I offer apologies from Deputy Ó Laoghaire. He is out with some bugs and has asked me to take his questions. Regarding the revised defence plan deadlines and so-called detailed implementation plan, it is extremely disappointing that dozens of defence spending deadlines have been significantly extended without any apparent explanation. It is embarrassing to say the least, considering that the Government announced a €1.7 billion defence spending plan only last December to much fanfare. Can the Minister explain the root cause of all these delays and how many deadlines have been extended for as long as two to three years?

I welcome the opportunity to outline and discuss the recently published detailed implementation plan of the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces and the new strategic framework I launched and brought to Cabinet last week. The plans set out the ambitious timelines I intend to set over the next year to make sure we can expand, enhance and grow our overall Defence Forces capabilities.

Of course, as is the case with any plan, it has to be matched by a capital budget. Deputies will be aware that just before Christmas I published our new capital plan, which sets out how we are going to spend €1.7 billion in capital funding on our Defence Forces. This is a 55% increase on the previous capital plan. With regard to current spending, the Defence Vote increased by €338 million, which is 40% higher than 2022, from €836 million to €1.174 billion. Such an increase means that it stands to reason that the implementation and actions we need to take will be amended, adjusted and changed over the time ahead.

This is the second detailed implementation plan. Regarding the first implementation plan, 54 of the 130 recommendations from the commission have been successfully completed. The commission recommended significant changes for the Defence Forces and defence provision in Ireland, which resulted in the approval by Government of a move to a level of ambition, LOA, 2 by 2028, as set out in the framework devised by the commission.

We all know that our security landscape and environment has changed. We can see there are more conflicts happening across the world than there have been since the Second World War. Of course, front and centre is the war in Ukraine and an invasion by Russia that has been ongoing for four years. It is not just impacting hundreds of thousands of citizens and civilians in Ukraine but us as well. The new plan, actions and expansion we are focused on will respond to these emerging and changing threats.

The most serious issue in our Defence Forces over the past 20 years has been the decline in personnel numbers and the brain drain of highly trained specialist personnel.

The core of this issue are pay, conditions and career progression. Of the 43 delayed projects, 12 are in the area of human resources and career development, while another two are to do with pay and conditions. How can we ever expect to truly solve our recruitment and retention problem if we do not address the elephant in the room, that being, we have almost destroyed a life in the Defence Forces as a viable career? Poor pay, poor conditions, poor pensions, and overtime policies in breach of the European Social Charter. When will the Government commit to getting these deadlines back on track and repair some of the damage done to the Defence Forces?

The new strategic infrastructure plan and the new strategic framework clearly set out how we can be more ambitious when it comes to increasing our overall Defence Forces numbers. Our numbers increased by 200 last year. I appreciate that this is a smaller number than we would like, but I am determined that we will continue on that trajectory right across our Defence Forces. To that effect, I am working closely with the Defence Forces to make sure we have a new workforce plan in place, but also that we have a new civilianisation plan, which I will have by the summer. It is important that we have both of these because if we want to increase our Defence Forces numbers to the level that we want to get to, it is not just about increasing the number of our Defence Forces personnel in the way we have before. We need to look at greater civilianisation and greater ways in which people can come into the Defence Forces having come from the private sector bringing different types of experience, particularly at a time when the types of threats that are changing require us to focus more on cybersecurity and cyber threats. We have to make sure we have that level of expertise where we have not perhaps seen it in the past. There are a lot of different strands of work under way to help us get to that overall target and to help us achieve those increased numbers. We have already started to see progress happen because a lot of work has been done, but I want to make sure that we can drive that progress and get to those levels as quickly as possible.

Many would say that we are going backwards rather than forwards. The Government put a plan forward but many would say that it reneged on that, particularly around pay and the poor conditions.

The Defence Forces' lack of anti-drone capability has quickly become an embarrassment to Ireland on the European stage. We had to go cap in hand to our neighbours and ask them for a dig out. Anti-drone systems were meant to have been delivered last autumn. Now, we are being told that they may not arrive until after the EU Presidency is over and the most pressing need for them over the last 12 months has passed. It is not just another missed deadline. It is a laundry list of missed and failed deadlines that sums up the Government's defence policy. Is the Government just saving the systems from wear and tear? When will the Government deliver a counter-unmanned aerial system, C-UAS? We need to secure sensitive areas. Why has it taken so long?

