Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The two motions will be debated together but they will be moved separately and decided separately.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the report by the Minister for Defence regarding service by the Defence Forces with the United Nations in 2023, a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 3rd May, 2024, in accordance with section 13 of the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006.

I welcome this opportunity to report to the Dáil on Irish Defence Forces participation in United Nations missions in 2023. The presentation of this UN report gives this House the opportunity to express our appreciation for the role which the Defence Forces play throughout the world in the preservation of peace.

I will also move the motion seeking approval for Ireland’s participation in four capability development projects, two within Permanent Structured Co-operation, PESCO, and two within the framework of the European Defence Agency later. I will first speak to the report and then to the projects.

The report on Irish Defence Forces participation in United Nations missions in 2023 was laid before Dail Eireann on 3 May 2024. This report documents the participation of Defence Force personnel in UN-led or UN-authorised missions, which include the EU-led mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Operation Althea, and the NATO-led international security presence in Kosovo, KFOR.

The year under review, 2023, saw an increased focus on the important work of Irish peacekeepers operating in a tense, unpredictable and dynamic environment of the Middle East. This escalated in the aftermath of the Hamas attack on Israel on 7 October 2023, and the war which has followed, and there has been an increased focus on the crucial work carried out by our peacekeepers.

Notwithstanding the many challenges, Irish troops serving overseas continued to make a significant contribution to international peacekeeping throughout 2023, and indeed to date in 2024. When I visited our UNIFIL troops in May of this year, I saw for myself some of the dangers under which they operate while carrying out their mission. I felt it was important to show Government and the Irish people’s support and appreciation for the role our troops carry out in south Lebanon. Irish troops were first deployed on UN peacekeeping operations in 1958 and since then, have had a continuous record of participation in UN peace support operations. This is a unique record and one of which this country is rightly proud.

Participation by our Defence Forces in overseas peacekeeping missions has helped save countless lives and brought peace and stability to many countries over the decades. It is an essential component of Ireland’s foreign policy, driven by the very values and principles that have guided the actions of our State on the international stage since independence.

Ireland’s main commitments during 2023 were to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, and the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, UNDOF, on the Golan Heights. As of 5 June 2024, there are some 430 Defence Forces personnel serving overseas in eight different missions around the world. The main mission in which personnel are currently deployed is UNIFIL. We also have other postings in the Middle East and the Balkans.

In this unstable global geopolitical climate, particularly in the Middle East, the health and safety of these personnel remains of paramount concern for both myself and for the Government. I remain deeply concerned by rising tensions in that area. The potential for further regional escalation remains high, and a widening of this conflict would have devastating consequences for all in the region, most particularly those living in proximity to the Blue Line. It is vital that all parties work to de-escalate the situation, and we are doing all we can to influence parties in that regard.

In terms of the safety of our personnel, I remain in regular and ongoing contact with the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces on this matter. Both he and my Department are kept regularly apprised of all developments in those areas in which Defence Forces personnel are deployed. In terms of protecting our troops on the ground, ongoing threat assessments are carried out in mission areas and we continually review both personal equipment and force assets to ensure Defence Forces personnel are appropriately equipped to fulfil their roles and stay safe.

It is important also to note that Defence Forces’ peacekeepers are well trained prior to deployment, including anticipating events such as occasions of sporadic fire in their area of operations. This includes the circumstances in which they find themselves currently, which may require taking shelter in protected positions. In light of this, I again commend all our Defence Forces men and women for their commitment and dedication to overseas service, without which, Ireland’s strong tradition of peacekeeping under the auspices of the United Nations would not be possible.

Peacekeeping is not without risks however. A total of 88 Defence Forces personnel have lost their lives while on peacekeeping duty overseas in various missions.

Forty-eight have made the ultimate sacrifice while serving the cause of peace in Lebanon. As outlined in the annual report, a priority for the Government in 2023 was continuing to establish all the facts and circumstances relating to the attack that resulted in the horrific killing of Private Seán Rooney on 14 December 2022. I have consistently expressed my determination that no stone will be left unturned to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice. Last year, an initial indictment hearing of persons charged in connection with the incident took place on 14 July, with further hearings taking place on 30 August and 15 December 2023. The most recent hearing was on 7 June 2024. I was very disappointed to learn that, once again, none of those indicted for the killing of Private Seán Rooney appeared in court at this hearing.

A central focus of my most recent visit to Lebanon in May this year was my meeting with the Lebanese foreign Minister and the legal representative of the Lebanese Minister of Defense. I left the Lebanese Minister and officials in no doubt with regard to the absolute determination of the Irish Government in ensuring that those responsible for Private Rooney’s death are brought to justice and that the lives of Irish peacekeepers must be valued. I also emphasised the need to speed up the legal proceedings and the additional distress that the lack of progress is causing Private Rooney's family and loved ones. Following the most recent hearings, I have again stressed my deep unhappiness with the progress of the trial to date and I have made that very clear directly to both the Lebanese authorities and the United Nations. I will continue to press them on this matter to ensure justice is done for Private Rooney and his family and colleagues.

The UNDOF mission in the Golan Heights was Ireland’s second largest overseas deployment in 2023. A contingent of the Permanent Defence Force was deployed in UNDOF since 2013, and as of 31 December 2023, a total of 134 Defence Forces personnel were serving with the mission. Following a joint assessment by the Department and the Defence Forces of commitments to overseas missions, and on the basis of military advice, the decision was taken in 2023 to withdraw the infantry group from the mission with effect from April 2024. I pay tribute to the Defence Forces’ remarkable

peacekeeping record with the mission since they were first deployed. Over the period of their deployment, our peacekeepers played an important part in improving the lives of citizens on the ground in the Golan Heights.

As I said yesterday at the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, we must never forget that participation in all these peace support, crisis management, training and monitoring missions comes at a huge personal cost to individuals and to their families and friends. I know everyone in this House is united in our gratitude for that service.

As time is very tight - a bit too tight - I will now speak on the second motion, that of seeking Dáil approval to participate in two PESCO and two European Defence Agency projects. I will also briefly outline Ireland’s engagement to date in PESCO and the European Defence Agency. Yesterday, we discussed these projects at length in the select committee and the committee seemed to be positive and supportive of our engagement in these projects. The committee fully understands the benefit these projects will bring to the Defence Forces and indeed Ireland.

