Noel McCarthy
Ceist:125. Deputy Noel McCarthy asked the Minister for Defence the current military radar capability of the Defence Forces; her plans, if any to increase such capability; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [43588/26]
Ceisteanna Eile - Other Questions
Defence Forces
This is to ask the Minister for Defence the current military radar capability of the Defence Forces or plans, if any, to increase such capability and whether she will make a statement on the matter.
I thank the Deputy for this particular question. Developing the military radar capability of the Defence Forces is one of my key priorities and a key element of the move to level of ambition 2. The Commission on the Defence Forces advised that the absence of a capability to maintain a complete recognised air picture is something we need to address. We need to make sure we have the capacity to have a recognised air picture and it needs to be complete. This means we would be able to protect our national sovereignty and airspace and we would have the ability to detect any infringements for the purpose of civil aviation safety and maintenance of co-operative relations with neighbouring states, which are also impacted by this capability gap.
Among its recommendations on capability development, the commission recommended that we develop a primary radar system to ensure Ireland can maintain that complete air picture and that this should be an immediate priority. That is why when I came into the Department I insisted this was brought forward in terms of our capital spend and that we bring forward as much of it as possible. This is being progressed under the military radar programme. There are three elements to it, namely, the land-based, long-range radar primary radar; ground-based air defence systems to include the counter-unmanned aerial systems, that is, the counter-drone technology and our maritime radar. This programme of work is ongoing but good progress has been made.
Towards the end of last year, the preliminary business case for the military radar programme was approved. This concluded that a Government-level approach with one country was the preferred option. In line with this approach my Department immediately commenced negotiations with France on a potential agreement for the delivery of capability requirements under this programme. These are ongoing with the French authorities. However, while full delivery of the programme will be complex, it has been prioritised with a target date identified in the years ahead of 2028. I published recently the detailed implementation plan for the development of this complete, recognised air picture. That being said, elements of the overall programme will be rolled out in phases. It is going to take a number of years to do all of this; starting this year in particular with the counter-UAS capabilities. The Deputy will have heard this discussed many times around the counter-drone technology and making sure we have this in place for our Presidency and to support the work of An Garda Síochána.
I thank the Minister for her response. Although we are a neutral nation and plan to remain one, it is important our Defence Forces are provided with appropriate radar technology to help with their vitally important day-to-day operations. In an ever-changing world, the development of air and sea radar capability should be a cornerstone in ensuring our Defence Forces’ protection of national security concerns. I understand that a business case for a national military radar programme was approved last year for a proposed delivery target of 2028. Is this still the timeline the Department is working towards? In addition, can the Minister provide any specifications as to what if any infrastructure is needed at land and sea level to progress radar capability?
I fully agree with the Deputy. The reason there is a need for this to be introduced as soon as possible is because we are seeing a changed landscape and changed types of threats. We are seeing more hybrid activity and use of drones not just here, but in other countries as well that is disrupting airspace, causing significant challenges, costing a lot of money and creating a real sense of unease. It is really important that we have the right capability to be able to detect what is in our skies, what is happening over our waters and importantly, under water. This is an area through the maritime security strategy that we will be able to ensure we can progress as quickly as possible.
The counter-UAS anti-drone technology is progressing this year. There were tenders agreed last year for the sonar programmes, that is, the radar programmes under water. That will be complemented by the sonobuoys, which will be worked from our helicopters. The longer-range equipment required on our ships will take a little bit longer. This is being done in stages. This is an absolute priority. We want to make sure we can move along the various stages as quickly as possible.
I acknowledge that a Government-level approach with one country is favoured in the development of radar capability and that negotiations have begun with France on a potential agreement in this regard. As such, I ask the Minister what engagement she has had to date with her French counterpart on the matter? Can she give us an indication of the level of training necessary for the operation of radar and what is the estimated number of Defence Forces personnel who will be considered for radar duties?
Finally, is it the intention that radar specialists will be recruited, possibly from France, as part of the initial operations of the programme?
I welcome the question from Deputy McCarthy. This is a vitally important area for us as an island nation. When will the counter-drone technology, the CUAS, be operational? The Minister spoke about the Presidency, which starts within a month. Realistically it is not going to be in place at the start of the Presidency. Is that not the case? What will be the first date on which the anti-drone technology will be in place? When will it be operational from the Defence Forces' point of view? It is far too late. This was meant to be delivered in quarter 3 of last year. That is down to the Minister’s predecessor but it is not good enough.
To answer the Deputy’s question, the capability will be in place by 1 July for our Presidency. Training is under way.