I have asked a number of questions. My apologies.

I am the first to say that we need to be more ambitious, but that is not to suggest that nothing has been done. In terms of human resources, recruitment and retention, we have increased the maximum ages for recruitment and retirement. We have extended the private secondary healthcare to all personnel. We have applied the working time directive across the Defence Forces, subject to certain exemptions. We have increases in the patrol duty allowances that are payable to Naval Service personnel at sea. We have extended the Naval Service tax credit. We have seen increases in pay over the years. As part of the strategic framework, we also have a clear focus on how we can support people in the Defence Forces to increase in number and be promoted throughout their careers, and on how we can do more for women in particular. There is a lot that has been done and, to use the phrase we all know, there is a lot more to do.

I have been very clear when it comes to our radar capabilities. We will have counter-drone technology by the Presidency. It is essential that we have that, and we will have it in place. When I announced the new capital plan in November, I was also very clear that we needed to bring forward our radar capacity. This is radar from land, sea and on our naval bases so that we have a complete picture of what is going on in our skies. That will be done by 2028 and that is only because we have seen the 55% increase in our overall capital budget.

I appreciate that we have to get those points, but we have a clear plan. We have timelines and know exactly who is carrying out these ambitious timelines as well. I am determined that we will be able to put these new resources and technology in place as soon as possible.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the men and women of Óglaigh na hÉireann for their commitment and professionalism in carrying out their essential duties in defending our State, serving in vital peacekeeping missions abroad and assisting our civil bodies. I had the opportunity to have my first meeting with the representative organisations, RACO and PDFORRA, in January where this issue was discussed, and I hope to have a constructive relationship with both organisations and many others during my term as Minister for Defence.

I received the report of the European Committee on Social Rights, ECSR, just last week. The report relates to Ireland's compliance, as the Deputy said, with the European Social Charter on two issues: remuneration for certain work carried out by Defence Forces personnel on public holidays; and arrangements for compensation or overtime. The ECSR rejected two other complaints that had been submitted on similar matters.

I understand that a formal resolution or recommendation on the complaints will be delivered from the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers by the end of the month. My Department and I will give careful consideration to the report, review it in the context of the decisions reached in conjunction with our EU and national obligations.

I was pleased to note that the European Committee on Social Rights also found that several positive developments had been progressed by Ireland in compliance with the charter since these particular complaints were taken, in particular the removal of the blanket exemption of members of the Defence Forces from the Organisation of Working Time Act last January. The Defence Forces has also introduced a manual system for recording hours of attendance to ensure compliance with the Act. An electronic time and attendance recording system has been procured and this will roll out later this year. For the Deputy's information, there are also provisions in place in terms of working on public holiday and compensation arrangements where personnel are required to work long or unsocial hours. When required to work on public holidays, members of the Defence Forces are compensated in accordance with the Organisation of Working Time Act. Additional or irregular hours worked by the Defence Forces are compensated through allowances and structured systems of compensatory rest.

The Minister's response sounds positive enough in its outlook. However, when this decision was made, the statement released by the Department of Defence stated:

Ireland is a signatory to the European Social Charter and is committed to upholding its principles. The State respects the role of the ECSR and the Minister will examine its conclusions in conjunction with EU and national obligations, while noting that the reports of the ECSR are not binding on respondent states.

Those last five or six words seem like a get-out clause from making good on the recommendations of the ECSR. We have had modest increases in Defence Forces numbers, but they are nowhere near where they need to be. We know from speaking to Defence Force members and potential members that pay and overall conditions are still a barrier to recruitment and retention.

That statement was merely stating the fact that the reports were not legally binding, but it is essential that we respond to the findings and work in accordance with the ECSR. That is something we are committed to.

We have responded to many of the issues raised since that complaint was made. Members of the Defence Forces are compensated for additional or irregular hours through allowances and structured systems of compensatory rest. In addition, a pensionable military service allowance, which is designed to compensate for the special disadvantages associated with military life, such as the long and unsociable hours that many of the members of our Defence Forces work, is paid to all ranks up to the level of colonel. Military service allowance is also a pensionable allowance, so instead of getting the overtime, they get the particular allowance that is in place.