PESCO is a framework under which groups of member states of the European Union come together to plan, develop and invest in shared capability projects and enhance the operational readiness and development of their respective armed forces. It is entirely voluntary and of the EU member states, all but Malta take part in projects under this framework. Its objective is to enable co-operation among member states that will deliver capabilities for national and international missions and operations. These are capabilities that assist us in developing our Defence Forces and ensuring their interoperability to take part, with other countries, in international peacekeeping operations. Ireland's participation in PESCO was agreed by the then Government and Dáil Éireann in 2017 and the country's participation in PESCO projects will be maintained on an opt-in basis, with contributions being entirely voluntary. We currently participate in four PESCO projects, which is at the lower level of engagement compared to other EU countries.

Moving quickly to the European Defence Agency, the EDA was established by a joint action of the Council of the European Union 20 years ago. It supports its 27 member states in improving their defence capabilities through European co-operation. Member states can decide on a case-by-case basis whether to participate in projects, depending on their needs and interests. The core of what the EDA does is to offer a level of expertise and opportunities that cover the whole spectrum of defence co-operation. In July 2004, the Government approved Ireland’s participation in the framework of the European Defence Agency and we have participated in a number of EDA projects over the years, spanning a range of capability development areas.

Today, I seek the approval of Dáil Éireann for Ireland to participate in the PESCO projects relating to logistics and critical seabed infrastructure protection and EDA projects relating to environmental management and cybersecurity. The first project is the PESCO project network of logistic hubs in Europe and support to operations. The main aim of the project is to support and improve strategic logistics support and force protection in European Union missions and operations. It can provide many benefits to the Defence Forces in both the short and long term. Participation will have clear benefits with respect to Ireland's participation in the European Union battle group 2025 in terms of assisting with the deployment, storage and efficient transport of Defence Forces assets as part the battle group training and exercise process. In very straightforward terms, the Defence Forces will need to bring kit and equipment to the Continent as part of our participation in the battle group, and membership of this project will allow them to make use of existing transport, storage and logistics facilities established by other European Union member states. Membership will provide us with access to a logistics hub where our vehicles and equipment can be safely stored and easily accessed to use during the battle group exercises in 2024 and 2025. We are currently an observer in this PESCO project but observers cannot benefit from the project, hence the move to seek full membership.

Second, there are potentially longer term benefits to Ireland's participation. The geopolitical situation in Europe and its hinterland is changing at a rapid and uncertain pace. Participating in this project will also give Ireland options when deploying and withdrawing from missions overseas. If troops need to be withdrawn from a location quickly and there is an European Union logistics hub close to the mission, it could provide valuable support to the Defence Forces. There are 27 European Union hubs available to the members of this project. Participation will also enhance the Defence Forces' capability and knowledge in major logistical deployment, sustainment and withdrawal from operations. The only costs associated with this project are in respect of Defence Forces personnel attendance at meetings and workshops.

The second PESCO project relates to critical seabed infrastructure protection, CSIP. This is an opportunity for Ireland to build capability to address identified risks and areas of vulnerability. I have made it clear previously that this is a project in which we should be engaging. As an island nation, we have to tap into any and every opportunity available to build capabilities in the protection of critical infrastructure. This project aims to enhance co-operation among EU member states in monitoring, securing and defending critical seabed infrastructure against various threats, including sabotage, terrorism and espionage. It involves developing capabilities for surveillance, reconnaissance and response in maritime environments, as well as fostering information sharing and co-ordination among participating member states. Damage to undersea infrastructure has been identified as a key national risk in the latest national risk assessment for Ireland, and this project will facilitate strengthening capabilities with regard to protecting critical undersea infrastructure, thereby increasing our security and resilience.

The EDA offers several forms of support to PESCO projects, including the use of EDA’s project management tools and administrative support. This PESCO project will seek support from the EDA in this regard. That will be captured under a separate EDA project and is provided by the agency at no additional cost to members. Participating member states will also formally sign an agreement with the EDA in this regard. Therefore, as well as the PESCO project, I am also seeking Dáil approval to join the associated EDA project. Like the logistics hubs project, the only costs associated with the project are in relation to attendance at meetings and workshops, all of which can be met from existing resources.

The third project I seek Dáil approval to join is the European Defence Agency defence energy managers’ course II. This is a training project to improve knowledge of energy management in the military, resulting in benefits in terms of energy consumption, cost and CO2 emission reductions across the military estate. Its key objectives are to educate participants and to have those participants then disseminate that knowledge throughout their organisation. It will provide tailored training on energy management systems and will include on-site visits to ensure each member state's requirements are taken into account. The Defence Forces currently operates 17 full-time operational military installations, including Army barracks, a naval base, an aerodrome and training camps. This project presents a significant opportunity to enhance the Defence Forces’ energy management efforts in all of these locations. It is for a duration of five years. There are once-off costs of €1,500 to join this project and each training place on the course costs €5,000.

The final project I intend to seek Dáil approval to join is the EDA cyber defence exercises project. We need to enhance cyber defence as a country but it is not something we can on our own. We need to collaborate with partners. We live in a digital world of unparalleled connectivity where borders are irrelevant. This project provides the opportunity to do that. It allows our Defence Forces experts to gain insight into cyber threats experienced by other member states and, importantly, learn from these in an effort to mitigate any national attack. This project is an umbrella project, the lead project on cyber training within the European Defence Agency. It will plan, co-ordinate and execute future cyber defence exercises and each cyber defence exercise developed under this project will be established as a sub-project. I am seeking approval to join the umbrella project and any relevant exercises that are developed. Each exercise and training opportunity will be analysed and assessed against the Defence Forces capability requirements.

Depending on the scope of certain exercises, the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communication, and the National Cyber Security Centre may have the opportunity for cross-governmental learning.

All EDA participating member states have indicated their interest in joining this project. There is no cost to joining this project. Minimal costs will arise for attendance at meetings and workshops.

These projects cover a wide range of capabilities, many of which will also benefit our national requirements, and will benefit the national mitigation of threats. In particular, threats with regard to cyber and undersea infrastructure are high on the Government’s priorities, as are environmental concerns.

