The volatile nature of the world underlines all the more the reason that Ireland needs to maintain an independent foreign policy. Central to that policy, as was articulated by members of the Government while in opposition is the triple lock. This is a crucial protection for our neutrality. I would like an update as to where this legislation stands and what consideration the Minister has given to the pre-legislative scrutiny report from the committee.

The Minister thanked the committee and I acknowledge that. It was under a different Minister, and I would say it is not an unheard-of occurrence, but it is remarkable that Government TDs and Senators on the committee were whipped to prevent extra hearings because there was such a rush in terms of this legislation, and now it is many months since that process was concluded. I find that hard to understand. We had a desire within the committee to ensure that it would see full scrutiny. Members of the committee were clearly whipped to prevent the extension of it. That was a tremendous shame.

I would make the point to the Minister that the triple lock is a protection for future Governments as well. More importantly, I would make the point that it is our decision. The Defence (Amendment) Act is Irish legislation. It is legislation constructed and passed by these two Houses on the basis that our troops should serve on peacekeeping missions that are mandated by the UN. If we are going to be serving on peacekeeping missions that are not mandated by the UN, under which auspices are we undertaking those peacekeeping missions or other missions generally?

The Deputy said this is about protecting future Governments that might decide to deploy our troops to missions that are not based on the UN Charter and are not upholding and protecting fundamental principles of international law. What I am saying very clearly is that the legislation would have this enshrined in it. It would be very clear as to how and when our troops could be deployed. There would be a level of oversight within the Oireachtas. It would have to be voted through by a democratically elected Government. There would also be a level of oversight within the committee, depending on when or how many troops are being deployed. That would also be included in the legislation.

We have a situation emerging at the moment. We now have some of the final members from the 128th Infantry Battalion who are going out to UNIFIL. That mission has not been continued because we know it would have been vetoed. If it had been vetoed and if a vote had gone through last year, our troops would have had to have left immediately. Decades-long service of Lebanon peacekeeping troops would have ended immediately. We would have had no ability to send our troops back unless we had a new mission put in place, be it a common security and defence policy, CSDP, mission, which is something at which we are looking at the moment. Moreover, and on top of that, we now have another mission, Operation Irini, that we are looking at very carefully but which very soon, in the coming weeks, could come to an end because it looks as though that mandate is not going to be renewed. What we want that mandate for is to be able to monitor the shadow fleet in our waters that is causing huge challenges and that is funding the war in Ukraine. There is also a potential environmental disaster looming with any of these ships. How do we know it is going to be blocked? We know the Russian person who is perpetrating these crimes is on the committee and is able to do it. The idea that Russia would be able to stop us from keeping our troops on a mission in the Mediterranean that would monitor what are illegal ships is absolutely crazy. It is crazy that we are in a situation that, as a country, we cannot deploy our troops because a country like Russia is going to be able to stop us.

The Minister spoke about the SCDP and potential deployment. Could she elaborate on that? Is she saying there would potentially be a CSDP deployment to Lebanon in place of UNIFIL? Could she please clarify that?

The issue in relation to the protection of future Governments is crucially important. That is my view, and I think it is the view of the people. Our troops have served under the UN flag with incredible distinction. I think it is profoundly dangerous that UNIFIL is coming to an end. I really regret that decision. It is important that we continue to push for UN reform. I would like to hear the Minister say some more about that. Ultimately, if we are not deploying troops under a UN flag, they are going to be deployed in another context. It is not difficult at all to see circumstances where if we remove the triple lock, pressure comes on a future Irish Government to deploy troops to a scenario or theatre that would clearly endanger our neutrality. The Minister has said that the Irish people support neutrality. This potentially brings future Irish Governments into a position where they are pressurised into deploying troops in situations that would undermine our neutrality.

The first thing to say is that any change to our triple lock does not change our position of neutrality. Our position of neutrality is about joining military alliances. If we are to deploy troops under this new legislation, it would have to align with, adhered to and be firmly grounded in the principles of the UN Charter and international law. That would be our law, so to do anything other than that would be to breach our law. This would be overseen by committees and by the Chamber. We fully support the UN. I make this point every single time I engage with it at an international level and it knows that. However, we know that the structure is not working at the moment. The fact is Russia would able to stop a mission that is currently under way in the Mediterranean in which our troops participate. They do a really important job in terms of arms. We want to now use that mission to be able to monitor the Russian shadow fleets - an illegal fleet that is funding an illegal war and a maritime disaster ready to happen. The fact that Russia would be able to block that does not make any sense. It is taking away our sovereign ability to make a decision as to where we send our troops but it is also stopping us from doing what we should be doing and that is monitoring its illegal activity and making sure we do everything in our power to stop it from being able to wage the war it is waging and possibly more beyond that.

In terms of making it clear around the overall missions, again, it would not be within our power to send our troops to anything other than peacekeeping missions or, as we have seen in recent times because of the conflicts happening around the world, where we need to get people out safely. That is something we really need to be able to do.

We can do that.