I fully accept this ruling, and I am looking at what we have in place and how Defence Forces members are paid during these holiday periods. I will then examine the matter in the context of the findings of the European Committee on Social Rights to see if there is something more that we need to do. My statement was not to say that we were going to ignore the findings because we did not have a legal obligation. Of course we want to be able to respond to it. I just need to see if what we have now correlates with the committee's ruling overall.

RACO and PDFORRA were reluctant to take this case, but they felt they had no alternative. Perhaps now is the time for a reset in terms of the Department's engagement with RACO and PDFORRA and how we treat these workers, both current and potential workers. There is an awful lot of work we are going to have to do in the next months and years ahead in terms of investing in our neutrality and ensuring we have a proactive and protected neutrality. It is good to see investment in radar. It is good to see investment in a number of other areas.

However, all that will be for naught if we do not invest in the personnel who are going to underpin, manage and deliver all the systems that we need to protect our neutrality. The members of the Defence Forces who perform their duties on public holidays deserve these premiums and general overtime pay. This is a basic standard in the context workers' rights, and I hope the Minister will make good on the ECSR recommendation.

We both fully agree that we can talk about expansion, growth and enhancing our capabilities. If we do not invest in the men and women of Óglaigh na hÉireann in the context of supporting and retaining them and recruiting further members, however, we are not going to be able to deliver on the ambitious programme that we have and that we all want to work towards. It is extremely important to understand what the issues are. As I said, I had really good engagement with RACO and PDFORRA in the past two weeks. My ambition is to work with them where issues that specifically relate to the men and women they represent are identified.

A really important piece of work that has been done and that will be hugely helpful is the Value Our People survey. This is the largest survey ever undertaken in respect of Defence Forces personnel. This survey asked questions about what it is they feel supported by, what the challenges are, what the issues are and what are the main things they would like to see changed. It was not just focused on cultural change; it also focused on pay and conditions and other matters. This is the first in a series of surveys. It is very important that as we have this essential information, we take it and feed it into the work that we do and that I, as Minister, take on board some of the recommendations. We can learn from each survey. We can be more specific in our questioning and dig down into things in more detail. Again, a lot of work is happening there. It is about how we support the men and women of Óglaigh na hÉireann in the best way possible.

Storm Chandra seems like a lifetime away now. It was quite a severe storm, however, as the many flooded homes in my constituency and across the State show. Storms like this are becoming increasingly common because of climate change. We must take on board the lessons that come from these events rather than just striking them off as bad luck. Even ships at berth were not safe. Can the Minister provide an update on the damage to the LÉ Aoibhinn , the repairs needed and if she is still ready to sail?

I will take this question on behalf of the Minister. I reassure the Deputy that the regeneration of the Naval Service is one of the key priorities for the Minister and the Department. To that end, the Minister has had detailed discussions with the Chief of Staff on the need for a regeneration report on the Naval Service. The Defence Forces are working to have this report completed in the coming weeks.

In relation to recent events the Deputy mentioned, I can confirm that during Storm Chandra, the LÉ Aoibhinn suffered some damage while berthed at Dún Laoghaire harbour as a result of extreme winds. The damage is relatively minor in nature and, following an inspection, the ship was fit to return to duty. The LÉ Aoibhinn is due to return to Haulbowline to enter the dry dock for scheduled maintenance next week, where the necessary repairs to the ship will be made. I am advised that no days were lost as a result of this weather-related incident.

The LÉ Gobnait is scheduled to enter service in the third quarter of this year. I readily acknowledge that it would have been preferable to have this vessel in service much sooner. While we are all aware of the challenges the Naval Service has faced in recent years, the indications are that we are turning the dial in relation to the service as a result of increased recruitment and significant investment in capability and physical infrastructure. As a result of these initiatives, the number of patrol days completed by the Naval Service in 2025 reached 580, which is a 35% increase on 2024.

The naval authorities remain satisfied that the berth at Carlisle Pier is suitable for current needs. The Deputy might wish to note that the Department is at an advanced stage of concluding the licensing arrangements with the county council in relation to the use of Carlisle Pier for the purposes of berthing the two inshore patrol vessels whose primary function will be to patrol the east coast. In relation to the location of any future permanent forward operating base on the east coast, this has not yet been determined. Any consideration of the matter will be dependent on the recommendations emanating from the regeneration report.