I was with my French colleague just last week in Paris and we discussed not just the radar programme but other ways in which we are working more closely together. The French have been supporting and working closely with our Defence Forces personnel around the training on how to use this. This is just to assist. I stress that again because there is often a perception that it is the Defence Forces which are going to be carrying out all of these security measures. What they are putting in place will be to supplement and assist the work of An Garda Síochána. An Garda Síochána already has significant levels of counter-drone technology in place and more that they will put in place during the Presidency. We will assist through the introduction of counter-drone technology through the Defence Forces and throughout the year there will be further technologies provided.
However, we will have what we need in place for the beginning of the Presidency. That training is under way. I assure the Deputy of that. What I spoke of with my colleague Ms Vautrin last week was other ways in which we could work more closely together. Are there other ways in which we can share our knowledge, experience and training? I think we underestimate the level of knowledge that our Defence Forces members and gardaí have in using these types of equipment. It is important that we work together and share our experience and knowledge. Obviously, where we can work together on purchasing, perhaps jointly, different types of technology or capability, we should always look to do that as well.
Question No. 126 taken with Written Answers.
Defence Forces
Martin Daly
Ceist:127. Deputy Martin Daly asked the Minister for Defence when a decision on a location for the Army headquarters will be made; if Custume Barracks, Athlone, will be considered; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [42807/26]
As Minister, I am committed to the ongoing work of ensuring that our Defence Forces are modern, agile and fit for the world we live in to defend the State and meet the challenges of today and the future. That obviously means investing not just in the Defence Forces as personnel but also in our infrastructure. That is a key commitment in our overall capital plan.
The Commission on the Defence Forces recommended in its 2022 report significant changes to the Defence Forces and defence provision in Ireland. It covers high-level Defence Forces structures, defence capabilities, organisation, culture and human resources, the Reserve Defence Force, and funding overall.
In February, I published the second detailed implementation plan for the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces. This plan sets out an ambitious programme of work to move to level of ambition 2 by 2028 and the significant and fundamental change for the Defence Forces that will be delivered across the commission's recommendations approved by the Government. The commission recommended:
The Chief of Defence to initiate an immediate force design process assisted by external experts with access to international military expertise, and to include a detailed force design process.
The Defence Forces have established three force design teams within the Army, Naval Service and Air Corps. An overarching strategic force design office has also been established. This work is ongoing, with all force design teams working collaboratively to develop a force design for the entire Defence Forces.
On completion of the force design work, the Chief of Staff will submit a report on force design to me for consideration. No decisions have been made on where the Army headquarters will be located, but it is important to say - and this is the reason I have outlined all of this in terms of the force design - that this process has to be gone through before any decision can be taken on the Army headquarters.
This is complicated and challenging work that we need to get right. We need to make sure that if we are looking at modernisation and restructuring of our Defence Forces, we take the time to do this correctly, and that is the work that is happening at the moment. What is important for me is that any force design process will include a transitional plan with incremental steps beyond current numbers to the 11,500 force recommended by the Commission on the Defence Forces.
As the Deputy will appreciate, because this is a significant body of work, there is a huge amount of effort by all involved. It is once all of these measures have been put in place that we will be able to identify where the location might be.
I thank the Minister for a comprehensive reply. This is in the context of the record €1.7 billion defence national development plan, which the Government will invest in capital infrastructure for the next five years. It is important that it is got right. We are living in a changed geopolitical situation since the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, and we will have to live up to our defence obligations not only within our own national context but also within the European Union context.
As regards the military history of Athlone, Custume Barracks goes back to 1691. It is geographically strategically located and is well served by railroad and river. I hope it will be considered. It also has access to third level education, namely, Technological University of the Shannon, TUS, so I hope that it will be given full consideration when a decision is made.
I will refer to what the Deputy has referred to as well, but there is also the significant increase in funding that has been agreed by this Government, specifically investment not just in the men and women, but also in our overall structures within our Defence Forces system. I have visited quite a number of barracks in the past few months. I have been in Aiken Barracks in Dundalk, the accommodation in Renmore, Galway, the Gormanstown campus and Haulbowline. All of these are areas where we are seeing significant investment in accommodation, dining facilities, gym equipment and the overall environment. Making sure that that investment continues will be a key priority for me. I think €170 million has been spent in the past five years alone, but this year close to €70 million has been spent. On top of that, there is €13.5 million for maintenance and running costs. There is an absolute commitment to make sure that our barracks and critical infrastructure for our Defence Forces members are up to scratch, modern and fit for purpose. Any new decisions for a new barracks or new accommodation will have to be taken once the overall process is done, but I will be determined to ensure that we have more money and that we invest in any of these new buildings or any new expansion that is required.
