For clarity, I am going to go with Questions Nos. 7 and 55 together. The Government's intention is to change legislation to the triple lock mechanism that governs the deployment of Irish troops overseas. At present, as the Tánaiste knows, that requires the approval of the Government, the Dáil and a mandate from the United Nations. Could he clarify precisely what changes are now being proposed, and outline if this will materially affect both Ireland's tradition of neutrality and the democratic safeguards that have existed up to this point?

Does Deputy McGettigan want to add to that quickly?

No.

Deputy Murphy, quickly.

I will bluntly ask this question of the Tánaiste. Where does he want to send troops that he cannot currently send them under the triple lock? Does he agree with the Taoiseach, Deputy Micheál Martin, and the call of the so-called coalition of the willing, where he is willing to send Irish troops on the ground, presumably without an agreed UN peacekeeping mission? Otherwise, that would meet the requirements of the triple lock. Where does the Tánaiste want to send troops that he cannot currently send them?

I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 11, 12, 39 and 55 together. There is a very fair question on this later. The deployment of any troops to Ukraine would have to be in the context of a peace agreement. We are not talking about sending our troops to a warzone or a place where there is an active war. It would only be in the context of a peace agreement. I do not believe we should recuse ourselves from that conversation. Our peacekeepers serve with absolute distinction. I am open to considering their being sent on a peacekeeping mission to Ukraine, if there was peace. However, all the talk about peace is happening while Putin continues his reign of terror. We might return to that in a moment.

I thank Deputy Clendennen for his questions. I previously clarified my intentions with regard to the proposed amendments to legislation governing the overseas deployment of the Defence Forces in the proposed defence (amendment) Bill. This was agreed by Cabinet on 4 March this year. As I mentioned, the pre-legislative scrutiny process which provided an Oireachtas all-party committee with the opportunity to examine the heads of the Bill and to consult directly with stakeholders on the draft heads of the Bill, was completed at the end of July. I thank the committee for its work. My Department is examining the committee’s report on the matter. We will give serious consideration to the recommendations the committee has put forward, some of which are very sensible.

Under the current proposals in the general scheme to amend the existing legislation, the requirement for a UN mandate will be removed. I wish to underline that the legislation in place currently allows members of the UN Security Council, by means of a veto or often a threat of a veto, to bind Ireland's hands in its international engagement. The veto by a UN Security Council member on a proposed resolution for a full and unconditional ceasefire in Gaza on 4 June last is further evidence of this and it is simply untenable for the Government to continue with this policy.

I strongly believe therefore that such considerations on international engagement should be within our sovereign control and the decision making should remain within the remit of the Government and the Dáil, which have been democratically elected by the people of Ireland.

I recognise, however, that in removing the UN Security Council mandate requirement, alternative safeguards are needed to underpin the future despatch of Defence Forces personnel. I am genuinely up for having a detailed discussion on this when we produce the full Bill and, therefore, in parallel to removing the UN mandate requirement, I have proposed that the governing principles will be included in law and will be underpinned in primary legislation. These have been proposed in the Bill I published. It will require that the mandate of these operations must be consistent with and must adhere to the principles of the UN Charter and international law. These principles are being refined further to ensure appropriate legal effect as part of the drafting process. I say on the record of the House that I am open to considering whether they need to be tightened further or whether other structures need to be put in place because we owe it to any Irish peacekeepers and want to make sure they are deployed on a peacekeeping mission only in line with UN Charter and in line with international law. That is this country's record of peacekeeping.

As I mentioned earlier, it is my intention is to bring this Bill to the Government in the coming months. The speed at which that Bill progresses is a matter for the Oireachtas. I hope to commence discussion on the Bill this year. There will be plenty of time, as there needs to be, to debate the draft legislation in the Dáil and the Seanad, and ample opportunity to scrutinise the proposals at each stage.

Concerning the role of the UN General Assembly, the UN Charter unequivocally sets out the primacy of the UN Security Council with regard to all matters relating to international peace and security. While the General Assembly can make recommendations to member states, resolutions of the General Assembly cannot compel action. The charter is clear on that. Ultimately, while the UN General Assembly can make recommendations to member states, under the UN Charter the Security Council alone has the power to take decisions which member states are obliged to implement. In practice, therefore, UN peacekeeping operations are only ever deployed on the basis of mandates from the UN Security Council and overseas deployments to peacekeeping operations involving the Defence Forces has only ever taken place on the basis of that Security Council mandate.

Finally, as I have outlined and I wish to continue to stress, the Government has been clear that it has no desire to alter Ireland’s policy on military neutrality and the amendments proposed will do nothing to change Ireland’s traditional position of military neutrality, which is characterised by Ireland's non-participation in any military alliance. Our engagement overseas will continue to be firmly and exclusively grounded in the principles of the UN Charter and of international law.

I thank the Tánaiste for the details and for providing repeated clarity on the proposed changes. Many people seem to remain unclear as to why the Government believes it necessary to move away from the existing triple lock. The cynic in me questions whether there is a co-ordinated campaign of misinformation in relation to this matter-----

Yes.

-----claiming it will compromise our neutrality. I wonder where that comes from.

There is, it comes from the Government-----

Deputy Murphy-----

Will the Deputy let me speak?

Deputy Murphy, allow the Deputy to speak.

The Deputy asked a question and I am answering it.

I think he meant it in a different way.