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I again state our objections to the process by which the Tánaiste is seeking approval from the Houses of the Oireachtas for involvement in military missions. This is at a time the people of Ireland want to remain militarily neutral. This is at a time people are traumatised by the high-tech savagery being inflicted on Palestine with the full support of the EU under Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, with more than 17,000 children killed in Gaza, more than 20,000 children missing, buried alive in the rubble of their homes and tens of thousands of children maimed, and the Government is giving its full support to her. Billions of euro are spent on bombs shredding children in tents while we put a snas on their famous European values.

We have previously taken the Tánaiste to task on allowing only the bare minimum of debate that is mandated constitutionally or legislatively on these matters. He did not even have time to read out his full speech and needed extra time. That is the respect that is shown here.

Last July, the Government sought agreement for four European Defence Agency projects allowing only 55 minutes of Dáil debate, with a single vote on all four. Last July, it also rejected Sinn Féin's amendment that the Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence be allowed to fully scrutinise the projects. This week the Tánaiste brought his proposals to the select committee again in a pre-emptive and closed manner. The committee could have had a wider discussion and canvassed expert and civic opinion from outside. Instead, we are being asked to examine UN peacekeeping at a time when those missions are more crucial than ever and at the same time as two PESCO missions and two separate EDA projects. The recklessness and carelessness here are just incredible.

The matter of the Tánaiste's approving observer status of missions without Dáil approval is related. None of this is good legislative practice. Instead, we need an agreed framework to allow examination and discussion. It is hard to believe we are being asked to sign off on international military matters at such a tense time in such a cavalier manner.

Irish people are rightly proud of the contribution that our Defence Forces have made to international peacekeeping through the various continuing deployments since the first time in 1958. As we reflect on their contributions to United Nations missions in 2023, we must also recognise the heightened and risky security context in which many of them are operating in Lebanon. Their peacekeeping service is something unique in our society and our public life, which is why we owe them and their families a particular duty of care involving the framework within which they operate and are deployed. We must minimise risk for them and maximise their peacekeeping impacts where they are stationed. Looking after them means their pay and conditions must be fair. They must have the equipment needed to meet their obligations. Equally those who sign up to put themselves in harm's way for the State must have the absolute guarantee that no harm will come to them in their own ranks.

The Government is failing on each and every one of these duties to our Defence Forces. It requires some neck to justify abandoning the triple lock protection of our neutrality by referring to the report of the chair of the so-called consultative forum. That same report found that a considerable majority of those who spoke or wrote on the topic expressed the view that there was no public appetite for a change to the current position of neutrality. There is no appetite for a change in our military neutrality, yet the Tánaiste chances his arm and force feeds it to the people with a coterie that will always be well protected from the impacts of war and fighting. It is the UN mandate that gives legitimacy to international peacekeeping missions. Not only does the Tánaiste have no mandate to remove the triple lock but he has also been campaigning and promising on its necessity for decades. No matter how often he says it, it is nonsense that we must abandon the triple lock out of fear of a veto by Russia or China at the UN Security Council.

On top of that, the only reason our troops are not peacekeeping on the Golan Heights today is he chose to withdraw them. We in here and the people out there know the reason had nothing to do with consolidation, as he said, and everything to do with shoring up numbers to take part in the EU battle group as if the EU, under Ursula von der Leyen, is not wreaking enough havoc in Gaza.

Having deprioritised UN peacekeeping missions, the Tánaiste now has his sights firmly set on removing the prerequisite for a UN mandate for overseas deployments entirely. My party is clear on this. If the Tánaiste wishes to carry on as he is, he should put his proposals to the people in a referendum. In any event it is scandalous that the Tánaiste should be forced to choose only one or two deployments consisting of 100 or 200 personnel.

The reason is clear: the crisis in retention and recruitment. We have only 7,500 personnel in the Defence Forces versus the level of ambition 2 target of 11,500. The Government may have inherited the crisis but it has worsened in its tenure with more leaving than joining every year. There has been a €70 million shortfall in the capital investment required to attain level of ambition 2 each year since the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces was published. This has real world consequences, such as missed patrol days at home and in this year the full withdrawal from a mission on which Irish personnel had served for more than a decade.

In 2023, we saw 1,538 Defence Forces personnel serve overseas on UN peacekeeping missions, more than 100 fewer than in 2019 despite an utterly changed and deteriorated security context. Assuming no further new deployments, it means our UN peacekeeping contribution by the end of this year will have effectively decreased by more than 25% since 2019 levels and by up to one third by next year when no continued deployments as part of UNDOF are factored in.

Sinn Féin supports the deployment of Irish troops as part of UN-mandated peacekeeping missions. We are extremely proud of them. Yesterday we spoke about Private John Rooney - ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam. However, we do not support the Tánaiste's deprioritisation of those missions or his seeking to remove important protections governing those deployments. The UN mandate protects all our Defence Forces personnel abroad; the war games coterie in industry and academia will not.

The Tánaiste's case that we should join PESCO and the European Defence Agency's forays is weak. He does not have Sinn Féin's support. His justification yesterday at the defence committee was light and failed even to develop on the supposed benefits accrued while already an observer in one mission. It is the function of the Oireachtas to hold Government to account when necessary and to grant approval to certain proposed measures not to simply rubber-stamp them. Since a rubber-stamp is what he seeks today, our answer is "No".

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am glad of the opportunity to speak on two very important issues. I agree, and I think the Tánaiste will agree, that this is a totally inadequate way of dealing with them. I have five minutes to deal with these matters. The Tánaiste did not have the time to present. It gives the wrong impression for those who want to create the wrong impression outside this House. I hope that next time these issues are addressed we will have adequate time.

I want to deal first with the annual report on service by the Defence Forces on UN missions. I express my absolute commendation of the efforts of our troops abroad. They have for more than five decades represented us with dignity and pride. Any of us who have served in government and have had the opportunity to see them in operation are proud of their efforts and the world is proud of them.

I do not know if the Tánaiste will have an opportunity to respond to the end of this. I am concerned about the current UNIFIL mission, which is by far the largest group of personnel we have serving abroad. The growing hostility and exchange of fire between Hezbollah and the Israeli Defense Forces is a cause of real concern when added to a deterioration in relations between the Irish Government and the Netanyahu government in Israel.

