I would like to ask the Tánaiste if he could outline for the Dáil the detail of the Defence Forces vision statement in Strategic Framework: Transformation of the Defence Forces, and if he would refer to No. 42 on page 12, the new Defence Forces vision statement that is to be developed and published. In his understanding of the vision, would it have any impact on Irish neutrality? Will he make a statement on the matter?

I published Strategic Framework: Transformation of the Defence Forces on 26 September. The purpose of the strategic framework is to bring together into one overarching document the immediate actions to be taken to support the transformation of the Defence Forces into a fit-for-purpose organisation that can defend the State and meet the challenges of today and the future. My priority within this transformation is cultural change above all else. It consolidates into one document key actions under a number of defence sector reports and plans which will underpin this transformation.

The report of the independent review group that was established to examine dignity and equality issues in the Defence Forces was published in March 2023. The report of the Commission on the Defence Forces was published in February 2022. Other relevant issues include specific actions to support the recruitment and retention of the Defence Forces, the Defence Forces equipment development plan and the infrastructure development plan as well as the legislative programme necessary to underpin the transformation efforts. All of that is covered by the framework. The framework is designed to be fully understood by everyone, to have appropriate governance and reporting mechanisms, to oversee this transformation and to bring transparency and accountability to the work.

The timescale for this strategic framework is to the end of 2024, with an update report published every six months, commencing in March 2024. One of the early actions to be delivered under the Commission on the Defence Forces and referenced in the strategic framework is the development of a Defence Forces vision statement by the Chief of Staff for my approval. The Defence Forces has progressed work on this, including comprehensive internal consultation and the use of external expertise. As the vision statement has yet to be finalised and approved by me as Minister for Defence I am not in a position to comment comprehensively on it currently. I assure the Deputy that the vision statement will align with our policy of military neutrality. It has to.

If I could expand on the question, I am sure the cultural changes the Tánaiste talks about are all that he touched on, but he will notice that a lot of us were alarmed when he was in Ukraine that he announced that Irish forces would be providing rifle training. Hitherto, casualty care training was provided with the German army, and demining and explosives clearance were provided with the Polish army. When asked if he considered rifle training as non-lethal aid, his answer was that: "Our support for Ukraine is multifaceted and it is important we ensure that it continues to be relevant, flexible and fit for purpose." He said that this is a basic self-defence issue and it is humanitarian to defend your own people. If I fire a rifle, a bullet would come out of it, and if that bullet hit somebody, it is likely to kill them, yet he described it as non-lethal and humanitarian. Would the Tánaiste apply the same logic to supplying weapons training, for example, to Hamas if it wants to defend its community on a humanitarian basis against the Israeli army tearing down their villages and their lives?

First, I will refer to the training so far provided to the Ukrainians. By the way, military neutrality means non-alignment with a military alliance. Ireland is not militarily aligned. That is how our neutrality has been defined for decades. We are not a member of NATO. We have no intention of becoming a member of NATO. We have no plans to become a member of NATO. We are signatories to the United Nations charter. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a flagrant violation of that charter in respect of the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of Ukraine. I hope Deputy Bríd Smith accepts that.

The two modules we have provided so far were medical combat and demining. There is a further one on basic drilling. We instruct our people in terms of giving basic drilling. It is not any precision sniper training or anything like that. It is just basic training of people who are defending their country against attack. The biggest issue facing Ukraine right now and the people of Ukraine is Russia's decision, which will probably intensify over the winter period, to tackle civilian infrastructure, residential energy supplies and suchlike.

We are over time. The Tánaiste will get a chance to come back.

I agree that the biggest obstacle facing the Palestinian people is defending their territory against attack by Israeli army forces. The biggest challenge facing the people of Yemen is to defend themselves against the attack by the Saudi army. We are seeing similar aggressive attacks happening around the world, into which the description of the UN charter the Tánaiste just quoted would fall.

Does the Tánaiste not consider rifle training to be lethal rather than non-lethal? Bullets come out of rifles and they are intended to kill. They are built to kill and to cause serious damage to another human being. Is this not stretching our neutrality to a point of a flexibility that does not fit the bill? Are we in danger of seeing more and more of this? That is why we asked about the strategic vision for the armed forces. How far will this go in terms of breaching our neutrality? To that end, I and other Deputies in this House will be partaking in a demonstration to defend our neutrality on 4 November. I am sure the Tánaiste will not be there. How far does he think he can stretch the understanding of military neutrality when we are providing rifle training?

We do not provide lethal aid to Ukraine in terms of the European peace facility.

That was a commitment in the programme for Government. Military neutrality is defined in terms of our membership or non-membership of a military alliance.

That is a new definition.

It is not a new definition. Maybe it is to you on the far left, with your view. I am always struck by the degree to which you engage in significant whataboutery. In your comments today there was no reference to the ongoing Russian aggression in Ukraine-----

We do not get an answer to the whataboutery. You have not answered-----

I have answered you. I said there are no plans to change Ireland's policy in respect of military neutrality.

You still regard rifle training as non-lethal.

I have to put it to you that what Ireland is doing in this respect is very, very limited-----

So you said in the media.

-----in the face of the extraordinary attack on ordinary men, women and children by Russian forces.

Would you apply the definition to the Palestinian people?

I have met Mahmoud Abbas. He is committed to a non-violent approach to a two-state solution. He told me that only three weeks ago. You should not be wishing him to become involved in a violent engagement. He does not want to. There is an obligation on Israel to deal with that. The bottom line is that it is clear to the entire world that Russia went in within a half an hour of Kyiv, killing and brutally torturing people. We are talking about very basic drill training.

I think you are overstating it and are distorting the argument. That is wrong. You did the same with the consultative forum.

We are moving on. We are way over time.