Many believe the triple lock has provided a clear reassurance to the Irish people that our participation overseas is grounded in neutrality and a UN mandate. However, in an ever-increasingly precarious and uncertain world, we should not find ourselves in a position where the likes of peacekeeping missions by Irish troops could be vetoed by UN member states.

There has been mention of Ukraine and in practical terms when a ceasefire and peace agreement is eventually reached there, hopefully sooner rather than later, we should not be at the mercy of countries that have built reputations on vetoes at the UN Security Council and essentially prevented deployment of Irish troops on such peacekeeping missions. Domestically, it is important that this legislation ensures that future overseas deployments continue to have broad political legitimacy and I ask for that reassurance today.

I support the triple lock and want it retained. The vast majority of us do not want Irish troops to serve anywhere unless it is as peacekeepers under the auspices of the UN. Opinion polls have consistently shown that. It was enacted to reassure the voters of the State that we would not become involved in an EU army, NATO or any other military alliances. The Government is now clearly determined to abandon the reassurances given to the people. Our military neutrality is already being undermined by the use of Shannon international airport in my hometown as a US military stopover point. That must stop. We want to see ethical investment in Shannon, not a continuation or increase in its use as a military airport. The Minister for Health also said that we have given away our decision making because we cannot trust ourselves. The fact is the Government had to reassure the people that there would be checks and balances on decision making because the people do not trust it. The Government does not want an independent foreign policy but the ability to sign us up to military alliances in which our decision making truly will be abandoned.

In answer to Deputy Clendennen's question, there is a cynical campaign of misinformation. It is coming from the Government. It is suggesting that we are going to get rid of the triple lock but there is no need to worry because we are going to stay within the framework of the UN Charter. That is not honest, unless the Tánaiste does not understand the UN Charter. There are two circumstances under the charter whereby a country can legally, under international law, send troops abroad: the first is self-defence, which is not covered by the triple lock, and the second is where it is authorised by the UN Security Council. That is literally what Article 53 states. When the Tánaiste said we are going to get rid of the triple lock but do not worry because we will stay in the UN Charter, it does not make any sense. For example, in the context of Ukraine, the Tánaiste said we will send troops to Ukraine but only in the context of a peacekeeping agreement. Is that a UN-endorsed peacekeeping agreement? In that case it would meet the requirements of the triple lock. However, if it is not, in which case presumably it is not a peacekeeping agreement when one of the warring parties, Russia, the invader, is clearly still at war, then we are sending troops to participate in a conflict. Is this why the Tánaiste in his answer regarding the heads of the Bill referred to maintaining the principles of the UN Charter?

I thank the Deputy.

That is not accidental because he is talking about the vague, broad principles in Article 2 of the UN Charter in contrast to giving a commitment to stay within the articles of the UN Charter, which are exactly the same as the triple lock.

To be clear on this Ukraine issue - I never wished to accuse the Deputy of this but there is an effort to be a bit mischievous here - there is no question whatsoever of Irish troops being deployed to a war or playing any role in anything other than peacekeeping. We live on the Continent of Europe and I believe we have an obligation to assist in peacekeeping on our Continent should that situation arise. It is beyond an abstract conversation at the moment because there is no indication at all that Putin wishes to see anything like peace as he continues to invade EU airspace in terms of the drones in Romania and Poland, and indeed continue to terrorise the civilian population. However, if we get to a moment where there is a peace agreement that requires peacekeepers, why would we not consider at that moment deploying our troops?

Why would we not? Because of vetos-----

It is possible in that scenario that the UN Security Council, because Russia is on it, would agree. The Deputy does not know that and I do not know that. However, it is also possible, in answer to Deputy Clendennen's question, that we could see a scenario more broadly - and I am not talking about Ukraine - where EU countries may wish to deploy peacekeepers, where the OSCE may wish to deploy peacekeepers or where there may be regional requests for peacekeeping missions that do not have the support of Russia, China or of the US for economic reasons or whatever else. I do not see what the difficulty with that is because-----

They are not-----

I accept the point the Deputy is making on the UN Charter's reference to the UN Security Council.

However, I think the principles of the UN Charter matter. I am happy to tease out that legislation. It may suit Members to try to divide us further on this issue but what we are trying to do is a modest proposal. We are trying to produce primary legislation that makes it clear we are only interested in deploying our troops for peacekeeping missions and the other maritime surveillance missions that we already know about. How do we do that in a way that works in a world where the UN Security Council is not functioning as we would wish it to function? That is the debate we are having. We are not having a debate about neutrality, NATO membership or sending our sons or daughters to war, or any of the hyperbole I have heard. If we can have a debate that is focused on what we are trying to achieve, we could, heaven forbid, do a good day's work in this place by productively taking forward an issue that supports the men and women of Óglaigh na hÉireann and ensures we can stay true to our values.

That phrase, "international law", is also important. We will only participate in anything in line with the principles of the UN Charter and international law. I fully agree with Deputy McGettigan that the Irish people value neutrality; so do I. However, I do not agree that the majority of people wish to see the retention of the triple lock. I have seen no evidence of that. Insofar as one can follow polling, a significant majority of people are open to changes to the triple lock. That is a matter for discussion.

We are already involved in training missions, for example, EUMAM, through which we are helping to train Ukrainians. We should also do that for the Lebanese armed forces. Why can we not work with our neighbours, friends and allies on peacekeeping missions without needing Vladimir Putin's permission?

I thank the Tánaiste. Irish troops have served with distinction at Camp Shamrock for several decades, none more than Deputy Callaghan who has just departed the Chamber. We have a proud and unbroken record of deployment of troops to Lebanon. We must protect that in the best interests of Óglaigh na hÉireann as our only full-scale peacekeeping mission in the world today.