I welcome the investment in our defence capability. It has grown by 35% in the past three years and by 11% in the past year. We need to continue to invest to meet our international obligations but also to meet our own obligation as a sovereign nation and to protect our borders and the seas that surround this island. It is extremely important that we be strategic as a small country in the investment we make. It is true that we have lagged behind other countries of similar size in Europe, possibly through complacency because of our position on the edge of Europe, but that has changed now. I welcome the investment but I also hope that full consideration will be given to an Army headquarters in Athlone, which is at the centre of the country, geographically strategically located, with all the services that a headquarters would require.
I probably was not aware of it myself until coming into the Department, but there is a significant body of work happening, following on from the Commission on the Defence Forces, to look at what we need. The commission has set out how we reach level of ambition 2, how we increase our numbers and what type of capabilities we need. There is also other work being done to look at our overall footprint, where we need to invest in different barracks, how we need to expand and grow, and which areas we need to look at from a maritime perspective and from the perspective of our Naval Service, our Air Corps and our Defence Force personnel. Then, taking into account the reform of the triple lock, the question is how we make sure that an integral part of our Defence Forces work, namely, peacekeeping missions, can continue into the future. There is a huge amount of work, coupled with the cultural reform and change and the body doing that work. It is really important that all these aspects be progressed at the same time, supported and coupled with financing. That is why we have seen the 55% increase in our capital budget and the 40% increase in our current budget.
To come back to the Deputy's original question, once the process that is under way is concluded, a decision on the HQ will be taken.
EU Meetings
Naoise Ó Cearúil
Ceist:128. Deputy Naoise Ó Cearúil asked the Minister for Defence to outline Ireland's position at the recent meeting of EU defence ministers; the main outcomes regarding Ukraine, the European defence industrial strategy and EU defence co-operation; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [43590/26]
I attended that meeting on behalf of the Minister, Deputy McEntee, in Brussels recently. There was also an informal meeting recently, but the meeting in Brussels was a formal one. It took place against the backdrop of an evolving and increasingly complex security environment. It was a key moment for EU member states to reaffirm their steadfast solidarity with, and support for, Ukraine. There were two main topics on the agenda: EU support to Ukraine and the repercussions of the situation in the Middle East on European defence and security, along with an update on the state of play of defence readiness, among other matters.
In the session on EU support to Ukraine, which was attended by video in part by Ukraine's newly appointed Minister of Defence, Mykhailo Fedorov, discussion was focused on the latest developments in EU-Ukraine defence industrial co-operation, including progress on implementing the Ukraine support loan, the European Peace Facility and other EU instruments, such as Security Action for Europe, SAFE.
Ireland has been resolute in our support for Ukraine in response to Russia's illegal, unjustifiable and morally reprehensible war against it. The Irish Government remains committed to working with our European and Ukrainian counterparts to maintain solidarity with Ukraine and to ensure that Ukraine gets the support it needs to defend itself against brutal Russian aggression.
Discussion on the ongoing situation in the Middle East at the Council was also very welcome. The Irish Government remains deeply concerned about the conflict in the Gulf and the wider Middle East, and the implications for Lebanon, in particular. The Government remains deeply conscious and appreciative of Irish Defence Forces personnel, and all peacekeepers, currently serving under the UNIFIL mandate in south Lebanon.
I again commend those members of Óglaigh na hÉireann, past and present, on their service in the work of international peace and security, as I am sure all Members do.
In addition, yesterday I attended the informal meeting of EU defence ministers in Nicosia in Cyprus. I can certainly discuss the meeting, but I do not have a full written report of the meeting yet because I only got home last night.
I welcome the Minister of State home. I also welcome the fact that, at the meeting of EU defence ministers, there was continued support and solidarity among all nations with the people of Ukraine, given the circumstances they currently endure. Was there any specific discussion at the meeting about a post-war scenario in Ukraine and the potential for a peace agreement between the countries? I note that, recently, Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited Downing Street where he met with President Macron and the German President. Those nations again reiterated their support for Ukraine. At any point during the meeting did the talks come to the point where there may be a peace agreement, what that might look like, and what a post-war scenario might look like in Ukraine?
That certainly was mentioned at the meeting of defence ministers, but the meeting was mainly focused on the defence response at the moment. The Minister, Deputy McEntee, at the Foreign Affairs Council and the Taoiseach at the European Council will be discussing that matter in considerable depth this month. There is certainly a lot of discussion about it, but what is important is that we continue to support Ukraine in the meantime. There needs to be peace, but it needs to be a just peace. It needs to be fair to Ukraine. We need to continue to support them in the meantime. For my part, solidarity will be very much in evidence at the General Affairs Council, where the whole issue of enlargement of the European Union will be very high up on the agenda during the Presidency. We will continue to support Ukraine, particularly on the mobilisation of the European Peace Facility support. We are going to continue to engage the Department of Defence. The Defence Forces have provided bilateral support to Ukraine, fully in accordance with our military neutrality and our commitment to providing non-lethal support. That support will continue. We are also contributing to the EU loan that is going to Ukraine, which will partly be used for defence purposes as well.