It really is a cause of concern when that is added to the deterioration in relations between the Irish Government and the Netanyahu government in Israel. I know they are well trained and protected. However, I would like to know there are systems in place to evacuate them from danger should that need arise. I hope the Tánaiste will give us some indication of that.

I turn to the second motion the Tánaiste has presented, which seeks our approval for participation by Ireland in two PESCO projects. The Tánaiste rightly said that there is a changed security environment in the world, and there is a substantially changed attitude among almost all of our fellow EU member states. Any of us who go to European meetings knows that, for example the committees on European affairs in the European Union. In that context, there is a requirement for us to be clear on our national stance and future intentions with regard to common defence and defence co-operation, and the role we envisage for our Defence Forces in the future. There is war on this Continent. Let us be crystal clear what our neutrality means. No matter what the Tánaiste has said, there is a lack of clarity in simply saying we are a neutral nation, but we are going to do all of these things. Is it a development of a positive independent expansion of our role as a neutral state? Is that Government policy in terms of our neutrality? Alternatively, is it a growing co-operation with EU member states' militaries, with common procurement, training and interoperability? I am not suggesting these two stances are entirely mutually exclusive, but the first requirement is for this nation to explain to our friends and neighbours what we believe our neutrality to mean. I do not believe there is any pressure on Ireland to alter its historical neutral stance, but we must give a clear vision of what that means to those outside the State who are our friends and neighbours and, more important, to reassure the people of this nation so that we have a clear understanding of what we are about.

The Government needs to answer a simple question in a convincing fashion. Is our growing involvement with PESCO activities anchored in a clear vision of Ireland's military neutrality or is it simply a pathway to participation in collective European defence? Whatever the Tánaiste has said to date, I say with conviction that there is no clear or coherent defence strategy being articulated that draws together an analysis of a new geopolitical reality, the conclusions of our own Commission on the Defence Forces, the changing nature of common defence within the European Union and the possibility, in the new Commission that is yet to be named, of an EU Commissioner for defence. Names being floated include the Polish foreign minister, Sikorski. Where does Ireland stand? Are we to be swept along by others or do we have a unique defence position to set out? I hope that question can be clearly answered by the Tánaiste to give a vision to Members of this House and the people of Ireland about what we intend to do.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We obviously dealt with some of the changing circumstances in the world and geopolitics. We know the huge pressure our peacekeepers are under. We know there are changing circumstances in Lebanon because of the genocidal actions of the Israeli regime against the Palestinian people. Many of us have been worried for a long time about the escalation. While we are happy to have a chance to at least discuss this motion, I have already heard a number of colleagues say they do not believe we are dealing properly with the issue of our status. Any polls or consultation that have occurred in the past show that the Irish people are steadfast in their belief that we remain unaligned and neutral. This is a position that for many years has protected our peacekeepers and our independent foreign policy. It has meant that we are seen as a safe pair of hands.

I think the Tánaiste has said before that nobody requires Ireland to be a military superpower, so we are all put out when we hear Ursula von der Leyen speak about the build-up of an EU military-industrial complex. That frightens us. That is the other reason, when we talk about any moves away from the triple lock, it is seen as a movement away from our neutrality and unaligned status, and a movement in the direction of something else the Irish people do not want. We know it is a changed world. We talk about the Ukrainian crisis. We know the major geopolitical circumstances across the world. We know a large number of countries, including Russia and China, have been involved all over the world, and not necessarily for the benefit of those parts of the world. The western world has a long track record of taking rather than giving. We talk about the migration crisis we have at this point, and we know we have to get to grips with our own systems. We also know there is a large number of people who are moving because of what the Russians, Chinese and the western world have done for many years across the Middle East and Africa. We must deal with the specific issue of Ireland's movement in the direction wanted by some within the European Union, which is a more militarised Europe, and away from its unaligned status. That is not acceptable. When dealing with particular operations we need to give the matters proper consideration, whether in a committee or in this Chamber. We need to see that from here on.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I begin with a simple assertion we can all agree with. The work Irish peacekeepers dedicate their lives to has never been more important. In 2023, we saw them work in incredibly difficult and dangerous conditions across the Middle East and other conflict zones around the world. In saying that, we should once again express our condolences to the family of Private Seán Rooney. I hope such a tragedy will never be permitted to happen again.

It is clear from this report and from the rhetoric and actions of the Government over the past 18 months that the Government intends to make a fundamental shift in our foreign policy approach and, as I and others believe, a shift in what constitutes Ireland's neutrality. That is best encapsulated by the removal of the triple lock, but also by PESCO. There is no trust in what the Irish Government intends to do. There is no trust because at its most basic, what it wants to do with the triple lock makes it easier for Irish troops to be deployed overseas on military operations. That is a statement of fact. The Tánaiste might shake his head, but the programme for Government and Fianna Fáil's manifesto for the previous general election had maintenance of the triple lock as paramount. I understand he might say that circumstances have changed, and they clearly have. What has not changed is the absence of a mandate to make a substantial change to Irish policy. It is in that that we have a significant lack of trust.

The continuation of this approach, without a mandate from the people, whether through a citizens’ assembly, a forum that has stood us well in the past, or through a very basic democratic structure of setting out the Government’s policy and manifestos for the next five years and asking whether the people will endorse it through their votes, leads to a continuation of that absence of trust. In practice, it means the State could send military personnel overseas on missions not mandated by the UN since the clause, which has served us well for decades, would be simply removed. That, more than anything else, threatens our neutrality. To date, all missions on which Irish personnel have served have been UN mandated, that is, the blue helmets. Many of my friends have served overseas during that time and they are proud to have been involved in UN-endorsed missions. To be a peacekeeper is a source of pride.

If the triple lock is removed, will it then be deemed permissible for, for example, the Government, the State or the Irish armed forces, or whatever we want to call it, to train soldiers overseas? We still do not have clarity on this, despite the question having been asked on numerous occasions. Deployment to train forces from another country could very well be deemed an act of war and could certainly be considered a breach of our neutrality. We have had examples of that.