We must reiterate the point that this debate is about the opportunity for the deployment of peacekeeping missions around the world and removing that element of UN authorisation will not be seen as a weakening of our international neutrality at a time when investment in military defences is increasingly important. I commend the Tánaiste's work in this area. It is important that he has given reassurance to the public that military offence is categorically not on the agenda. We must reassure the public that Ireland will never drift into overseas military operations that have some level of EU backing without them being in compliance with the UN Charter.

Sinn Féin supports investing in our military, air force and naval services to overcome the chronic neglect they have suffered under this and previous Governments. We are not a major military power and should not strive to become one. Our standing in the world should rest firmly on our neutrality and independence. We should seek to assert influence from that basis. Any military spending in excess of what is absolutely necessary will produce profits for arms manufacturers at the expense of the people of Ireland. We are suffering through a housing crisis and the last thing we can afford is the military adventurism of this Government. Sinn Féin in government would hold a referendum to enshrine our neutrality in the Constitution. Why has the Government not agreed to do the same? Clearly, it is because the Government knows that the people would vote against it. The Government knows it is in defiance of the will of the people. We will oppose any attempt to undermine the triple lock by this Government.

We are getting somewhere here. The Tánaiste accepted that the point of getting rid of the triple lock is to be able to send troops outside of the framework of the UN Charter - not just outside the principles but outside the articles of the UN Charter, which govern international law in respect of where troops can be sent abroad. That is the reason to get rid of the triple lock. The Tánaiste may say that we are only ever going to send troops on missions that are called peacekeeping missions. Does he know what Putin called his invasion of Ukraine? He said it was a peacekeeping mission. When the US led the invasion of Iraq, it was for humanitarian and democratic reasons. When the US invaded Afghanistan, it was the same. These days, no country ever says it is doing something for its own imperialist interests. Countries always dress it up as peacekeeping.

The top civil servant in the Tánaiste's Department admitted to me at a committee meeting that if it were not for the triple lock, Irish troops could have been sent to participate in the invasion of Iraq. The Tánaiste's political commitment that we will only send troops on peacekeeping missions is not worth anything under this Government. The Government will be gone at a certain point and we will have new governments. If we get rid of the triple lock, there will be no legal requirement that we will be within the framework of international law.

I will raise three points. I have made most of my primary arguments but I have three matters to clarify. I am not specifically addressing Deputy Clendennen, but there has been talk of misinformation. Some Government Deputies have tried to say that the issue of the triple lock has nothing to do with neutrality. The idea that the legislation that references how Irish troops are deployed outside the State as part of international forces has nothing to do with neutrality is quite a statement. It is a remarkable suggestion that it has nothing to do with neutrality.

My second point relates to where we send Irish troops on peacekeeping missions. It is important that we find other peacekeeping missions. It is important in terms of our standing internationally and the development of our Defence Forces. Irish troops currently participate in three of 11 peacekeeping missions. There are plenty of other peacekeeping missions to participate in.

The Tánaiste referenced the Fine Gael manifesto. Certainly the Fianna Fáil manifesto was silent. I had to go back and check whether there was reference to the triple lock or legislation of that kind in the Fine Gael manifesto. There was no such reference in the manifesto. I looked at it and there is no reference in the manifesto to removing the triple lock or legislation of any kind. The Tánaiste can look at it again if he has forgotten what was in it.

I thank the Deputy for reading the manifesto. We made it clear, and I recall making it clear, during the general election, but I appreciate the Deputy reading the manifesto. I closely read the Sinn Féin manifesto.

I have quite a few things to say. To Deputy Clendennen's point, we should acknowledge the men and women serving at Camp Shamrock. We all do so, and that is an important point. It has been a difficult period for them because of the region in which they have been serving. They have been dealing with the horrific murder of Private Seán Rooney. We continue to fight for justice and work with his mum, Natasha, in that regard. There has also been all the debate about whether there will be a renewal of the mandate and all the uncertainty of that. Throughout all of that, they have served with distinction. I know that point unites us.

The idea of Ireland becoming a major military power or engaging in military adventurism is at such a remove from the reality. We are spending so little on defence relative to other countries. We are trying to get to a level whereby we can protect our undersea cables and have a better idea of what goes on in our skies. Even when we get to LOA 2 or LOA 3, we will not be spending like a military power or any country that wishes to be a military power. That is not what we wish to be at all. We wish to be a country that can keep itself and its people safe, has a better idea of what goes on in our sea and skies and plays a role in peacekeeping. That is what we want to do.

I always find it hard to agree with Deputy Murphy, but I agree that this Government will be gone at some point and there will be a new government. I take the point about how political commitments translate into primary legislation. It is a fair point. I ask the Deputy to bring forward proposals, as I am sure he will. Let us tease it through. We are going to change the triple lock. That is our proposal as a Government. We are going to bring forward proposals to this House. We have published a general scheme. It has been scrutinised by the Oireachtas committee. Some good ideas have come back from that cross-party committee, on which I am reflecting. There is an openness from me and the Government to further strengthen commitments around the UN Charter. I ask the Deputy to bring forward proposals in that regard. If the Opposition's approach is to say, "No, nay, never, we will not talk to you about it and will just vote you down", that is grand, but it is not the most constructive way to try to engage in the legislation that we have a duty to try to get right.