I compliment the Government on its continued support, in particular for that loan measure.
The Minister of State mentioned the ending of the UNIFIL mission at the end of this year. Are there other European countries like us that are concerned they will not have the opportunity to provide peacekeeping missions in other parts of the world? Unfortunately, if troops from European countries are not keeping peace, more lives will be lost, more conflict will reign and there will be less stability and more volatility in the world. Are there other countries like us that have a similar measure whereby the participation of their forces in peacekeeping missions must be sanctioned by the UN Security Council? Are they thinking of how they might be able to operate in the future when it is clear that the Security Council will not provide an opportunity for peacekeeping missions?
In relation to UNIFIL in particular, there are soldiers in it from all over the world. There were some deaths at the weekend. I pay tribute to them as well. That mission, which is a United Nations-run mission, will end. As far as I can tell, there is no other European Union country that needs a UN mandate to send their troops on peacekeeping missions. I have spoken to Switzerland and its troops can go on other missions, not just UN missions, for example. They deal with their neutrality in a different way from us. They do not need a UN mandate. If there were to be discussions in the future about a peacekeeping mission continuing in Lebanon, perhaps at the invitation of the Lebanese Government, most countries would be able to at least consider taking part, but we would not even be able to be part of the discussions. Last week, Operation Irini, which is an EU-led mission, lost its UN mandate. Our service members had to leave on that day, but the mission continues. Everyone else stayed but our people had to leave. That is what the triple lock has done. That is all we are trying to change in relation to that.
Naval Service
John Connolly
Ceist:129. Deputy John Connolly asked the Minister for Defence the plans in place for an expanded Naval Reserve presence in Galway as supported by the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [42813/26]
Will the Minister outline the plans in place for an expanded unit of the Naval Reserve and an infrastructural presence in the form of a Naval Reserve base in Galway, as supported both by the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces and by the maritime security strategy, and will she make a statement on that matter?
I acknowledge the important role played by members of the Reserve Defence Force, RDF, and thank them for their continued commitment and the way in which they consistently support the members of the Permanent Defence Force. The strategic objective for the Reserve Defence Force is the development of a reserve force that can seamlessly train, operate and deploy on a voluntary basis with our Permanent Defence Force, both on the island and overseas. As the Deputy mentioned, this is strongly reflected in the report of the commission.
A key recommendation for the RDF was the establishment in 2022 of the Office of Reserve Affairs to oversee and support a more holistic approach to the revitalisation of the Reserve Defence Force. In July 2024, that office published the RDF regeneration and development plan. This in itself contains 27 individual actions designed to operationalise the recommendations contained in the Commission on the Defence Forces report for the Reserve Defence Force. The regeneration plan recognises that the transformation of the force structure is required for the development of the RDF. Action 22 of the plan relates specifically to the transformation of the Naval Service Reserve. As the Deputy is aware, another key recommendation from the plan is to increase the future RDF establishment strength to include a minimum Naval Service Reserve of 400 personnel. The military authorities have advised that, under this expansion, additional Naval Service Reserve units may be considered in suitable coastal centres where there is already port access. The current position is that options are being examined in the context of the wider transformation of the Defence Forces.
I mentioned earlier to our colleague the three force design teams, whereby we are looking at restructuring and modernising our Defence Forces. There is one each for the Army, the Air Corps and the Naval Service. They were established by the Defence Forces. An overarching strategic force design office has been established. These teams are working collaboratively to develop a force design for the entire Defence Forces. This will include members of the Reserve Defence Force and civilian members. Work is ongoing at the moment to try to complete this. The Chief of Staff will submit a report on force design to me for consideration. Based on that, the selection of locations can take place. There is a body of work happening. I hope it will conclude soon. Once that work is done, we will be able to identify where there might be options for what the Deputy outlined.
I commend the frankness of the report by the Commission on the Defence Forces. It noted the serious area and scale of responsibility that we have in "our Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), the scale of fishing activity in our waters, the number of aircraft crossing Irish controlled airspace, our growing seabased energy infrastructure, and the number of subsea communications cables and sea lines passing close to our coastline". There was a full and frank recognition:
...that a more comprehensive patrol programme [is required for that area and that this could] be facilitated by the establishment of a naval support base or bases, making use of existing port facilities at locations in the west ... which would allow for faster deployment and would facilitate replenishment of fuel, fresh food and water, and the removal of waste. The location of a support base on the west ... coast ... combined with double crewing of vessels, would facilitate ships remaining at sea for longer periods as they would no longer have to return to Haulbowline for replenishment and crew changeover.