I have a couple of questions. If the Minister of State cannot answer them today, I would appreciate if he could come back to us. Why has it taken so long to get from the date of delivery of the LÉ Gobnait to the point where she is ready for service? We all know that these ships were a considerable investment, but one has hardly seen any use at all. Is it possible for LÉ Gobnait to put to sea for a patrol? What would it take for both Lake-class vessels to sail into the Irish Sea? Can we conduct simultaneous operations with a Samuel Beckett-class ship in the Atlantic and a Lake-class ship in the Irish Sea? This situation also raises questions about our overall state of readiness.

If we do not have the capacity to crew two ships, then we really only have one ship at a time at a time when we are being told that the Defence Forces are under-capacity in the context of dealing with evolving threats in Europe. The Government has been woefully negligent as regards our security. The waters between Ireland and Britain are of significant strategic importance, not least due to the data cables and energy connector that run between the two islands. Are these vessels fit for service? Is there a possibility that we will see these Samuel Beckett-class ships sailing in the Atlantic?

The Deputy asked specifically about the LÉ Gobnait . That ship is scheduled to enter service in the third quarter of this year. We acknowledge that it would have been preferable to have it in service much sooner. It is the case, however, that the readiness and capability of and the activities carried out by the Naval Service have increased substantially over the past year. Work in that regard is going to continue. The Government has acknowledged that we have come from a low base of capabilities and that some capabilities were allowed to fall into abeyance over a period. That is why the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces was very important in terms of setting forth a plan for how we get from not having sufficient protection for our State and not having sufficient resources for our Defence Forces, to having what we need. We are working through that, and the implementation phase is ongoing.

I am still at a loss regarding the damage to the LÉ Gobnait . The Minister of State might come back to us again on that matter. The damage to the LÉ Aoibhinn raises questions as to whether Carlisle Pier in Dún Laoghaire is adequate or appropriate for naval use. As the saying goes, "Any port in a storm", but that did not prevent a ship from being damaged and potentially taken out of service. Maybe that could be looked at.

It may not be enough to simply take over a pier and stick up a sign saying, "Irish Navy: No Access After This Point". What precisely constitutes the forward operating base on the east coast? When will that be achieved? Why was Dún Laoghaire chosen for this purpose? Would it be possible to conduct significant repairs on damaged vessels there? For instance, if the LÉ Aoibhinn had lost some of its structural integrity, say if there was damage to the hull or something like that, could repairs be carried out without having to tow her to Cork? If we are to conduct operations on the east coast and the west coast, we need capacity to support these operations locally. Is Dún Laoghaire suitable in this regard? Had more serious damage been done, could repairs have been carried out there?

Thankfully, there was no more serious damage. The damage was minor in nature. The Naval Service remains satisfied that Carlisle Pier meets its needs. It has pointed out that the berth has recently been refitted with a modern fendering system, which should add to our ships' ability to withstand damaging impacts.

In relation to the potential use of Carlisle Pier as the new forward operating base, the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces calls for the development of an east coast base for the Naval Service. Officials are in discussions with Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council to secure berthing space in Dún Laoghaire Harbour. This is viewed as an interim arrangement pending the selection and development of a permanent forward operating base. A detailed business case would be required from the Defence Forces regarding a longer term Naval Service presence on the east coast. I anticipate that the awaited regeneration report will help in working this up in the coming months. Any decision on the location of a forward operating base would ultimately be a matter for the Government to make.

I have not been quiet regarding my concerns around the Government's intention to remove the triple lock. What I find particularly frustrating is the repeated insistence that neutrality and the triple lock have nothing to do with each other and that they are completely separate, even in light of the solemn declaration made in the aftermath of the Nice and Lisbon treaties. They are clearly interlinked from that perspective. Can the Minister provide an update on her current plans when it comes to rowing back on the need for a UN mandate for the deployment of our troops.

On timelines, the defence (amendment) Bill 2025, which relates to how deploy our Defence Forces overseas, is included in the Government's legislative programme for priority publication during the current parliamentary session.

The drafting of the Bill is continuing in conjunction with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, and publication of the Bill is a key priority for me and for the Government in this term. Only in the last few weeks, I brought to Government amendments that had been proposed by the committee and amendments which I propose to take on board. I expect to bring the Bill to Cabinet for approval as soon as is possible following the conclusion of the drafting process and subsequently progress it through the Oireachtas. I can say as well that it also includes other amendments to the Defence Act to provide for the suspension, in certain circumstances, of members of the Defence Forces, as well as other smaller matters.

