Vol. 1090 No. 2
122. Deputy Barry Ward asked the Minister for Defence the position regarding any formal agreements in place with any other EU country and the UK to ensure that there are sufficient defence and security mechanisms in place during Ireland’s Presidency of the Council of the European Union; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [52705/26]
As Ireland holds the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, can the Minister outline what formal defence and security arrangements are currently in place with EU member states and the UK to ensure the appropriate security resilience and defence mechanisms are available throughout the Presidency?
As the Deputy knows, Ireland's Presidency of the Council of the European Union began on 1 July. It is a major national undertaking for many different reasons. In preparation for the Presidency, including in relation to security, there has been significant and intense work for some time across Government.
An Garda Síochána, under the auspices of the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, has primary responsibility for security for the Presidency. The Deputy may also be aware that An Garda Síochána has established a dedicated European Union Presidency co-ordination office to oversee all aspects of operational planning, logistics and inter-agency engagement because it is not just the Garda leading on this but it is obviously working very closely with a number of different bodies.
Among the roles assigned to the Defence Forces by Government is the provision of aid of the civil power which, in practice, means to assist An Garda Síochána when requested to do so. On each occasion that the support of the Defence Forces is required, An Garda Síochána requests their assistance and accordingly any security assessments and consequent decisions to seek support from the Defence Forces in terms of security provision are a matter for An Garda Síochána in the first instance and then they work closely together.
The Deputy will appreciate that I cannot comment on specific security arrangements that may be put in place and the Defence Forces cannot comment on any specific arrangements due to operational security. I can confirm, however, that the Defence Forces has stood up a joint task force to co-ordinate any Defence Forces supports to operations conducted during the EU Presidency period.
The Defence Forces have an excellent working relationship with An Garda Síochána and will continue to liaise with it in order to ensure the best supports that can be provided are provided when needed.
Separately, the Department of Defence maintains a number of bilateral and multilateral defence co-operation arrangements with partner countries, including memorandums of understanding with the United Kingdom and France. These arrangements provide frameworks for developing and furthering bilateral co-operation across a range of areas which include joint procurement, maritime security and cyber security. The maritime security strategy, launched earlier this year, particularly looks at how we can work more closely together. This is really where the Defence Forces' role comes to the fore in the maritime space where we need to make sure we have a complete picture on land and below sea as to what exactly is happening.
I agree that the maritime security strategy is a great document. One of the lessons of recent years is that threats to national security no longer come solely in conventional military forms. We have seen increasing concerns around cyberattacks, disinformation, threats to subsea cables, as referenced, attacks on critical infrastructure and vulnerabilities in our energy and communication networks.
The Presidency places Ireland at the centre of European decision-making and naturally raises our international profile. Against that backdrop, is the Minister satisfied the arrangements currently in place with our European partners and the UK are sufficient to ensure sufficient deterrence, situational awareness and resilience? Furthermore, has the experience of holding the Presidency highlighted any capability gaps that may require deeper co-operation in areas such as maritime security, cyber defence or intelligence sharing?
As the Deputy rightly said, over the past number of years, we have seen changing types of threats or challenges that we had not faced previously. Maritime security is to the fore in that regard. As a country, our maritime domain is seven times the size of our landmass. It is really important that where we have such a large number of critical subsea cables, energy infrastructure, and gas infrastructure quite literally on our seabed, we have the equipment to identify where there are risks and where there are threats and if issues emerge, how we can respond to them. That is where the Deputy will see a huge amount of our focus lie during our Presidency.
The strategy sets out how we will ensure there is a greater situational awareness of what is happening in our maritime domain. That requires investing in our capability - in our own ships, helicopters and technology and equipment - to be able to identify what is happening above and below the sea. It is about making sure we strengthen our partnerships. Of course, we will be looking to our neighbours in that regard, namely, the UK and France, but beyond that as well. There is a number of different programmes, the Joint Expeditionary Force, JEF, being one of them, which is a programme looking at maritime security for a lot of the north Atlantic countries.
Thank you, Minister.
That is something we said we are very interested in joining.
I call Deputy Callaghan.
All of this helps to build that sense of security but also helps us share our experience and mitigate some of the risks now coming to the fore.