I concur with the Deputy's initial point, which is that we have 24-7 monitoring of Irish waters, of our exclusive economic zone. This is happening in the air and at sea, and it is supported on land mainly by our base in Haulbowline. We have increased and expanded our capacity, capabilities and ability to monitor what is happening above our seas, but also to monitor what is happening below our seas, in particular to protect our critical infrastructure, which comes across the Atlantic and goes through Ireland on to mainland Europe and beyond. It is an absolutely essential component of the work of our Defence Forces that we ensure we have the right numbers, that we grow our capacity within our Naval Service and that we continue to invest in our capabilities while working more closely with our European and international partners. Integral to that is the expansion and overall growth of our Reserve Defence Force members. We have seen that in other important structures of our State, notably An Garda Síochána, where our reserve members, coupled with the civilian forces, have helped to grow and expand and have really complemented the work. That is no different here for our Defence Forces.
One of the things I have often found puzzling is that the very proud and historical tradition of maritime and naval participation that a location like Galway has among its citizens seems to have petered out in recent times.
The operation of a naval support base or naval infrastructure along the west coast in Galway would encourage more local people, potentially, to join the Naval Service or the Naval Reserve. That is noted by the Commission on the Defence Forces as well.
To bring it on then to our national maritime strategy, one of the initial action points for the first strategy is to "Explore concept of a forward operating base on the West Coast base for the Naval Service". Everything in these studies is pointing towards the need for the west coast to be serviced by a naval base. Galway would make great sense - eminent sense, in fact - for that because it would be complemented, obviously, by the Army base at Renmore and it also has the natural infrastructure to facilitate such a development. I ask, therefore, that we start to develop the maritime strategy and that point in particular.
The Deputy is right: the Naval Service Reserve is organised across five different units. There are units in Cork, Dublin, Limerick and Waterford. The fifth unit is a technical support base, so it is not based in any specific location rather than the Naval Service HQ. If there were to be an expansion, we would be looking at other areas that currently are not covered. Again, the Deputy is right; the maritime security strategy was clear in outlining that we need to look to see if there is a need for another base from a maritime perspective. That work is already under way. I published the maritime security strategy only a few months ago. I am really ambitious that we move on as many of the actions as possible. One of those clear recommendations is that we would scope out the need or requirement for another potential naval base. As we have locations in Cork, Dublin, Limerick and Waterford, it stands to reason that we would look beyond those areas to see what we can do. While a decision has not been taken yet, I believe there is merit in the proposal the Deputy is suggesting. Obviously, we need to go through the various different processes to get to that point.
Question No. 130 taken with Written Answers.
We are moving on to Question No. 131 in the name of Deputy Murphy, who is taking it for Deputy Boyd Barrett.
Military Neutrality
Richard Boyd Barrett
Ceist:131. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Defence the discussions and communications she has had with her counterparts across Europe in relation to the potential of Ireland’s departure from the triple lock mechanism, and possible new military deployments or actions; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [43667/26]
This goes back again to the triple lock, this time on the international implications. I ask the Minister whether the new Bill would have allowed Ireland to participate in Trump's illegal war on Iran. We heard from a top civil servant, despite seeming objections from the Minister and her junior Minister at the committee, that if the triple lock was not there, Ireland could have participated in the invasion of Iraq. If the triple lock is gone, and if the Minister gets through with her Bill, will there be anything stopping her making Ireland join Trump's war in Iran?
I thank the Deputy. I would say at the outset that times have changed. We should be allowed to debate the fact that we are in a different world now from when this was first introduced. At the time when the triple lock was introduced, those who opposed its introduction said that it was going to drag us into wars; that the US, Russia, China and the permanent member states of the UN were going to drag us, through the triple lock, into all these wars in which we were going to partake; and that we would lose our neutrality. These were debates that were actually put forward at the time. That did not happen. It did not transpire. We have had decades of peacekeeping troops on the ground that have contributed to peacekeeping missions and that has been it. What is now happening is that we have the bizarre situation whereby those very countries like Russia, which is waging a war, and the USA, which is obviously actively involved on the ground - I do not dispute that - are-----
Waging a war?
-----now preventing us from continuing on these peacekeeping missions. Therefore, I do not understand or fathom how we could find ourselves in a position now where we would sit, do nothing and allow larger countries that have nothing to do with, and nor should they have anything to do with, how we deploy our troops to prevent us from continuing in missions and see us now having to come off missions that other member states are on. There are no other countries within the EU that have this position. There are no other countries that are neutral. Austria, for example, will not sign up to a military alliance in the same way that we will not, but if it is putting forward members for peacekeeping missions, it does not have to go through the same triple lock mechanism.