What is going on in Gaza is a genocide. We agree on that point. We were one of the first countries, certainly in Europe, to call it a genocide. The UN independent inquiry now agrees. I often hear from people who support the triple lock that they want Ireland to be able to assist more in Gaza. I have even heard people ask if our military or Air Corps could become involved. None of that can happen under the triple lock. We must try to look at the situation. Do Deputies believe there will be, whether through unanimity or not, a veto in respect of Gaza and the two-state solution at the UN Security Council? I do not believe that.

What about Ukraine and peacekeeping? There are real issues here that are going to come to the fore in the time ahead. We must have legislation whereby Ireland remains militarily neutral and unaligned, but which also provides some degree of flexibility in the countries and parts of the world to which we deploy peacekeepers to reflect and advance our values.

My question concerns an issue with which the Tánaiste will be familiar, that is, the urgent need to build resilience in our national systems in line with EU regulations. I am asking for an update on the development of a national strategy for the resilience of critical entities.

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. The critical entities resilience, CER, directive is part of the European Union-wide effort to increase the resilience of essential services that provide vital societal functions in all member states of the European Union. My Department has transposed this directive by way of the resilience of critical entities regulations 2024. I am pleased that Ireland was among the first member states to transpose the directive on time.

The regulations apply to 11 essential services in different sectors of the economy, ranging from the energy and transport sectors through to large-scale food production, processing and distribution. Essentially the purpose of the regulations is to create a framework to ensure that critical entities are able to prevent, resist, absorb and recover from disruptive incidents, whether they are caused by natural hazards, accidents, terrorism, insider threats or public health emergencies.

My Department conducted an extensive engagement programme with relevant policy Departments, bilaterally and through the Government task force on emergency planning since 2021. This was done for negotiations on the directive and also the subsequent transposition of the directive into Irish law. Since the transposition last year, engagement has continued in order to develop our resilience of critical entities strategy. This is a key element of the new regulatory framework. The strategy will lay out the framework for the identification of critical entities in the essential service sectors in the State, and the specific obligations and resilience-enhancement measures required from each of the critical entities. The strategy will also outline a mechanism for information-sharing and developing a collaborative public and private approach to the resilience of the essential services.

My Department is currently in consultation with all competent authorities and relevant Departments and agencies for each sector to develop a strategy for the resilience of critical entities, which is to be published in 2026 in line with requirements of the directive. Step 1 was to negotiate the directive and step 2 was to transpose it. We were one of the first countries in Europe to do that. Under step 3, under the transposition, you need to produce a strategy, by 2026. I am pleased to say we are on track to do that.

It is good to hear that Ireland is leading out when it comes to the transposition of the regulations. Disruptive incidents, whether caused by national hazards or malicious actors, have the potential to inflict immense damage on Ireland. We saw what happened with Storm Éowyn and the damage it did to communities across Ireland, but we also saw the real value of EU solidarity. The EU civil protection mechanism kicked in, with 13 power generators from the Commission’s reserve and four generators from Denmark, to help to provide electricity on the ground. Then Copernicus was activated, supplying analytical support to our national authorities. Of course, there was also good co-operation between the energy companies internationally, providing boots on the ground in the form of crews. This sort of co-operation is a core strength of the European Union. Sharing information, conducting joint risk assessments and participating in advisory missions will be central to safeguarding critical infrastructure in Europe.

The Tánaiste might just comment in a little more detail on steps 2 and 3 in terms of the transposition.

I thank Deputy Ó Muirí. I agree with everything he said. To state the obvious, it is true that we are all living in a world that is becoming so much more interdependent. That is why it is right that Europe leads on this in demanding that all member states put in place plans but also learn from each other in relation to this.

To expand a little more, the strategy will set out our national approach, our strategic objectives and the priorities for the improvement of our resilience across each of the critical entities. I am very proud of how our country endeavours to respond when something goes wrong, but I am also very conscious that we need to do better and, each time, build up a greater level of resilience, preparedness, planning and co-ordination regarding future events. The strategy will outline where the strategic objectives are, but it will also outline very clearly, in respect of each sector that is a critical entity, what the priority projects for improvements are. The strategy will be issued under the auspices of the Government task force on emergency planning, which I chair, and will meet the requirements of the regulation.

This strategy will build on our established national risk-assessment methodology to meet the requirements of the regulation, including identifying our essential services and establishing a governance framework. I am out of time but I can send the Deputy more information.

I thank the Tánaiste. The programme for Government was mentioned earlier. It rightly highlights the need to strengthen national security to protect Irish citizens, maintain public order and ensure the safety of communities in Ireland. We all hear about and are aware of reports of foreign actors probing underseas communications, energy infrastructure and other installations. While we hope our preparations are never tested, we cannot afford to be caught on the back foot when it comes to the national security of critical facilities and infrastructure like that in question. This is why the State-led strategic gas reserve, for example, is so important. That must also be dealt with on a secure basis and put on a secure footing. Ireland cannot allow itself to be in a position where large parts of the country are left without energy for weeks on end because of either an incident or, more worrying, malicious acts of other entities. Failing to deliver the floating storage unit is a risk that is neither acceptable nor appropriate for the Government to take. We must follow through on commitments outlined in the programme for Government, building the capacity to respond swiftly and effectively to emerging threats to our daily lives in co-operation with our European partners. It is an essential investment in the future safety and security of generations.