Quite rightly, as the Minister pointed out, the Presidency has highlighted both the importance of international co-operation and the reality that Ireland cannot currently provide every aspect of its own defence and security requirements. However, let us be fair about that. There is probably no European country that can completely defend itself alone against every conceivable major threat. We are not an outlier in that regard and that is really important to note. Most European states rely on alliances for collective defence. As we look towards the next decade, does the Minister foresee a greater resilience on that structured partnership with the EU member states and with the UK in areas such as airspace security, maritime surveillance, cyber defence and critical infrastructure protection? While the Minister has outlined some specific capability gaps there in terms of increasing the number of ships and helicopters, technology, etc., does she believe that will help us become less dependent on others and more resilient in our own right? Does the Minister have a timeline for when those capability gaps can be closed?
When we talk about our security and our defence, we are talking about keeping people safe. We are also talking about protecting critical infrastructure, which could be subsea cables, the HSE and our national infrastructure, and it is then about working together to be able to respond to those threats as they emerge. That will require us working closely with other countries. That is already happening. If we even look at NATO, we are in part of 12 Partnerships for Peace, which focus on maritime security, focus on training and focus on cyber security. So, we have a lot to contribute and a lot we can do there.
When it comes to certain types of technology and certain types of equipment, there is a lot Irish companies are doing and small and medium sizes are investing in. This is something I am trying to highlight to other countries because, while we might be small and have a smaller army, we do have a lot to contribute to those spaces as well.
During our Presidency, but in particular when I came into the Department, we are bringing forward our capabilities in radar. This has come to the fore of our capital plan so we have a complete radar picture. The intention is that will be in place by 2028. That is about making sure we can see completely what is happening in our skies, on land and at sea as well. Part of that is a sonar programme that is already out to tender and is being developed. So there are a lot of capabilities we are progressing but the Deputy is right that no country can respond to threats on its own. That is why it is really important we are working closely with our nearest neighbours and also with our colleagues in the EU and beyond.
I ask the Minister to keep an eye on the time.
I am sorry.
I am trying to get in as many questions as I can. I do not want to be setting a bad example by allowing people to go over their time slots. That is why I had to ring the bell. I thought the Minister was completely ignoring me.
Apologies.
123. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Defence to list the current UN peacekeeping missions around the world for which a request for Irish participation was made by the UN authorities and the reason Ireland is not participating in them, given that the ending of Ireland's role in the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, UNDOF, and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, means that the Defence Forces have once again capacity to consider other UN missions that are in line with our neutrality. [53650/26]
Question No. 123 is in the name of Deputy Ó Snodaigh. I understand Deputy Ó Laoghaire is taking it.
We have all probably been guilty of the offence of going over time at different stages, I am sure.
Despite our disagreements in relation to the triple lock, I think the Minister and I agree that peacekeeping missions are important. They matter to the world, the communities in which they are located and the regions but they also matter to the development and progression of Defence Forces personnel. It is part of what people sign up for. There are currently 11 direct UN peacekeeping missions, with more under Chapter VIII, but this question primarily relates to the direct missions. There is now, with the ending of UNIFIL, greater capacity to consider additional UN missions in different locations across Europe, western Asia and southern Asia. Have we responded to requests from the UN?
I thank the Deputy. At the outset, I thank the men and women of Óglaigh na hÉireann for the outstanding professionalism and commitment with which they deploy, and have deployed, on UN peacekeeping missions. It is important to stress that there have been no new peacekeeping missions through the UN Security Council since 2014. That is a source of great regret for all of us. It is not operating as it should and I think we would all like to see the issues there being addressed. At the same time, though, we know exactly why there are issues and why the five permanent members, in the role they have, are contributing to this. This is the context in which any request for additional or enhanced participation by Ireland from the UN has to be understood. There is a limited number of missions. There are no new missions, so there is only so much we can partake in.
In regard to UN requests over the past ten years, in September 2019, we had 14 Defence Forces personnel deployed to a UN mission in Mali as part of a joint operation with the German armed forces. This arose from a proposal made by Ireland rather than a request from the UN. Our participation in that concluded in 2022. In December 2021, we received a request from the UN to provide members of the Defence Forces to support the United Nations Mine Action Service in Entebbe, Uganda. One Defence Forces expert is currently serving with this training initiative under this arrangement.
As of 30 June 2026, Ireland is contributing 394 Defence Forces personnel to overseas peacekeeping missions and commitments. As I mentioned earlier, 320 of those personnel are currently in UNIFIL. This will conclude in December 2026, which leaves just 74 of our personnel on other missions. We have 12 personnel deployed in an observer force in Golan in Syria. We have a number of missions in the Middle East, where we have personnel deployed. We have three personnel in the Syrian mission and 12 in the Middle East. We also have observers and staff deployed to various United Nations and Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE, missions. I can touch on what the opportunities may or may not be in my next answer.