The Deputy referred to the Nice and Lisbon treaties. While it is absolutely essential that we follow through on what was committed to at that time, what we have here is legislation that was self-imposed at that time as well at a very different time. I have spoken already in the Chamber of the fact that we are living in a changed world. We have more conflicts than we have had since the Second World War. We have a conflict happening on European soil. We now have hybrid threats that we have never seen before. However, we also have a changing relationship with partners when we would have never seen these changes taking place before. Never would any of us here have thought that the US would have blocked and prevented the UNIFIL mission in Lebanon from continuing in the way that it has. While the mission is continuing this year, it will end at the end of this year because a compromise had to be reached. If it did not end at the end of this year, it would have concluded last year. The vote would have gone to the UN Security Council and our troops would not be there. We are now in a situation with a country like the US where we have never seen this before, around the time of the Lisbon or Nice treaties or any other time in recent history. The idea that the US or any one of the five permanent members is able to dictate where we send our troops is not a situation in which we should be finding ourselves. If the Deputy looks at the figures, once our mission concludes in UNIFIL, we will have 85 troops on the ground in other missions.

When we talk about our Defence Forces and how important they are and the work that they do, people think first and centre of a peacekeeping mission, troops on the ground and the proud tradition we have. At the end of this year, because we cannot partake in any other missions as there are no UN mandated missions, we will have 85 members partaking in various different smaller missions and in work happening on training and in other parts across Brussels. We need to change that. We have to respond. We have to take back our sovereign right to be able to deploy our troops where we want to. It will not impact neutrality because the law would be very clear. They must be for peacekeeping missions. However, there will also still be a check where it has to go through the Oireachtas but also where it has to go through our committees as well. It is really important that we have those checks and structures in place.

The Minister mentioned the word "sovereignty" there. This is a word I have heard used many times when people talk about this UN veto and how it is a threat to our sovereignty. I find it really inappropriate, if I am honest, to talk about sovereignty in that light because there are people in Ukraine and Gaza and in conflicts across the globe whose actual sovereignty is under threat. The idea of comparing a UN veto to our troop deployment as a threat to sovereignty in the same breath as we talk about people whose actual sovereignty is under threat is just not appropriate.

What is sovereignty was the decision of the Irish people to instil in the Lisbon treaty and Nice treaty negotiations our triple lock. That was a sovereign act of this nation because it went to the people. We were offered the chance to become more entrenched in our European Union and when it went to the Irish people, they said, "Wait a minute, what about our neutrality?" Then, they said that, okay, if the Government can protect the neutrality with a triple lock then, yes, we will go for it. This time of increased global conflict is exactly what people had in mind. We knew that we were going to be pulled further into a European defence union. The Minister talked about that and compared it to the times of greater conflicts than we have seen since the Second World War. That is exactly the time that we need to double down on multilateralism and that is exactly what the Minister is walking away from by removing the triple lock and our mandate within that.

I respectfully say that we are not moving away from anything. In fact, if the Deputy talks to anybody in the UN, they will tell her that Ireland is one of the staunchest defenders of multilateralism and of the UN, whether it is peacekeeping or humanitarian work and support. We will continue to defend that but at the moment, the structure that we subscribed to is not working. At the moment, we cannot send our troops to missions because there have been no new mandated missions since 2014. In fact, there is not even a threat of a vote because they know that they are going to be pushed back on. I mentioned the UNIFIL mission. We had the mission in Macedonia and the Yugoslav republic. Because it did not have a Security Council mandate, we were not able to participate in that particular mission back in 1999. There was Operation Sophia, which was replaced by Operation Irini, which did not have a mandate until 2016. We could not join. We had the Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre, which is an international maritime intelligence centre supported by the EU, something which we should absolutely be able to join given our geographical situation. Although we are a strong supporter of the centre, because it did not have a UN mandate, we could not join this operation. We are not able to join operations we should be a part of because of something we imposed on ourselves at a time when we were living in a very different world. I want to reassure people because of this suggestion that this will impact our neutrality. We cannot be clearer; I cannot be clearer. We are a militarily neutral country sending peacekeeping troops to places where they need us most. The Deputy is right, this is at a time when the world needs our support and where they need peacekeeping troops and that focus on humanitarian support and we cannot do it. We have no ability to do it. What I want to do is change that to allow our troops to continue what is a very proud and much needed tradition.