The Deputy asserted this evening that we are suddenly deciding out of nowhere, as a Dáil, that we are going to put forward our troops for missions that do not align with international law and are completely outside of the UN Charter. The legislation that is being proposed is very clear and specific in providing that any mission we would propose our troops for would have to align with international law and the principles of the UN Charter and that it would be a decision for this House. We are all democratically elected Members. We represent the people who voted for us, so we have a duty to make sure we reflect their views and wishes. I believe we can have that debate here without allowing an outside force that has nothing to do with anybody and that has not been democratically elected by a single person in this country to decide what we do with our peacekeeping troops.
There is something called international law. I will quote to the Minister what the Minister of State, Deputy Troy, said: "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." Does the Minister agree with the Minister of State, Deputy Troy? All the triple lock does is ensure that we can only send troops where there is a UN mandate or authorisation. That is all it does. The Minister getting rid of the triple lock is about enabling her to send troops outside of the framework of international law. That is 100% what it is about. What is interesting is that the Minister speaks about how the new Bill is going to talk about the principles of the United Nations Charter.
Will it say that we will only send troops abroad in accordance with the articles of the UN Charter? The articles of the UN Charter are very clear. The Minister can send troops abroad in self-defence, which is not covered by the triple lock, or she can do it with a UN-authorised mission, which is precisely what the triple lock states. The triple lock enshrines in Irish law international law. It states that we can only send troops in accordance with international law. The only reason to get rid of it is if the Minister wants to send troops outside of the framework of international law.
Deputy Daly wishes to come in on a supplementary.
Whatever about what was said when the triple lock was introduced, it is clear that there is great concern about it and 40% of the questions tonight, including the next question, are in relation to the triple lock. I want the Minister to outline the proposals she has to remove it. When will we see the Bill? I know the Minister has abandoned the plans for a citizens' assembly but is there a timeline? I presume there is not going to be a referendum. The Minister has no plans, certainly, for a referendum. I look around my own town and see the statues and various monuments to Crimea, the Boer War, the western front and Gallipoli. The Minister would surely agree that the triple lock has served us well. It was backed by the Irish people because it was central to convincing the electorate in the Nice II and Lisbon II referendums in that it was mentioned that it was a guarantee of neutrality. Therefore, claims of frequently vetoing or that there will be no more peacekeeping do not stand up. How many times this century has there been a block put on as a result of the veto being there? Contrary to the Minister's partners in government's plans to reform, they clearly want to abolish the triple lock.
In terms of what will be in the proposed legislation, we will have an opportunity to discuss and debate in this House on Committee Stage, as we should do, anything of significance. This is significant because it will allow us to continue a practice we have had in place for many decades. The absolute priority here is to make sure that any future deployments for operations are put forward and that they adhere not just to the principles of the UN Charter but also to international law. We are very clear. We are not going to start proposing sending troops on any other missions that do not adhere to international law and are not peacekeeping missions. There is a proposal in the legislation that would allow for UN troops and smaller numbers to be able to remove people safely from conflict zones. That is something that happens at the moment, but we need to make sure we have this included in the legislation as well. Where there will be a requirement to seek Government approval where the number of Defence Forces personnel is over a certain number, Dáil approval will still be triggered. There will still be a mechanism here in the Dáil to make sure. At the moment, the number is 12. The legislation proposes to increase this number to 50 but even at that, there will have to be engagement at the end of the year with a final report and there will be engagement with the committee through different stages. All of this can be discussed when this Bill comes to the fore.
Again, I will make a point on referendums. A referendum is to change the Constitution. What are we talking about putting in here? What we are actually talking about is amending legislation. We are not amending anything that is in our Constitution. We are talking about changing legislation that was agreed by this House many decades ago. I believe the onus is on us now, as Members of this House, to change the legislation in the same way so that we can continue doing what the legislation set out to allow us to do in the first instance and we are now being prevented from doing.
I think the Minister is deliberately being a bit disingenuous by saying that, okay, this is agreed by legislation. She does not recognise the European referendums that enshrined this. We have the Seville declaration. It is part of international law. The Minister does not recognise that the people voted on this. That is forgetting about the recent presidential election where neutrality dominated the campaign.
That is forgetting about all the opinion polls that show that people support neutrality and support the triple lock.
The Minister might enlighten us then about the circumstances where she thinks it is legal to deploy soldiers abroad that do not have UN authorisation nonetheless are in the framework of international law? What is it that she is talking about? I cannot understand because the UN Charter is very clear. It is very clear about the circumstances where you can deploy troops abroad. You can do it in self defence or you can do it when there has been a resolution by the UN Security Council or the UN General Assembly. It is clear. That is precisely what the triple lock says. What I think the Minister wants to do is say that we adhere to international law but we do what we want and then we just say that it is in line with international law. When the US engages in its imperialist adventures around the world, it always says it is in line with international law. I think Putin claims that his invasion of Ukraine is in line with international law but there is a big difference.