That is important and the Minister and I share that view, much as we disagree on how it is not right to get rid of the triple lock. We have made that very clear and we think there is scope to deploy on peacekeeping missions elsewhere. We would like to see the UN and the manner in which it works reformed significantly, not just in relation to peacekeeping. There is significant scope for reform there.
I hope that there is going to be a list in the written response I receive to this question. The Minister gave a few examples. It is important that we understand the picture that is out there right across the world. There are five or six missions in Africa. Have we explored deploying to those? A lot of them are very long-standing missions, with some going back several decades and most looking as if they are there for the long term. Unfortunately, the conflict situations around those remain tense and require a peacekeeping presence. There is potential scope in those missions as well as in some of the other western and southern Asian locations.
Unfortunately, at this present time, there are no requests for us to participate in any other UN peacekeeping missions. I know that if you are not part of a mission at the outset, the scope for you to join afterwards is significantly impacted in terms of the number of personnel and the types of role you can take on.
In regard to the mission in the Middle East that I mentioned, I would be concerned about the possibility of what happened with Operation Irini and UNIFIL, where the UN mandates were not renewed, happening there. We would suddenly have 12 personnel - it is quite a small number, but still 12 personnel - who were not able to partake in the mission. There is a smaller number in Syria.
What we have at the moment are a number of posts that are filled in the UN, the EU and NATO as part of Partnership for Peace, and in the OSCE headquarters as well. There are also various training missions that we are part of, many of which are through the Common Security and Defence Policy, CSDP, so they are not UN-mandated through Security Council meetings.
At the moment, there are no requests or plans to participate in missions. The most significant mission we have is UNIFIL. That work is under way and those conversations are happening at the moment.
As I probably will not get more questions and it is my last contribution before the recess, I wish to take the opportunity to thank the staff of this institution and the Ceann Comhairle's office, who serve us so well. To be fair, I will also thank the officials of the Department of Defence for their co-operation over the course of the past year. They are not necessarily listening but I thank the officials of the Department of foreign affairs and the Minister's team on that side as well. I thank the Minister, who should be acknowledged for her co-operation at various stages.
Returning to the question, we raised this in committee with the Minister a number of weeks ago. I am concerned that all of our eggs are in the one basket but if we remove the triple lock, then we will have more options. It seems to me as if there does not seem to be a desire on the part of the Minister or her Department to explore the existing peacekeeping missions, even though there are multiples of them. I know we have small representations on some of them but there are several that we have no relationship with at this moment in time. I think there is capacity and it would be to the benefit of those locations to have experienced peacekeeping personnel, given our track record and the esteem in which we are held, and also to the benefit of our Defence Forces.
It is the case that no mission is the same, so it is also a matter for the Defence Forces to assess and scope out the mission and then to decide whether it is a mission we can partake in. A question keeps being asked about what it is we would not be able to be a part of if we were to keep the triple lock. I am concerned that the troops we have on the ground currently are going to be removed from the missions they are on, and that is what is happening. UNIFIL is now closing. It is finishing up and we have 320 troops who will have to come home. Operation Irini is still operating but because the mandated mission fell, our troops have to come home. We have 12 who are in the Middle East but that mission could very well end because it is not renewed. Those troops would have to come home, as would the three who are in Syria. For every future mission, it will depend on the type of mission, so I cannot say exactly what missions we might be able to join if we remove the triple lock. I know that our hands are tied completely at the moment by the fact that others can decide whether we stay in missions, never mind whether we go to others.
Finally, I have no doubt that my officials are listening but if they are not, I will pass on the Deputy's thanks to them as well.
The foreign affairs side as well. I am sure the Department of Defence officials are there.
124. Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú asked the Minister for Defence to report on any progress made in the investigations into the death of a Defence Forces member (details supplied) who was killed on duty in Lebanon (details supplied); when the independent post-incident inquiry will be supplied to the member’s mother; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [53962/26]
Has there been any progress in relation to the investigations into the death of Private Seán Rooney? He is still missed in Dundalk and Donegal by family, friends and comrades. I know the Minister's legal representative in Lebanon has engaged with the military tribunal. My question is also about Mr. Michael Delaney's post-incident inquiry, whether all the due diligence has been done on that, whether we can see its publication, and if it can be provided to the family.
I thank the Deputy for his continued engagement on this matter. It is appreciated and I reaffirm our shared commitment to truth and justice, not least for Private Rooney, but in particular for his family.