I agree with that 100%. I fully support swift progress on the programme for Government commitments on this. For far too long, politics here has been prisoner to ideology rather than the obligations we have as a Government and Oireachtas to make sure key services, including the provision of energy, an absolutely vital component, can continue in a whole variety of situations. I assure the House that while we obviously do not discuss these matters in detail, a lot of work goes on in the background on responding to various threats and challenges that our country, or indeed any country, could encounter in relation to contingency planning. One of the decisions this new Government took was the establishment of a national security council, which co-ordinates at a senior level of government – with me, the Taoiseach and one or two other Ministers in key positions, along with the Chief of Staff, the Garda Commissioner and others – on the various issues in relation to our national security.

This will be an important step. We have been publishing our national risk assessment for quite a number of years. This takes it to the next level, outlining the specific actions each of our critical entity sectors will take.

The contribution of our Defence Forces, both at home and abroad, is undoubtedly a source of incredible pride for us as Irish people. Could the Tánaiste please outline the plans to further support our veterans of the Defence Forces? I notice that in the programme for Government, there are plans to establish a properly resourced office for veteran affairs.

I thank Deputy Keogh for raising this issue. This is an area I want us to do so much better on. There is already good work done in relation to veterans. I am very pleased that my Department provides funding to a number of veteran associations. I have met and visited them. How we support, acknowledge and recognise the role of men and women who served in Óglaigh na hÉireann, at home and abroad, is really important. I fully agree with Deputy Keogh on this.

There is a firm commitment in the programme for Government to establish a dedicated office for veteran affairs, and I have instructed my Department to expedite the establishment of this office. I see an office of veteran affairs as playing a really important role in becoming, effectively, a one-stop shop where our veterans can seek support, co-ordination and information regarding a range of supports. I see a cross-government element to how this works. I refer to an office of veteran affairs that can advocate within the system, across Departments and agencies, on various issues relating to veterans, including health, social protection and housing.

I am very conscious that we can learn from other countries on this. I am pleased to say that, in the first instance, we are going to set up a dedicated office for veteran affairs. I want to get that up and running very quickly. It will have to evolve and grow, but it is important that it be established. I will very much work with Deputy Keogh and other Deputies on this.

I recognise the outstanding contribution made to the State by our ex-service personnel. In this regard, the Defence Forces will be hosting Veterans Day in McKee Barracks on 29 September. I recently visited the Organisation of National Ex-Service Personnel, ONE, in Brú na bhFiann in Smithfield and I was very impressed with its facilities and the work it does there.

In addition to the payment of over €300 million on pensions to over 13,000 ex-service personnel and their dependants, my Department provides support to two recognised veteran associations. These associations, which represent all former personnel, are the Irish United Nations Veterans Association and ONE.

My officials and I regularly meet these recognised veterans associations, as well as the Association of Retired Commissioned Officers and the Retired Enlisted Members Association, to discuss matters of concern to their members. My Department now has service level agreements with IUNVA and ONE, under which an annual grant is paid to both organisations in order to assist with their administrative overheads. I am pleased these grants increased substantially in 2022, and they have also been increased again this year. As a further means of assistance, since 2021 my Department has been securing dormant accounts funding to assist both organisations with specific projects.

The 2025 programme for Government commits to establishing a dedicated office of veterans affairs. It will be based in my Department. I intend to see this office established as a matter of priority.

I thank the Tánaiste. Could I take ten seconds of my one minute to thank his Department and our ambassadors for the work they did on getting Gena Heraty and other hostages released from Haiti? It is much appreciated.

I acknowledge the tremendous work done by the organisations the Tánaiste mentioned, including ONE, the Association of Retired Commissioned Officers and the Irish United Nations Veterans Association. It is great to hear there is cross-government work to get the veteran affairs office established but we need clear timelines because our veterans have worked in really challenging circumstances.

They come home and transition into work life with patchy mental health supports. We know there is an increased risk of homelessness. I also think of Private Billy Kedian, whose family waited over two decades for him to be posthumously awarded the distinguished service medal with honour. We need a robust support for our veterans.

I thank the Deputy for mentioning Gena Heraty. It gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to her. I had the honour of speaking to her on the phone a while back. She is the closest thing I have ever encountered to a living saint. In Westport, County Mayo, and right across Ireland, there is great relief that Gena has been released from captivity. I thank her for the incredible work she does. I think of her family, who went through such a torrid time, but I am really glad Gena is doing well. I send her my very best.

The office of veterans' affairs is an important recommendation. It was included in the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces. We put it in our programme for Government. I have made it a priority that we get it up and running. We are consulting with the veteran associations to get it established as quickly as possible. I want to see it established in some form this year. We need to consider its role, responsibility and the required resources, but we should get it up and running, even if we get it up and running and then have to grow it in the time ahead. To date, consultation meetings have been held with ONE and the Association of Retired Commissioned Officers, ARCO. We are scheduling meetings with the other two representative associations I mentioned.

The Deputy mentioned the specific issue of mental health supports to veterans. This is an important point. As with other members of society, former members of the Permanent Defence Force can, of course, experience difficulties. They can often find themselves in unique circumstances relative to the rest of our population. In such circumstances, there is access to supports, including through ONE, an organisation we fund. It has services, including critical incident stress management services. There is a 24-hour confidential counselling, referral and support helpline and primary medical care from a dedicated team of Defence Forces medical officers and contracted civilian GPs, but there is much more we need to do in this area.

Other countries have done a lot in this space. Many countries have a dedicated minister of state for veteran affairs. That is a natural progression we should see over time, with a greater focus on the work done by the men and women who have served on peacekeeping missions. The establishment of this office is an important step. It is a priority. I expect good progress on it this year and to build on it in 2026.