The Tánaiste referred to the consultative forum. Many of us were initially critical of it, seeing it as a cloak by which we could advance a cause that had not been mandated by the people. I recall reading the report of the consultative forum, which clearly stated there is no mandate or appetite among the people to move away from the triple lock, for example, yet that has not been borne out in the actions, directions or intentions of the Tánaiste or the Government over the coming months, and I am worried by that. In three months, I hope, but potentially even later, there will be a general election. I cannot think of any better forum by which we could say what the policies of the various parties would be should they get a mandate to serve in government for the next five years. That these motions are being rushed through when a general election is coming down the line gives grounds for suspicion.

The world urgently needs countries working towards de-escalation, demilitarisation and disarmament, now more than ever. Ireland's colonial and postcolonial experiences, resulting in the promotion of self-determination, anti-imperialism and anti-militarism, have defined our contributions to peace at international level from the outset. We talk about a foreign policy doctrine for Ireland and what that means. It is clearly there, in our history, and has been borne out by the blood and loss of life of many of our blue helmets. If we are to make a change, we owe it to them to ensure that change will be scrutinised at the highest level, not only of our Parliament but of our democracy.

I am running out of time, so I will end on this point. I understand there are issues with the UN and that there are complicating factors but it is at this point, when the dogs of war are gathering, that we must stand up for these institutions that were born out of conflict. We should stand up for peace and recognise the fact the UN Security Council was born out of the devastation and horrors of the First World War and the Second World War. Rather than simply step away from these institutions when it is difficult, we should be that beacon that promotes peace. Our history demands it of us. We are uniquely placed, certainly in Europe but potentially in the world, to be that voice for these institutions because now more than ever they need it.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My party colleague Deputy Cronin made the point earlier that what we owe to our Defence Forces personnel is to maintain a system that minimises risk and maximises the contribution they can make to global peace, but the unfortunate reality is there are only 7,500 personnel, as opposed to the target of 11,500. The Tánaiste may revert to the claim that the issue was inherited by the Government, but the rate of recruitment and subsequent retention shows that this claim holds little water. The year 2023 saw fewer Defence Forces personnel deployed on UN peacekeeping missions than was the case when the previous Government's time was coming to an end.

The Tánaiste told a committee this week that the pause on deploying peacekeepers to the Golan Heights is the result of a process of consolidation with regard to overseas commitments and to prepare for future peacekeeping missions. Can he accurately define what he means by “consolidation” and comment on the recruitment and retention issues being experienced through poor Government responsibility against those who give so much of themselves to uphold this country's peacekeeping reputation?

I will end by speaking about the depressing note the Tánaiste sounded at a meeting of the foreign affairs committee this week, when he said that at the time of the HSE cyberattack, our cybersecurity defences were at "a relatively embryonic stage of its formation." This is just one example of the Tánaiste's record and that of his predecessors, yet he thinks it is appropriate to approach issues concerning how this House signs off on matters pertaining to military missions with a minimalistic approach to discussion and scrutiny. We can see this from his willingness to abandon the triple lock despite there being little public appetite for a change to the current position on neutrality. The Tánaiste campaigned on the basis of retaining the triple lock, yet he has now changed his stance on our neutrality and is taking an approach whereby he wants to rush through measures and disguise his own failings. I do not appreciate the attitude he takes on these matters and will not support him in trying to disguise his poor record.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sharing time. What we see here is an exercise in boiling the frog of neutrality, that is, just turning up the temperature, bit by bit, and hoping the people will not notice; removing any real content from the word "neutrality" while keeping simply the word; getting rid of the triple lock, which, as the Tánaiste said himself, is at the core of our neutrality; and signing up for more and more of these European militarisation projects of PESCO and the European Defence Agency. The report to the Tánaiste, which he is seeking to have endorsed by the Dáil, among other things puts more misinformation into the public domain. It states that the current system, that is, the triple lock, effectively allows UN Security Council members to bind Ireland’s hands in its international engagement through the exercise of a veto or indeed the threat of same. This is misinformation that has been put out repeatedly to the public. Now, the Tánaiste is trying to put it into wording agreed to by the Dáil.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not misinformation.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will tell the Tánaiste why it is misinformation. I quoted this previously to him and he did not respond.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

You are wrong.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Section 1 of the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006 clearly refers, in the context of the triple lock, to "an international force or body established, mandated, authorised, endorsed, supported, approved or otherwise sanctioned by a resolution of the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations". It is simply not true that we have any veto. A regional peacekeeping force that was endorsed by a resolution of the General Assembly of the UN would meet the requirements for the triple lock. It is simply misinformation.

The report attempts to endorse another project that was also the source of misinformation, namely, the sending of 30 troops to participate in the EU military assistance mission, which, in my opinion, was a breach of neutrality. At the time, the Tánaiste was at pains to emphasise this would be non-lethal training. People were led to believe this was training to deal with mines. In fact, it emerged lethal training was involved, in the shooting of rifles.

There are more and more of these PESCO projects to which we are asked to sign up with so little oversight or debate in here. I will quote from one of those we are being asked to sign up to today, relating to the network of logistics hubs in Europe and support operations. It states:

With respect to possible operations, for the predeployment of [war] materiel, depots and or maintenance facilities of other European countries could be used mutually as well. The network will decrease the reaction time and increase capacities and sustainability for military operations.

This project is co-ordinated by Germany, the second biggest exporter of weapons in the world, after only the US, to Israel, which is currently engaged in a genocide. If we look at the two EDA projects we are asked to sign up for, one of them is a cyber defence thing. Again, if we read about the previous cyber defence thing, it is explicitly very military orientated, involving a drone control system, a space control system, to be defended from attacks. This is all a process of militarisation and we are opposed to it.

Mick Barry (Cork North Central, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Military spending in western and central Europe is now higher than it was in the last year of the Cold War. In 2022, military outlays globally rose for the eighth consecutive year, hitting $2.24 trillion. This was before the Gaza genocide. This arms race is the backdrop to these Government proposals. The network of logistics hubs in Europe and support for operations provides for "predeployment of materiel" at hubs across Europe. That does not mean food and blankets. It means military equipment.

This is preparation for war. How can the Tánaiste square participation in such arrangements with Irish neutrality?

As for the defence energy manager's course he wants us to sign up to, the military and arms industry accounts for 5.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. This is greater than the total emissions from the civilian airlines and shipping industries combined. The best way to protect the environment is to cut military spending, not jack it up and send defence energy managers on courses.