Unfortunately, I can confirm that there has been no change in the status of the appeal that was taken since I last addressed the matter in the Dáil. My Department's Lebanese legal representative continues to actively engage with the president of the military cassation tribunal to seek updates on its progress. We remain advised that the tribunal has not yet reached a determination. This, as the Deputy will understand, is due to judicial decisions to delay procedures because of the current conflict in Lebanon. Despite the fact that there should be a ceasefire, we know that conflict is ongoing and, unfortunately, escalating in the region. However, my officials continue to remain in close and ongoing contact with our legal representatives as we await these further developments.
I am absolutely committed to ensuring that Private Rooney’s family is kept informed on developments and it remains my intention to travel to Lebanon, where I will raise Private Rooney’s case directly with the Lebanese Government. I have spoken to officials on the phone and to my colleagues in Brussels in person but I want to meet them on the ground as well, as the Taoiseach and Tánaiste have previously done in this role.
Regarding the coroner’s inquest into the death of Private Rooney, hearings have been ongoing. To date, they have focused primarily on procedural matters. The next hearing is scheduled to take place on 22 July, and my Department and the Defence Forces are co-operating with this process in full. The coroner has scheduled the opening of the substantive inquest from 17 November.
The independent inquiry carried out by Mr. Michael Delaney SC has been completed. I thank Mr. Delaney for his work on the report. As mentioned previously, the report examined the internal tactics, techniques, processes and procedures of the Defence Forces with a view to identifying lessons arising from the circumstances surrounding Private Rooney’s death. I reviewed the report and referred it to the Office of the Attorney General for advice regarding its publication. This advice has been received and the next step essentially is that I want it to be able to be presented to the family on a limited basis so that its confidential contents can be provided in a restricted release.
I welcome that. I have spoken previously to the Minister about the necessity of providing Mr. Delaney's report on the incident to Natasha and the wider family. Whatever part of it can be published should be because it is all about learnings to ensure the safety of our peacekeepers when they operate abroad, while also providing necessary information to the family and others as regards the tragic death of Seán Rooney.
We all understand that Lebanon is going through a nightmare. The madness of the American regime and genocidal Israel needs to be called out and we need to take whatever action we can. Hopefully, we can see some movement from European partners, but we have to maintain that contact and ensure that the Lebanese authorities do not step away from the necessity of providing justice to the family of Seán Rooney.
I have reviewed the report and referred it to the Office of the Attorney General for advice regarding its publication. The advice has been received and officials in my Department are examining it. I want to ensure that we facilitate, albeit in a limited way, the release of the report to certain individuals with a material interest in its contents on a confidential basis. This, of course, includes Private Rooney's family. I hope to meet the family again in the next couple of weeks. We will work towards that. I want to be clear that I want the family to receive it, but there is a legal side to it as well.
The Deputy is right. Irrespective of what is happening in Lebanon, we need to make sure that we continue to engage. Under Lebanese law, an appeal can be made on the grounds of an omission, an essential formality or a fault in the application, and this is the ground under which the appeal has been taken. Our Lebanese legal representative will continue to engage with the newly appointed military cassation president and is maintaining direct contact with my Department. Despite the fact that conflict is ongoing, we are in constant engagement so that we receive any further update immediately.
We need to ensure that the engagement with Lebanon is ongoing. Are we happy with the interaction with the UN? There had been some issues relating to the coroner's court. Everyone needs to do everything that can be done to ensure truth and justice for the family of Private Seán Rooney.
Does the Minister have any idea of the timeline for the family to see Mr. Delaney's report? I am working on the basis that it will be provided to a number of stakeholders beyond them but will not be published.
I take this opportunity to thank the Ceann Comhairle, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and the staff of Leinster House for those occasional periods when we actually get things done for people. More of it should happen. At this time, I usually also make apologies for any nuisance that I have caused. I know that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will not believe that is true in any way.
A welcome apology.
I would like to think that we get a lot of things done, but I acknowledge the Deputy's work as well.
I appreciate that the outcome of the criminal trial was somewhat disappointing for the family. Given that we now have the appeal and it is dragging on as well is very difficult for the family. This has been exacerbated by the fact that the conflict is making it very difficult for authorities and other elements to function in an appropriate and normal way throughout what has been an appalling attack on innocent civilians who have been caught up again in the wider conflict in the Middle East. From a wider perspective, our focus is on trying to bring the ongoing conflict to an end. In this case, our focus remains steadfast on finding peace and justice for Private Rooney and his family. There will be a limited release of the report but, importantly, the family will have it.
What is the timeline?
I cannot give the Deputy an exact timeline but it has gone to the Attorney General and has come back, so I should be able to engage with the family soon.
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]
140. 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]
157. 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]
185. 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]
I 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.