I acknowledge the good work that is being done, but there are some veterans who are still falling between the cracks in relation to waiting lists for mental health services and the risks of homelessness. I think of the potential end of the UNIFIL mission in Lebanon. When our troops return home, they are transitioning from a highly structured environment with a very close community, to other work and back into their families. We have to step up to the plate to ensure we are giving them adequate mental health supports and adequate financial supports. The Tánaiste mentioned the €300 million pot for pensions, but there needs to be that co-ordinated, efficient, robust support so we ensure none of our veterans fall between the cracks and we reward them for the service they have given to the country.

I fully agree. You are entirely right. If I felt everything was perfect, I would not passionately believe we need to establish the office of veteran affairs. The Deputy is entirely right. There is a need for a greater sustained focus and co-ordination on the range of issues veterans can experience in the here and now, as the Deputy said, immediately after leaving the Defence Forces and returning from a mission, but also years down the road. We have a duty to them after their service to our country.

On the issue of housing, I was very impressed by the work being done by the organisation ONE, when I visited it in Smithfield, where housing options are provided for people who have served as veterans and who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. It has very exciting plans to further expand the number of locations across the country, which my Department and other Departments are endeavouring to try to assist them with now.

This is an area where we are in a better place as a country in our awareness of veterans and the supports that are there than we were a number of years ago. There is still a journey to go. If we can establish an office of veterans' affairs, that will in and of itself mean a lot to people because it is recognition. It will be a very public statement of recognition for anybody who has served that we see them, hear them, want to work with them, have their back, want to better co-ordinate how we support them and thank them for their service. That is why it is a priority to establish this. I will certainly keep in close contact with the Deputy on it.

Obviously, we remember the sacrifice of Seán Rooney. We also remember the case where Joshua Phelan, Nathan Bryan and Shane Kearney were injured. We are all absolutely shocked by Mohammad Ayyad not being there in court and by the pitiful sentences. These are being re-examined and there is a promise, to some degree, of more action. What have the Tánaiste's engagements been with the Lebanese authorities? Is there any news about where Mohammad Ayyad is? Is there any follow-up on where those cases are?

I thank the Deputy, who rightly raises this issue with me regularly. It is important we continue to keep the focus and pressure in terms of justice on these matters.

Since the events of 14 December 2022, in which Private Seán Rooney was killed, and Trooper Shane Kearney and other personnel from the 121st Battalion were injured, the Government has consistently expressed determination that all of the facts and circumstances of the incident be fully established and that no stone be left unturned to ensure those responsible are brought to justice. Both I and my officials have consistently raised this matter with the Lebanese authorities on a regular basis. I assure the Deputy and the House we will continue to do so. I can also confirm there has been sustained and constructive engagement with the UN Secretariat on this matter over the past two and a half years through Ireland’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations in New York.

The last hearing of the trial was held on 28 July. My officials, members of the Defence Forces, Ireland’s ambassador and our honorary consul to Lebanon, and the Department’s Lebanese lawyer all attended the hearing along with a member of Private Rooney's family. The hearing saw the conclusion of the court proceedings, with one defendant convicted of murder and the attempted killing of other Irish personnel. A variety of lighter custodial sentences and fines were imposed on others involved in the incident, including the full acquittal of one defendant.

Following this hearing, the Deputy will be aware that both I and the Taoiseach expressed our extreme disappointment at the lenient sentences imposed on a number of the defendants. In seeking to express the Government's disappointment with the sentences handed down, and while being fully mindful of the independence of the Lebanese judicial system, I wrote to the Lebanese Government, including the ministers for defence, justice and foreign affairs, following the hearing. In my letters, I expressed the disappointment of the Government of Ireland at the leniency of the sentences handed down to the defendants in the case and urged the Lebanese authorities to do everything in their power to apprehend the main defendant so he can serve his sentence.

I have since followed up with phone calls to the Lebanese ministers for defence and justice, after which the Lebanese Minister of Justice confirmed to me that an appeal on the sentencing had been lodged to the military court. Just this week, I issued further correspondence to the Lebanese authorities seeking details on the appeals process. I will remain fully engaged in the progress of the appeals process and will ensure that family members continue to be updated.

Regarding the coroner’s inquest into the death of Private Rooney, further hearings will take place in the coming months. Both my Department and the Defence Forces are co-operating with this process in full.

It is absolutely necessary that the Tánaiste maintain communication with the family and that the pressure be maintained, not only on the Lebanese authorities but also on the UN. Is the Tánaiste reasonably happy that there is a free flow of information at this point from the UN? There were promises that information would be provided to the family, but I am not sure that all has been done. We need to ensure that happens. Is there any further news regarding Mohammad Ayyad, who was not there in court? This obviously leads to major worries.

We should maintain whatever pressure we can because Private Rooney made the ultimate sacrifice. We know the issues there are in relation to that UNIFIL mission. It is absolutely right that we stand by him and his memory, but also that the UN does justice.

I should have also said that an independent inquiry is being undertaken by Mr. Michael Delaney SC, which is ongoing. This review is examining the internal tactics, techniques, processes and procedures employed by the Defence Forces with a view to determining whether there are any lessons to be learned from the circumstances surrounding Private Rooney’s death. Mr. Delaney is expected to present a report to me in quarter 4 of this year.

I have raised the apprehension of the person convicted specifically with the justice minister of Lebanon. I told him how vital it is not only that justice be served in court, but that there is no point giving out a big sentence if the person has still not been apprehended. He assured me that this remains a priority for the justice forces and the Lebanese Government. I will continue to monitor that.