Mark Ward (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this motion. Ireland prides itself as a neutral and peaceful nation. Our neutrality is a strength. It is valued and supported by the Irish people. On the international stage our neutrality has underpinned our contribution to peacemaking and diplomacy and has never been a weakness. In the Tánaiste's opening comments at the committee on defence yesterday, he called once again for the triple lock to be removed. Sinn Féin is absolutely opposed to the move by the Government to undermine Irish neutrality by scrapping the triple lock. This goes against the views of the Irish public and goes against the Tánaiste's own views when he was in opposition. What has changed since he entered into government?

The real issue we should speak about is the fact that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have run our Defence Forces into the ground, leaving them under-resourced and underpaid.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, we did not.

Mark Ward (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We need to address the chronic underinvestment in our Defence Forces to allow Ireland to continue to participate in UN peacekeeping missions, to defend and monitor our skies and seas and to protect Ireland from real threats we face including cyberattacks.

I have spoken many times on matters of defence in this Dáil. I mentioned before that my own father spent 25 years in the Army. Growing up, I saw him have to work numerous jobs in addition to his Army duties just to keep food on the table and clothes on our backs because the pay and conditions were so bad. Fast forward to 25 years later, things have not improved.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They have improved dramatically.

Mark Ward (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will counteract that. We have a situation now where people who go away for six months, serve in the United Nations, come back and have to sign on for the working family payment. That is the truth because the pay is that low.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Ah, come on.

Mark Ward (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I can send the details about this. The pay is so low that soldiers are coming back from United Nations peacekeeping missions and having to claim the working family payment. That is a damning indictment on the Government.

Pay and conditions within the Defence Forces have been something my Sinn Féin colleagues and I have raised regularly and they need to improve. This is how you strengthen our Defence Forces. You pay the men and women properly. This will also help with recruitment and with retention. Nearly four years after the Government took office, the recruitment and retention crisis continues unabated. More people have left than have joined every year since the Government took office, with numbers of just over 7,500 members against a target of 11,500. This is a failure.

Our peacekeeping efforts are something to be proud of as well. Regrettably, the Government withdrew from the UNDOF mission to the Golan Heights, in which Ireland had participated for more than a decade and that saw more than 2,700 Defence Force personnel deployed, at the time when the mission is more crucial than ever. The Tánaiste deprioritised a non-mandated peacekeeping mission in favour of an EU battle group that cannot even secure the adequate complement of volunteers in which to take part. Even the rank and file have abandoned this plan.

Peter Fitzpatrick (Louth, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a personal note, I thank the Tánaiste for the update on Private Seán Rooney, who was killed on 14 December 2022, and for keeping the pressure on the Lebanese ministers for foreign affairs and defence and their legal department. It is very important to get justice for Private Seán Rooney, his family and his colleagues. It is also nice to note that it is a priority of this Government to look after Private Seán Rooney.

It is also important that we look after the troops on the ground. It is important they get the proper equipment and proper pay. As a former Irish soldier deployed in the 27th Battalion in Dundalk, I know the fantastic work the soldiers do. I know the fantastic training they do and the time the sacrifice away from their families. The Tánaiste mentioned earlier that the Defence Forces have been deployed in UN peacekeeping since 1958 and at present, there are 450 troops serving abroad. I plead with the Tánaiste to please look after the equipment and the money, because it is very important to get the right people in the Defence Forces.

With regard to the motion, the Defence Forces make a positive contribution to the country’s security. Yet, Ireland's vulnerability has been continually highlighted by security experts in recent times. The international security environment has changed significantly over the last year. There has been blatant disregard of international law and Europe’s collective security architecture, bringing war to the European Continent. Over the past years, Ireland has been targeted by malign activists, including the large cyberattack on our health service during the pandemic. We need to start looking at how better to defend ourselves against all sorts of hybrid threats. Beyond the operational lessons, this war has also made it clear that we need a broader, more resilient and more reactive industrial and technological base. Therefore, from the outset, it is clear that we need to work with our European counterparts, via PESCO and the European Defence Agency, in the area of security and defence; develop defence capabilities across all domains; invest in shared projects; and enhance the operational readiness and contribution to their armed forces. Such a base must help increase the readiness of European militaries and produce weapons that member states can use together, to be interoperable in the NATO framework. PESCO is focused on deepening national co-operation, closing capability gaps and ensuring greater community between countries to help avoid duplication of effort and feed the development of new multinational programmes.

One project aims to enhance EU co-operation in monitoring, securing, and defending critical seabed infrastructure against various threats, including sabotage, terrorism, and espionage. This involves developing capabilities for surveillance and response in maritime environments, as well as fostering information-sharing and co-ordination among participating countries.

The goal of the second PESCO project, the NetLogHubs, is aiming for a multinational network based on existing logistic capabilities and infrastructure. The goal is to use a network of existing logistic installations for multinational network businesses to prepare equipment for operations, to commonly use depot space for spare parts or ammunition and to harmonise transport and deployment activities. The network will decrease the reaction time and increase capacities and sustainability for military operations.

The European Defence Agency projects include a defence energy manager's course that will provide training and education on energy management and sustainability for military installations; resulting in energy consumption, cost, and CO2 emission reduction benefits. Another cyber defence exercises project will provide training for cyber defence experts and strengthen co-operation in cyber defence education, training and exercises.

Ireland is vulnerable in the area of security and defence as we strive to address the capability, staffing and structural gaps in Ireland’s armed forces. It is essential that the Defence Forces recruit, retain, and develop for the future, skilled personnel and key specialists. A vital element of this will be the regeneration and development of relations with the EU. These projects will develop defence capacity across all domains, which is significantly needed to reduce our vulnerabilities.

For the last number of years I have asked the Tánaiste to increase the age limit for soldiers and in fairness, he has done that. We have very specialist people in the Army we cannot afford to lose. I was approached numerous times in my constituency office over the last number of years by members of the 27th Battalion, who were young people who wanted to participate. This is a vocation and these people, whether trained in weapons or transport, are vital people.

We need to increase the number of recruits. Numbers in the Army are at an all-time low. Speaking to a lot of people in the area, a lot of them would like to join the Army but in order to join they would have to be making a kind of living as well. I will not go down the road of the cost of living and everything else but for someone to join the Army nowadays with the money being so low they would never to be able to get a mortgage.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The money is not low any more.

