know whether his colleagues in Sinn Féin are left or right at this stage. I am not sure they know themselves where they sit in the pecking order but they keep saying-----
Come on. Zero out of ten for originality.
-----that we are sending our sons and daughters out to war. People now see that type of language is completely exposed. Sinn Féin members do not believe it themselves; they know it is not true. They are making it up.
As for our people who are working in Brussels, they are doing incredibly important roles in terms of cybersecurity and all of the additions, such as looking after the maritime domain. We are very proud of our people who work in the EU institutions and other international institutions. Some work-----
In the NATO building?
We are not a member of NATO. I hate to break the news that we are not a member of NATO.
Not yet.
We are not a member of NATO. We are part of-----
Are they working in NATO headquarters?
If the Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, does not mind - would Members please allow the Minister of State to finish and stop cutting in on him so that we can do our business properly? I am going to conclude.
Some Members did accept the invitation to go to visit some of our peacekeeping missions. I am very glad they did. I invite Members opposite to meet some of our military personnel abroad in the various institutions that they work with - the EU, the UN or indeed the Partnership for Peace. They can meet them and see the work they do and they will come out of that room extremely proud of what our Irish Defence Forces personnel are doing, not just in peacekeeping roles but also in international organisations.