The Deputy is being completely disingenuous by consistently and continuously linking the triple lock with our neutrality. We were a neutral country before the triple lock was introduced. Does he accept that? We were a neutral country before the triple lock was introduced. It was introduced at a time to make sure that we could send our troops across waters to peacekeeping missions. In many instances, that is not possible so, again, does the Deputy accept that in the past two weeks alone, we have had troops who have been active on a mission in the Mediterranean who have to come home because we now no longer have a mandate. The Deputy can say it has changed and the mandates changed. Our Naval Service monitors shadow fleets across the EEZ at the moment-----
I do not think they should be in the Mediterranean.
Our Naval Service already monitors the shadow fleet so the very fact that this is now not being continued and the UN mandate is not continuing is because countries like Russia do not want us to. The Deputy is being disingenuous in saying that this is about our neutrality. There is nothing in this that impacts our neutrality. We were a neutral country before the triple lock was introduced and we will be a neutral country if and when this changes. I hope that we can change it as soon as possible.
Military Neutrality
Pa Daly
Ceist:132. Deputy Pa Daly asked the Minister for Defence if she will outline her proposals to remove the triple lock neutrality protection, when she intends to bring forward a Bill in relation to same, if there are plans to hold a referendum on the issue and if she will make a statement on the matter. [38222/26]
Louis O'Hara
Ceist:133. Deputy Louis O'Hara asked the Minister for Defence to provide an update on the planned legislation to abolish the triple lock and if she will make a statement on the matter. [43465/26]
Could the Minister to provide an update on her plans to dismantle the triple lock neutrality protection?
I propose to take Questions Nos.132 and 133 together. I am pleased to discuss this issue and to expand on some of the areas that we have elaborated on. This key legislation is a priority for me and this Government but it is important that we have an opportunity in the House not just here during Parliamentary Questions but through the legislative process to debate certain elements of this Bill. There have been a number of calls for a public plebiscite or a referendum in relation to what is being proposed in the Bill with regards to the triple lock. Again, I highlight the fact that there has been a lot of conflation as to what is actually being proposed and what is actually being suggested. The triple lock is a statutory mechanism. It is set out in the Defence (Amendment) Act 1960. It is not a constitutional mechanism and is not enshrined in our Constitution. It was a political commitment during the Nice and Lisbon treaties process. It is clear, therefore, that as I and my predecessors have stated a number of times on the floor of the House and as I have stated a number of times this evening, amending the legislation that governs how we deploy our Defence Forces overseas does not require a referendum. It does not require a national plebiscite.
We are talking about a very different time when the legislation was developed. The world has changed. The UN structure itself has changed since. It is not working. We can accept that. We all know that it is not working in the way that it should. The geopolitical environment has changed as well. We now find ourselves in a situation where one in five of the permanent members of the Security Council can decide whether or not our Irish troops can travel to engage in peacekeeping missions, be it in Lebanon, the western Balkans, the Mediterranean or any other part of the world. It is simply not acceptable to have a situation where Ireland's sovereign decision-making with regards to the participation of our peacekeeping troops in peace operations can be impacted by the geopolitical interests of other states. That is exactly what is happening. I repeat that in the past two weeks alone, our troops have had to come home from a mission on which they have been working for a number of years now and where they have been held in such high regard by their fellow defence force members and the Mediterranean Operation Irini because the UN mandate has not been renewed. This is what we are talking about. We are not talking about going off to war anywhere. We are talking about peacekeeping missions.
We are very clear that our neutrality is to be protected. We are very clear as a Government that this is not what is being impacted here. As I mentioned earlier, it has been demonstrated in a real tangible way as well through the UN Security Council resolution that underpinned the EU mission Operation Irini, which has come to an end for Irish troops but for nobody else that has been involved in that overall. We also know that this clearly illustrates the extent to which Ireland's ability to contribute to international peace and security efforts can be affected by factors outside of our control. That situation is not sustainable if we are to retain a meaningful and credible capacity to participate in international peace support operations in line with our values and I think this is in line with our own interests and the democratic will of the people of Ireland who have entrusted us as their representative. There has been extensive engagement between my Department and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel about the drafting of the Bill and it is my intention to bring this to the House. It was approved by Cabinet today that we would bring it forward for Second Stage to debate this even further and to have a wider debate with colleagues as soon as possible.
