As set out by the Minister earlier in this session, the purpose of the defence (amendment) Bill is to consolidate the existing provisions of the Defence Acts concerning the despatch of members of the Defence Forces for service outside the State. In effect, the requirement for a UN mandate will be removed. It will modify the existing requirement regarding the so-called triple lock mechanism in relation to the despatch of the Defence Forces for service outside the State as part of an international United Nations force.

It is important to note that the Bill will also seek to amend the Defence Act to provide for the suspension of members of the Defence Forces, thereby giving effect to recommendations in the 2024 Ward report on the management of members of the Defence Forces charged with, or convicted of, serious criminal offences.

There has been extensive engagement between the Department and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel on the drafting of the Bill, and the Minister intends to bring the Bill to the Government for approval shortly.

As previously outlined to the House, the continued reliance on a UN Security Council mandate can have direct practical consequences for Ireland’s peacekeeping engagements. A very recent and tangible example is in relation to UNIFIL. We saw one power exercising its veto at the UN Security Council. Had the mandate for UNIFIL not been renewed - as was the case for a short period of time - Ireland would have been legally obliged to plan for the immediate withdrawal of Defence Forces personnel from that mission. Similar issues arise in respect of other operations, with concerns arising in relation to the upcoming renewal of the UN mandate of Operation Irini in the Mediterranean in early June. The outcome is currently unclear and if this mandate is not renewed, it would necessitate the immediate withdrawal of Irish troops under the current legislative provisions. The mission would continue nonetheless in its humanitarian work and its work to prevent illegal weapons coming into Europe because it is an EU mission.

The Bill also provides for reinforced safeguards governing any future overseas deployments. While the UN Security Council mandate requirement is being removed, the legislation expressly requires that all such deployments be consistent with the principles of the UN Charter and with international law.

Neutrality and a triple lock have served his country well. The current Taoiseach is on record as saying that the triple lock is the core of Irish neutrality. Of course, that neutrality goes back over 100 years to when James Connolly erected a banner on Liberty Hall declaring that, "We serve neither King nor Kaiser, but Ireland". It also goes back to hugely successful protests against conscription in Ireland during the First World War. It goes back to Article 29 of Bunreacht na hÉireann, Éamon de Valera's Constitution, which speaks of "adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination." It goes back to Éamon de Valera's declaration of neutrality in 1939.

The triple lock itself has been endorsed by the sovereign Irish people in two referendums, the second referendum on the Nice treaty and the second referendum on the Lisbon treaty. Solemn national declarations have been added to those treaties. Successive polls have shown support for the retention of neutrality, the core of which is the triple lock. I believe it is now time to abandon this proposal. Of course peace missions can be authorised by the UN General Assembly as well as the Security Council.

The Deputy is correct that under Article 29 of the Constitution, Ireland's international relations are founded upon international justice and morality. Our Constitution affirms our "devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations". That is not changing. That is in our Constitution. That is the entire basis on which the Government exercises its foreign policy. The removal of the triple lock in current circumstances has no impact whatsoever on Ireland's policy of military neutrality. All it means is that we are not giving the authority to any of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to determine what our foreign policy is in terms of our peacekeeping missions. It is a fact that the UNIFIL mission was stopped, effectively, by one member of the UN Security Council. It is also a fact that if a mission were to continue, for example under EU auspices, in Lebanon, it is entirely unclear as to whether Ireland could take part in that without a UN Security Council mandate. Operation Irini would continue as a very effective peacekeeping mission but Ireland would not be able to be part of it without a UN Security Council mandate.

Irish peacekeepers who have served throughout the world for decades know the value of the triple lock. Neutrality has been an invaluable component of Ireland's foreign policy. This country's involvement in and reputation for peacekeeping gives moral legitimacy to our voice for the international rule of law and peaceful resolution of conflicts. Former Defence Force members with first-hand experience of peacekeeping and conflict have spoken in defence of the triple lock. These people include Senator Tom Clonan who stated that it gives international status as an impartial voice for peace and de-escalation of armed conflict. Gerry Rooney, a former secretary general of the PDFORRA, which represents about 7,000 members of the Defence Forces, is also on record as saying that maintaining the triple lock and strengthening the engagement of the United Nations would be a more effective path for sustaining Ireland's peacekeeping role and neutrality. I believe that abolition of the triple lock undermines our peacekeeping role in the world.

All deployments of Irish troops abroad under this legislation have to be consistent with the principles of the UN Charter and international law. I have already said that I agree with the Deputy in relation to the Constitution. However, I suggest that nobody in this House agrees with the decision of the UN Security Council to end peacekeeping duties in Lebanon.

What about the General Assembly?

The General Assembly has not put forward any proposal in relation to that and it is not practical for us to-----

The General Assembly is entitled to call for peacekeeping missions.

There have been no proposals in the General Assembly to continue a mission in Lebanon. At the end of the day the Security Council is the authoritative body on international security. That is just the reality of the situation. We have an incredibly proud track record of peacekeeping under our Constitution and consistent with UN principles. We would like that to continue. In the current environment it literally cannot continue in Lebanon because of the decision of the UN Security Council. That mandate is coming to an end because of a decision effectively of one country. If another peacekeeping mission were agreed, for example at EU level, we could not take part in it under the current legislation. All we are trying to do is to make our own sovereign decisions and continue the peacekeeping work that we have done over many generations.