Peter Fitzpatrick (Louth, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Maybe not any more but when someone goes into the Army, he or she will be starting from a very low base and everything else.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is higher.

Peter Fitzpatrick (Louth, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If a garda and a nurse are married, they still cannot afford to buy a three-bedroom house in Dublin.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What is the starting rate?

Peter Fitzpatrick (Louth, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

These are young people who want to have a career and to be properly trained and to be properly financed for the work.

These people are deployed on UN peacekeeping missions. They are away from their families for six to eight months. I am a family man, and that seems a long time to be away. These people are making sacrifices. The rewards should be there.

I will put my hand up and say that the Tánaiste continues to do a great deal of good work. He seems to be compassionate, especially in the context of the Seán Rooney incident. As Minister for Foreign Affairs, he always has Ireland at heart. I ask him to consider the position with regard to equipment and pay. As an ex-soldier, I know the type of training these troops do and the sacrifice they make in the context of the amount of time they spend away from their families.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I, too, am delighted to speak on this matter. Like it or lump it, Tánaiste, you are creating an impression and you have stated that our neutrality is an outdated concept. You have created your own head space in respect of this matter. You did when you held the roadshows, your first little get-togethers, and invited a specially appointed chairperson who you knew was a safe pair of hands. Some of those roadshows were interrupted in Cork and other places. I do not support that. People are not happy and do not trust you on this issue. That is one thing that is certain. I do not trust you on this issue. You are tinkering away at the triple lock and many other things, including PESCO and everything else. You mentioned pay a few minutes ago and said that pay has risen, which it has. For a young soldier joining, thank God, the pay is good. What happens if he has a partner or wife and a family? The wages are very poor. I salute our peacekeepers, as ever, across the world. Gerard Connolly, a good friend of mine from Newcastle, is stationed in Kilkenny. He is over and back to Lebanon and other places. His wife and family are at home, and all the other colleagues with him.

The men of Jadotville are waiting so long for recognition, justice and acknowledgement of their brave, heroic deeds. One of them went to his heavenly reward recently. How long more are they going to have to wait to be recognised for the bravery of what they did and for the State to acknowledge the mistreatment they got, the way they have been demonised and the fact that they were not supported by the Army or successive Governments for decades. The men of Jadotville must be recognised. It is past time. There is a limited number of them left. It must happen sooner rather than later.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

After what our forefathers went through for 800 years, culminating in gaining our independence early in the last century, it is a fright to God to see how Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and their buddies in the Green Party are using this proposal. They will ram it through tonight with the votes that they have, like they did with the migration pact.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Which proposal?

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

You can talk after. I did not interrupt anyone.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I just do not know which proposal the Deputy is referring to.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What you are proposing to do is dilute our neutrality and our sovereignty. You are not being honest with the Irish people or with the Defence Forces. Why do you not hold a referendum on this matter? Why did you not hold a referendum on the migration pact?

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

About the energy management course. Do you know what you are talking about?

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

One speaker please, Tánaiste.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I did not interrupt you.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What are you talking about?

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am asking you questions. Why do you not hold a referendum about what you are proposing to do?

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am trying to keep my sanity here.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

You are not being honest with the people. Look what you did last Wednesday night. Look at what you are doing - diluting our neutrality. When Ireland fought for independence, no one came to our aid. For 800 years, nobody came. It was Ireland itself that gained its independence.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The French did - Killala and Kinsale.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

You are chipping away at it now day by day. First the migration pact and now joining PESCO. Our neutrality will be gone with what you are at. You have to be honest with the people. Why did you not hold a referendum? You talked before about getting rid of the triple lock. You know what you are doing but you are not telling the Defence Forces. This will affect them and jeopardise them. The triple lock meant that missions had to be approved by the UN. China and Russia are part of the UN. We could have troops stranded out in some country and those two states will not agree at the UN to us bringing our troops home. You are jeopardising the lives of honest, hard-working people who you do not pay properly when they do come home. They have to get family income supplement. That is not being fair. You do not have enough people. You are not recruiting enough and you are making no attempt to do so. This is absolutely ridiculous.

You did not give us time to spell out to the Members here what you are actually doing. We only got this document half an hour ago, and since we came in here. I actually had a minute and a half to talk but, because my colleague did not come in, I now have three minutes. There are several other Members who did not get enough time. We do not know what you are at. The people do not know what you are at. You are not being honest. You held a referendum no bother to dilute the women's role in the home but you cannot hold a referendum on these important matters at all. You are being very unfair with the people. You are using a cobbled-together arrangement with the Green Party to get this over the line, like you did last Wednesday night.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate. I deplore the fact that we have such little time for it. The Tánaiste ran out of time himself in his speech. I have five minutes in this very restricted debate to deal with two motions you are putting before us to approve, which is not possible. I certainly will not be supporting you. Then you add insult to injury by telling us that there was a good debate at the relevant committee. I understand that said debate lasted an hour and a half. You have made a speech tonight and you have presented a report, which you are statutorily obliged to do. There is a difference between the two which I welcome. Interestingly enough, you never mentioned the triple lock.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is separate legislation coming.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Interestingly, in the report on the service of members of the Defence Forces with the UN, which one of the motions proposes to accept, rather than giving us an outline - although you pay tribute to them, which I welcome - and highlight the fantastic peacekeeping work they do and the lives they have saved, almost two pages of your speech tonight were devoted to the triple lock. You refer to the consultative committee. You used that report on our peacekeeping forces serving abroad to tell us about how we should get rid of the triple lock. You put in the consultative forum, which was a packed body. Notwithstanding that it was a packed body, it still did not give you the answer you wanted. The answer was that there is absolutely no appetite for losing our neutrality. You take the opportunity in the report which you do not take in your speech. You tell us the consultative forum took place when it did and that there was detailed and well-informed discussion, which I agree with. You go on to talk about the triple lock and so on. That is in the report, and it should not be there at all. I would say straight, on the record, when we talk about combating disinformation, there is an onus on us to tell the truth. We can disagree with each other.

Let me look at what the Tánaiste's party has said: "Fianna Fáil is dedicated to Ireland’s policy of military neutrality. It is a policy which we have pursued both in government and out of it, and it has ... key defining [features]", "Fianna Fáil reaffirms its commitment to the retention of the Triple Lock", and so on. Forgive me if I cannot go into it. It was in your manifesto. I am not taking it out of sync. That was in 2020.