There is no doubt that this is an erosion of our military neutrality. The triple lock is something that is deeply valued by the Irish people. Opinion poll after opinion poll has shown clearly that the Irish people want to retain this protection, yet Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael are absolutely determined to get rid of it. These plans are going to endanger our neutrality, endanger our reputation on the world stage as peace builders and expose us to the rising moves towards militarisation across the EU. If the Government is so confident in its position, why will it not put it to a referendum? The Minister said that we do not have to put it to a referendum but that is not a justification in and of itself. Let the people have their say on this issue. We know why the Government is refusing to do that. It is because it knows the answer it will get from the people on this because the Irish people cherish our military neutrality and the triple lock as a core aspect of this. Removing it without putting it to the people through a referendum is an attack on our sovereignty and democracy and I just cannot understand how the Minister can justify that. How can she justify not letting the people have their say on such an important issue and a core aspect of our military neutrality?
We are seeing this happen on a number of fronts at the moment where there is a claim that Government is eroding our sovereignty and that we are allowing other people to essentially make decisions for us with the migration pact or now the triple lock. Currently, other countries, like Russia, which has been waging a war on European soil in Ukraine for almost five years - longer than World War I - could actually prevent us from keeping peacekeeping troops on missions. That is what has happened in the past two weeks alone. The Deputy says that our reputation is being endangered. We have an excellent reputation. The men I met in Rome only a few weeks ago are highly regarded because of their contribution to operations like Operation Irini and now they will no longer be able to contribute, so what is actually being eroded is our ability to contribute and to continue to be held in such high regard and the only people who are losing out are us. We are losing out and our Defence Forces personnel are losing out. Regarding our military capabilities, knowledge and experience in working with other partners, we are going to lose out if we cannot continue in these types of missions. This suggestion that we are giving away our sovereignty is completely contradictory when it is other larger military powers that are able to dictate where we send peacekeeping troops. It makes no sense to me and I think the vast majority of people to whom I speak see what it is that we are trying to do here. We are trying to make sure that we have a mechanism in place to continue what is a long and proud tradition of our peacekeepers and to ensure that we are not impacted by the decisions of others that very clearly have ulterior motives and objectives at hand.
If the triple lock protection is removed, it will be possible to deploy Irish troops to any situation at all that the Government sees fit. That is not what the Irish people want because that gives carte blanche to any future Irish Government and indeed will expose Irish Governments to significant outside pressure as well in future situations. It is a serious diminution of our neutrality. There is no doubt about that. The Minister should be working to strengthen our neutrality, ending the US use of Shannon Airport and actively opposing increased EU militarisation. Only a few years ago, Micheál Martin said the triple lock was at the core of our neutrality. What has changed since then? It is clear that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael just want to follow the EU's drum beat for increased militarisation. That is the reason for this. That is the reason for such a drastic change on the triple lock and it is shameful. Even Government TDs are opposed to this. One of the Minister's predecessors at the Department of Defence, Deputy Willie O'Dea, in response to the Taoiseach's call for a referendum on increasing the number of Ministers, said, "How about a referendum people actually want, like on the triple lock?"
Once again, the Minister is out of touch with the Irish people. She is failing to listen to people and has not been able to give any good reason this evening as to why she will not put this to the people in a referendum. That is what needs to happen in this case for such a significant decision. The Government is hiding from the people because it knows the answer it will get.
I am very happy to debate this with anybody. I am very happy to outline what is actually in the legislation. It will be published in due course. The legislation will be very clear. It will outline how we will deploy our troops for peacekeeping missions. It will outline how we will deploy them in line with UN principles and with international law. It will not allow for any other type of deployment that goes beyond those areas. It will allow for a smaller number of troops to be deployed to ensure that where our own citizens are at risk in conflict areas, they can be taken out, removed and brought home safely. Beyond that, to be very clear, nothing in this legislation will allow me, as Minister, this Government or anybody in it to decide we are going to send troops to a conflict zone to take part in a conflict. Let me be very clear that is not what this legislation is proposing. So, all of the misinformation and the attempts to suggest this is suddenly going to open us up to becoming a warmongering country is completely wrong, completely inaccurate and is trying to sow a level of misinformation that muddies the waters here.
The legislation is very clear. How do we make sure we can continue to deploy our troops in peacekeeping missions? How do we make sure that other countries - Russia, the US, China, France or the UK - do not have a say in how we deploy our troops? How do we make sure that we, as a sovereign nation, the people here, democratically elected to this Chamber, are the ones who decide, with the advice of the Defence Forces, on exactly how we deploy our troops to peacekeeping missions? That is what the focus of this legislation is. I look forward to debating it with colleagues in this House and progressing it in the weeks ahead.
Is féidir teacht ar Cheisteanna Scríofa ar www.oireachtas.ie.
Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.