What the Minister is not saying is the fact that the triple lock can be satisfied by the General Assembly. No Government representative I have asked to demonstrate to me how the Government has attempted to use the General Assembly has given me any kind of clarification on that. It is not happening. The Government is just looking at the UN. Nobody on the Opposition here disagrees with the fact that the UN Security Council has issues. We all see that. However, the Minister is painting a picture that is simply misleading. The Government can go to the General Assembly and it can satisfy the triple lock through that mechanism. The Government has just not bothered to try.

I just heard a few minutes ago this evening that the Trinity College Dublin, TCD, students' union has agreed a motion whereby it is putting to its entire student body a referendum to oppose the Government's plans to abolish the triple lock and actively promote anti-militarism. This is what we are asking the Minister to do because if she is so sure that the triple lock does not interfere with the deeply held tradition of neutrality in this country then please, just go to the people and ask them because that is where it came from. That is where it came from during the Nice and Lisbon negotiations, so the Minister by absolute virtue of that has to go back to the people and ask them once again if they are comfortable with what the Government is doing.

I ask the Deputy to tell me how this is actually going to impact on our neutrality because I have yet to have someone explain to me how sending peacekeeping troops is going to impact on our neutrality. We already partake in missions. We already partake in cybersecurity. We already partake in training missions. We already partake in other missions. We are not talking about an EU army. We are not talking about joining forces. We are talking about sending our peacekeeping troops. The General Assembly is not binding, so when I say that our legislation will be very clear that we must adhere to the UN Charter and international law, it is the same as putting something to an assembly that is not binding. We will comply with it, and we will have to go through the similar process where Government will have to agree. It will have to go through the Houses and for anything over 50 personnel, there will have to be very clear report to our Oireachtas committees to show them exactly why they were sent, where they were sent and to make sure that they operated within the parameters of the legislation that would be agreed to here. Again, however, I would ask the question. How does sending peacekeeping troops where there is a very clear mandate that it can only be peacekeeping and for no reason other than peacekeeping impact our neutrality when we are already doing it? This is all we are changing here. It is not who is deployed and how they are deployed. We are changing the way in which they are being deployed because at the moment, we simply cannot. I think the vast majority of people who I have spoken to who want us to continue in our peacekeeping missions see the challenges we are facing now and see the changes that have impacted our ability to do what we have always done and actually think it is a positive thing that we are making these changes.

The question will be introduced by Deputy Seán Crowe.

Again, it is the issue of the triple lock. The triple lock neutrality protection is something that is valued by Irish people. It is extremely concerning that the Cabinet would so easily approve moves to dismantle the triple lock neutrality protection on the deployment of Irish troops abroad. Most evidence points to the fact that most Irish people believe that the triple lock neutrality protection is necessary and that it is an important protection to ensure our neutrality. If it is to be dismantled, the Irish people need to know exactly how that is going to happen.

I will answer this one on behalf of the Minister. As the Minister has already set out, the defence (amendment) Bill is included in the Government legislative programme for priority publication. There are also some other amendments to the Defence Acts in the legislation. What the triple lock legislation or the defence (amendment) Bill will do is remove the requirement for the UN Security Council mandate because, quite frankly, it is almost impossible to get one and we do not know what the UN Security Council will say in terms of renewing peacekeeping mandates. Effectively, by keeping this in place, we allow members of the Security Council a veto. There are five permanent members, and each of them has a veto. That is Russia, China, France, the UK and the USA. They can veto or use the threat of a veto. In fact, as the Minister said, we have seen UNIFIL end because of, essentially, one member of the Security Council.

It is not possible either to go to the General Assembly. What is being suggested regarding the General Assembly cannot happen because it does not have responsibility for international peace and security. In any event, what Deputy Crowe is asking for is not just to give a veto to five members of the Security Council but to canvass every country on earth, including Israel and other countries, on whether Ireland can send peacekeeping troops into areas where they are required. This is something that really is untenable. We are a neutral country. We send peacekeepers. We will send them in accordance with UN law, human rights law and the honourable tradition that we have, but we will not continue in a situation where individual countries can veto our decisions of the Dáil. I should say as well that there is no suggestion that this removes our neutrality in any way whatsoever. Nothing changes the protocol to the Lisbon treaty. There is nothing in the legislation that can or will affect the protocols of the Lisbon treaty on neutrality.