My Department is in very close contact with the UN Secretariat but more importantly, we are keeping in very close contact with Private Rooney's family, particularly Natasha, his mum. I will continue to ensure she is kept fully up to date. I will attend the UN General Assembly in the coming days, where I hope I may have an opportunity to further discuss this issue.

Many of us became worried about some of stories in the public domain, including that Mohammad Ayyad was not even in Lebanon, so there is a necessity for pressure to be put on the Lebanese regime. Is the Tánaiste reasonably happy that the UN is providing that information? I assume that the Government will maintain pressure to ensure this happens, particularly with regard to information for the family.

Regarding the Army pensions case involving John McNeela, whose son Michael made the ultimate sacrifice in Lebanon while peacekeeping, we all know that the allowance paid to John's wife when she died was not transferred to him. The Tánaiste promised to update the legislation. Is there a possibility of finding an administrative solution? Could we have a timeline on that? It is right that we do right by the memory and families of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in peacekeeping.

I am aware that the UN is providing information but my satisfaction will depend on whether the family are satisfied, so I want to keep in close contact with them. I had the honour of meeting John McNeela at the national day of commemoration. When I met him, I credited the Deputy regarding his advocacy of the family's situation. We are committed to rectifying this in primary legislation and I spoke to my Secretary General in recent days about this. It will need to be changed through primary legislation. I am not sure there is an administrative solution but I have asked for the quickest Bill into which to insert this amendment. If it can be a vehicle other than a defence Bill, I am open to that. We are engaging with the Office of the Attorney General and the Department of Social Protection. I will try to come back to the Deputy with a timeline in the next couple of weeks as to how we can move this forward. It does not necessarily have to wait for defence legislation. Other legislation could move more quickly.

And whether it can be retrospective.

Let me check that with the Attorney General as well.

I thank the Deputy for his question and for the opportunity to discuss the considerable investment made by my Department in the Defence Forces over the past five years. This is much-needed investment when we have to do more in terms of our national security and defence. The Defence Forces infrastructure development plan sets out a programme of project delivery for the years 2023 to 2027. The programme reflects the complex environment in which the Defence Forces operate and the need for appropriate infrastructure to provide accommodation and training of personnel as well as the maintenance and storage of equipment.

There has been a consistent commitment to capital works development and the improvement of military installations and barracks across the country. The amount of funding given towards such developments has increased significantly year on year. For example, €37 million was allocated in 2021. This has risen this year to €62.5 million. I hope this level of investment demonstrates our continued commitment to ensuring the development of our military infrastructure.

I am pleased to say that over the past five years, 43 capital infrastructure projects were completed across Defence Forces installations and barracks. Some of the most notable projects include the upgrade and refurbishment of blocks within the historic McKee Barracks, the new training and accommodation facility at Renmore, the Cadet School at the Defence Forces Training Centre in the Curragh Camp and the upgrade of block 4 accommodation at Haulbowline. All the completed projects represent a significant step towards enhancing the experiences of our Defence Forces personnel by providing them with a high-quality, modern living and working environment.

This year alone, 13 projects are under way at construction stage, many of which are due to finish in the next 12 months, with a combined value of €60 million. Most notable are the new military medical facility at Casement Aerodrome, the new gym and obstacle course along with the locker block at the Joint Induction Training Centre at Gormanston campus, and the refurbishment of block 1 accommodation in Collins Barracks. I am very pleased to say that the significant extra capital investment we have received in the national development plan will enable us to spend a lot more on capital. This is a very significant rise, at about €600 million for Defence Forces capital over the next five years compared with the previous five.

I acknowledge the important work of Defence Forces personnel. I have seen it at first hand with family members directly involved. I firmly believe that Defence Forces infrastructure and equipment must be of a modern standard to meet their operational capabilities and defence responsibilities. I therefore welcome the revised national development plan allocation to upgrade and modernise Defence Forces infrastructure and the fact that planning is being undertaken. I believe a modern progressive Defence Forces with associated equipment and infrastructure would further encourage those who are interested in pursuing a career in the Defence Forces to enlist. I acknowledge that some of these projects are complex and require long lead-in times but I ask the Tánaiste to keep these developments at the forefront of his thinking and that of his Department.

I acknowledge the Deputy's family's proud tradition of service in our Defence Forces. I know that he will very much agree that investing in our defence infrastructure is not just about investment in buildings or vehicles. It is actually an investment in our people, in keeping them safe, providing them with the best equipment and ensuring they are trained to the highest possible standard. It is about ensuring our soldiers, sailors and air crew can carry out their duties in a safe and secure environment. I am really pleased to inform the Deputy that we have a number of really significant capital projects at various stages of the procurement pipeline, including the significant investment we will make in sonar and radar capabilities, which I believe will be transformational.

I know the Deputy may be particularly interested in some of the projects in his own county of Cork, so let me take the opportunity to highlight two of them. They involve the upgrade of two buildings, namely, block 4 accommodation and block 9 office accommodation at the naval base in Haulbowline. One involves €7.8 million, while the other involves €17.4 million. I am also pleased to say that we have seen a refurbishment of block 1 accommodation in Collins Barracks at an investment of €4.9 million. Millions are being invested in the defence facilities in Cork.