I remember the Nice treaty and the Lisbon treaty and the assurances given to the Irish people at the time. I made the point that the Irish people do not trust the Government, they do not trust us and I do not think they trust the people in this Chamber. People have huge difficulties about this. The world needs more honest brokers like a neutral Ireland. We have never been a coloniser. We have never invaded another country. We are respected as peacekeepers and peacemakers. We have experienced conflict and division on our own island and we have practical experience of building peace. This is the approach and it has also allowed us to do vital work, including nuclear non-proliferation, disarmament and humanitarianism. By removing the triple lock we are signalling to the world that we are ready to cast off our neutrality and embrace the wave of militarism sweeping Europe and the rest of the world. It is not good enough that the Government would use the Irish Defence Forces as a political bargaining chip when it has singularly failed to address the serious problem with retention and recruitment that the Army, the Naval Service and the Air Corps have been experiencing for years. The problem is not with the Security Council or anyone else but that people in this House have run down the Defence Forces. This is the biggest challenge with our Defence Forces as we move forward.

We want to make sure our Defence Forces can, first of all, engage in their primary function, which is the protection of the security of the State and, when called upon, to go abroad to serve as peacekeepers, as they have honourably done. Removing the triple lock will not change this in any way. There are many neutral countries and I do not think any of them have as restrictive a law as we do. I agree with Deputy Duncan Smith who said we must protect our neutrality. I was in Switzerland last week when the subject of neutrality was very strong on the agenda. They speak about an armed neutrality. Deputy Gibney spoke about non-militarism or antimilitarism with regard to Trinity College students. We have to protect our neutrality and build up our Defence Forces. We have to make the decisions here as to what we do in terms of peace and security and the work our people do. I am very confident that we can do this. It does not affect neutrality. What was agreed in the Nice and Lisbon treaties in terms of neutrality has not changed and is not changing. In fact, it cannot be changed without a referendum of the people. That does not affect this in any way whatsoever.

Surely any decision that could lead to significant shifts in foreign and defence policy must only be considered following robust engagement with the Irish people, and we have not seen this. This is the big weakness in the Minister of State's argument. We have not seen that engagement with people. People have not had the opportunity. I have no doubt that if there were a plebiscite, the Government's proposal would be rejected. If the Government is so sure and confident of its position in relation to the Irish people, why does it not put forward a plebiscite on this? It is a simple question. Will the Minister of State give us a simple answer on it? People want to know why the Government is intent on going down this road. We remember previous elections. Fianna Fáil ran in favour of Irish neutrality and said it would not do away with the triple lock and Fine Gael was the same. What has changed?

The reason we have a constitutional amendment is if we want to change the Constitution. We are not changing the Constitution, it is simply changing legislation. What was agreed at Lisbon is still in the Constitution by virtue of the protocol to the Lisbon treaty. This does not affect it in any way. I am quite sure that whatever referendum the Government would put forward on Europe or defence, Sinn Féin would oppose it as it has opposed every one of them over the years, but what was agreed by the people in the Lisbon treaty is still there. It is still in the Lisbon treaty and, therefore, it is still in our Constitution. This is a change in legislation and a change in procedures as to how we decide and make our own decisions to send troops abroad. It is not a change in our neutrality policy and it does not affect anything. There are many paragraphs in Article 3 of the protocol to the Lisbon treaty that discuss our neutrality policy and describe it, and this does not impact on it in any way.

Any state that is serious about protecting its citizens must have a fit for purpose defence force. This is even more relevant today when threats are more real and much more varied. We are a neutral country and we are geographically located in a relatively safe location but we must not become complacent. What steps are being taken to improve the defence of our country in view of the changing geopolitical landscape?

As I referred to this evening, and Deputy Timmins has very clearly referred to it, the world we are living in is changing. The types of threats are changing and the intensity of the threats are changing. Even the relationships we have relied on to date are also changing. It is really important that we as a country respond, that we do so in a number of different ways, and that we are ambitious in our overall desire to defend ourselves and to work more closely with other European and international partners.