I thank the Minister for his very positive response. I welcome the news about Haulbowline and Collins Barracks. It is very positive news. Could the Tánaiste give me an update on the Department's development of a national maritime security strategy? Approval has also been given for Defence Forces participating in the EU's common information sharing environment. Could the Tánaiste provide further insight into what information is being shared as part of this agreement?

These are very significant developments that have taken place. Regarding the need to develop a national maritime security strategy, the waters over which we have exclusive economic authority are about seven times larger than the land mass of this country, so we have to have a better understanding and better security structures in place regarding that. This is why we are leading on the national maritime security strategy. We ran a public consultation over the summer and received about 300 responses. I expect to receive the national maritime security strategy by the end of the year. That is another key step in terms of the security of our country.

Regarding the common information sharing exchange, the Deputy is correct in saying that I took the decision for the Defence Forces to opt in to this. This is basically a sharing system for when we become aware of something in our waters. A lot of this would have happened on an ad hoc basis in the past as good relations are already in place, but we need to better co-ordinate information when we see something in our seas that can move into somebody else's seas. We are seeing more and more of this happening. We are seeing more and more bad actors in this space. This system provides us with an exchange to co-ordinate that information sharing and is working well.

Our Defence Forces camps have a large number of residential buildings, many of which are either not in use or uninhabitable. About 85% of the buildings in Cork are uninhabitable, while the number across the State is 153, with 71 buildings unoccupied and 79 uninhabitable. I appreciate that the circumstances are a bit different from those when they were first built, but there is still scope for more residential capacity and there is a question about whether they can be brought back into use for residential or other uses.

There are currently 80 uninhabitable residential Defence Forces buildings. None of these uninhabitable properties can be brought up to a habitable standard without significant work. Many of them were built prior to the introduction of building regulations, for example. As such, considerable work will be needed to bring them up to modern standards. Consultants were commissioned to assess the condition of the Defence Forces vacant housing stock and its suitability for conversion or refurbishment to provide for additional single living-in accommodation for Defence Forces personnel. My officials are subsequently engaged with the Defence Forces to have these projects included in the existing infrastructure development plan and have discussed the prioritisation of same.

It is intended to begin the procurement phase for this project in 2026. These developments will dovetail with an extensive wider programme of Defence Forces accommodation procurement, especially investment in accommodation for serving personnel. I advise the Deputy that since the launch of the infrastructure development plan in January 2020 a lot of accommodation projects have been completed. I think it is €49.7 million worth of projects for the accommodation space providing 775 beds.

Some of what exists on the various campuses dates from a different time in the context of what is expected in terms of accommodation, but also with respect to family arrangements and so on. It is nonetheless the case there is a housing crisis so it is easy to understand why people feel frustrated. We have members of the Defence Forces who are struggling to find accommodation, especially when they are based near urban centres. Certainly in Cork it can be difficult for people, particularly if they are recent enough recruits and maybe on the lower end of the pay scale, to find accommodation near Collins Barracks, Haulbowline or Lynch Camp in Fermoy. Right across the State it is frustrating to see places that are described as residential buildings in this condition. As I said, in Cork 84% of them are uninhabitable. Across the board it is similar enough, with 80 being uninhabitable of 153, which is a little over half.

The Minister has outlined a plan of operation. Has he a sense, maybe, of the timeline? Is it his view it is desirable for some of these buildings to come back into use as accommodation for people to live in? What is his sense of it?

The Deputy is not wrong, but it is a balance to do with what is a sensible investment. Are we better off spending money on new accommodation projects and getting on with that and driving forward on that? We see the 775 beds that have been completed since 2020. Nearly €50 million was spent on that. There are 12 other accommodation projects under way, providing in excess of 500 additional beds. That is 775 plus 500. We need to make a call, and we will in 2026 with this procurement plan, about what might be salvageable with the level of investment. Obviously if there is anything that can be done then we will do that but we are only going to put our Defence Forces personnel into accommodation that would meet what the Deputy and I would consider to be of the reasonable and decent standard they are entitled to. I am very much committed to overhauling both the built environment and the working conditions for the men and women of the Defence Forces. I hope this significant increase in investment outlines that commitment. We will have to make a call in 2026 about the uninhabitable accommodation and what can and cannot be made habitable. I see that as part of our overall accommodation plan for the Defence Forces.

Related to a previous question, one of the considerations should be former Defence Forces personnel who, for various reasons, have low incomes and find it difficult to find accommodation. Obviously it should have the same standards the Minister has in mind. That should also be a consideration when we are looking at residential blocks.

I am aware there will be a detailed assessment of this, but are the issues primarily with layout and modern building regulations or are there many of these buildings where the problem is the actual fabric and the question is whether the building is salvageable, for residential use or otherwise?

I would have to get the Deputy a detailed building-by-building breakdown, but my understanding is the ones assessed to be uninhabitable are deemed so because there is a very significant requirement of work to bring them into any sort of line with modern building regulations, rather than it being more preferential to have something laid out in a different way. I am happy to get the Deputy more information on it but we have commissioned consultants to assess the condition of the housing stock and identify what might be suitable for conversion or refurbishment versus what does not make sense to work on from a value-for-money point of view.

The Deputy's point about those who previously served is a good one. He will be familiar with the work of ONE. I think it has housing facilities in his county. It is eager to do more and I think to do more in Cork. I am happy to work with the Deputy on that. I am very impressed on the return on investment, to be blunt. I do not mean that in terms of money but the success ONE has in people transitioning from its accommodation into housing and into a stable life, quite frankly, after some very difficult circumstances. There is definitely room to do more work with that organisation and we are in active discussion with it on that.