What I have done in recent weeks is set out two new documents. These are an implementation plan, which will continue to implement the changes that were recommended by the Commission on the Future of the Defence Forces, and a new strategic framework, which essentially sets out how we are going to increase our Defence Forces, how we are going to enhance our capabilities, how we are going work more closely with other European and international partners, and how we can protect and support the men and women of our Defence Forces and the vital work they do.

It is essential, first and foremost, that we increase the number of Defence Force personnel we have. To this effect, while we have seen significant changes in the past, we have only started to see them reflect gradually in the increase of numbers, with an increase of 200 last year. I want to make sure we continue with this trajectory, so we will have a new workforce plan, which is being worked on with the Defence Forces. We will have a new civilianisation plan, which really recognises the fact we need to make sure we have as much of a wealth of experience as possible and capacity in the overall numbers.

We also need to make sure that the people in our Defence Forces have a better ability to promote and progress their own careers. We need to ensure we have enhanced capabilities, and this is where the capital plan is essential. The plan that was announced just before Christmas is a €1.7 billion plan which, first and foremost, will specifically focus on how can enhance our radar capacity. How do we make sure we have full sight of absolutely everything that is happening in our skies, on our land and in our maritime space? This has been brought forward to the original timeline of having all of this in place by 2028, with a specific focus on the counter-drone technology we will have in place for the Presidency this year.

Threats are not just physical. They come in a variety of modes. I want to mention an aspect that I believe is very important, and this is the area of non-military threats. Examples include cyber threats. These also represent a threat to our economic interests. As the Minister knows, we are hugely dependent on reliable computer systems which underpin our economy. The whole area of disinformation is also a real security threat. We need to recruit staff with expertise in these areas. I am also particularly conscious of energy and communication threats, especially relating to maritime security. These threats are real. As we witnessed a few years ago, they can come from anywhere, including from within our own country.

I fully agree. When we talk about threats, we talk about them perhaps in a way as though they are in the future. We have already been subject to these types of changing hybrid threats. It was just five years ago when the HSE had a cyber-attack that impacted access to significant amounts of information and the functioning of the HSE and our social protection system. We have seen it already and we know it is there. This is why it is really important, whether in our Defence Forces or An Garda Síochána, that we have the enhanced capacity and personnel to be able to respond to them. We have mentioned maritime security and the fact we have thousands of cables coming across the Atlantic, through and around our maritime domain and across to Europe. We have a maritime domain seven times the size of our island. This is why in the coming weeks I will publish a new maritime security strategy. It is essential that we are able to identify what threats are happening in our seas.

It is essential that we can prioritise protecting the really important cables for all that they bring, not just data and information, but the gas pipes and everything else. It is also essential, in doing that, we work closely with more of our partners and that is where we need to focus. It does not impact our neutrality. It does not change what we are doing at home, but engaging more and having greater and enhanced co-operation with countries, whether on maritime security or on cybersecurity, is the space we need to be in. I am really ambitious that we do more in that space overall.

Is this country prepared for the threats posed by Russia to our national security? These are real threats to this country and must be taken seriously. There was an increase in Russian shadow fleet activity recently in Irish controlled waters. Our geography no longer protects us as it once did. We are very dependent on other countries to support us regarding maritime and air defences. We need to take steps to move away from these dependencies. This will actually help our independence and support our neutrality, which we treasure so much. We live in a rapidly changing world and we must respond to these changes in order to protect our way of life and our democracy which we value so much.

The maritime security strategy will ensure that we are taking ownership of what we need to do, but given the vast, expansive maritime domain we are looking at, it is important that we work closely with other colleagues and friends. It is important that we have a more permanent structure in place to be able to co-operate in that way. We are not immune to Russian threats, in the same way no other country is. We have already seen our friends, whether it is Lithuania, Denmark or Poland, have already been victims to Russian attacks in airspace through drones and through more sinister types of threats. We need to work together to be able to respond collectively. We need to identify the fact that there are new types of threats.

When it comes to the shadow fleet, this poses a threat in so many ways. Not only does the shadow fleet fund the brutal and illegal war that Russia is waging on Ukraine, but they are also a massive environmental challenge. If one of these tankers that are not seaworthy should have an accident, the implications more broadly for our seas is absolutely colossal. As I have said this week, we need to look at whatever we can to act as a deterrent and respond to the shadow fleet and many other types of threats. The vast majority of people see that we need to do more and want us to be ambitious in this regard.