Let us go back to 2013, courtesy of People Before Profit, who tabled a very good motion recently and took the trouble of outlining the background. The Tánaiste said in 2013 that the triple lock was at the core of our neutrality and described the attempt to undermine it as an out-of-touch ideological obsession on the part of Fine Gael. Of course, there is no difference between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael now so I can see why you might have changed. I would certainly welcome it if the Tánaiste would use the opportunity to tell us what has led him to abandon that very strong position and tell us the triple lock has nothing to do with our neutrality, notwithstanding that we signed various declarations and different names given to them. The Government forced the people to vote twice for Nice and twice for Lisbon on the guarantee that our neutrality would not be touched. You come before us in this manner. I agree with what Deputy Paul Murphy said, although I do not like the image of the frog being boiled. That is exactly what is happening here. Bit by bit, you are taking from our neutrality. It is insulting to do it do us. We have an obligation as parliamentarians, as Deputy Howlin has said, to analyse whether we agree with each other, and to have a detailed report from a committee that helps us to understand why we now need to get rid of the triple lock.

Up to very recently, the Minister never quoted anybody but Russia. I have deplored Russia's invasion of Ukraine so I can adopt the high moral ground here. There was never a condemnation of America's use of the veto, which I understand is on a parallel with Russia. I have condemned Hamas, but there is no condemnation of Israel in the report. The Minister mentioned Hamas and spoke about the security situation changing and how Hamas has been singled out.

Is the Minister in a position to tell me how many people have been slaughtered in Palestine up to now? Perhaps he has the up-to-date figures from a government that is utterly out of control, a rogue government that is before the International Court of Justice for genocide. We are supporting that, through von der Leyen and Government MEPs who said before they were elected they would not support it.

The Minister sounds like Pat Rabbitte in days gone by who said promises are what we do before an election and after an election the real world takes over. I stand here proudly and tell the Minister that our voice should be used for peace and we should retain our neutrality and the triple lock. We should use the General Assembly. I am not ashamed to say that I am absolutely appalled by the military direction in which Europe is going. Almost 14,000 people are homeless and we are now agreeing with von der Leyen to put millions, if not billions, into the industrial military complex which will lead to more deaths. I unashamedly stand here and say I will not support either of these motions.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Connolly made a very disingenuous presentation. I have condemned Israel's bombardment of Gaza, but it is never good enough for the left because it has always attempted to use the Middle East and Gaza as-----

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

You have not included it in either of your reports.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----a wedge issue continually. Ireland has demonstrated, through its policy on the Middle East and Gaza, its independence and farm policy. For God's sake acknowledge it.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would love to.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Ireland recognised the State of Palestine with Spain and with Norway, but you could not reference that. You had to try to give the impression that Ireland was a party to genocide. How dare you say that in this House?

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context

You supported von der Leyen.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The self-righteousness of the far left in this country really frustrates me. What did you not talk about today? What did Sinn Féin not talk about today? What did Deputy Paul Murphy not talk about today?

One of the proposals before the House to approve today is whether we participate in an energy management course which costs €1,500 and €5,000 per member, of which there will be four to six a year. Somehow, if we participate in that course we will jettison Irish military neutrality. Will you for God's sake wise up? Be honest with the Irish public. That is what is before Deputies today.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Be honest

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are four programmes. There are two PESCO programmes, one about the critical seabed and the subsea which relates to how we co-operate with and learn from others and protect our undersea infrastructure, including sea cables which sustain thousands of jobs in this country. What planet are you on? What bloody planet are you on?

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Developing underwater assets.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

People do not trust-----

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no vote today on the triple lock. It is mentioned in the report. That will come with legislation. There is a vote on whether we participate in subsea cable projects under PESCO. There is a vote on whether we participate in cyber exercises under PESCO. We should. We saw what happened with the attack on the HSE. The only way we will be resilient in terms of cyber security in this country is if we work with other EU member states and countries in terms of how we combat and resist criminal organisations and state actors.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Put it to the people and call a referendum.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Since Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, the number of cyber attacks has grown exponentially. That is a reality.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Call a referendum.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are cyber attacks left, right and centre. We have to build up resilience. These are modest proposals before us. The PESCO proposals are very modest.

Yesterday, at the committee there was the Chair and two members. There was no evidence yesterday that people were exercised about this.

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is because we were in this Chamber.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Cronin suggested that I made a light case for the PESCO projects. I did not. I was quite comprehensive and substantive. The Deputy's spokesperson could not make it yesterday; he asked for a debate at the committee but was not in a position to attend, which can happen. The bottom line is that I attended the committee yesterday for an hour and 45 minutes. There was no real argument about participating in an energy management course, the critical seabed infrastructure programme under PESCO or the cyber space programme. Is this Dáil saying that we should not participate in these programmes?

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

To be fair, I do not think Deputy Murphy believes we should have an army at all.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not believe in it.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Barry said he wants to cut defence expenditure. He wants to cut the amount of money we are giving to the Army and Defence Forces, which is fair enough. That is his position. He said it. He said we should cut military expenditure. That is Deputy Barry's position. I believe that Deputy Murphy's position is that he believes we should not have an army at all. That is my view.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not believe we should participate in European militarisation.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Whatever that means. You have your view. There is somewhat of a false presentation regarding the triple lock. Deputies accuse me of misinformation. We are not guilty of any misinformation. The UN General Assembly cannot approve a peacekeeping operation in practice. Deputies know that. Such operations are only ever deployed on the basis of mandates from the United Nations Security Council. The General Assembly cannot compel action.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A region-----

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In certain instances where a matter has been considered by the Security Council and has been the subject of a veto, the General Assembly may consider the matter and make a recommendation to UN members for collective action. We did that recently regarding the issue of Palestine. Ultimately, while other organs of the UN make recommendations to member states under the UN charter, the Council alone has the power to take decisions which member states are obligated to implement.

Only once in history has the UN General Assembly invoked the uniting for peace resolution and recommended a peacekeeping operation. That happened nearly 70 years ago, when it established the first UN emergency force in the Middle East in 1956. Moreover, the unit was not a peace enforcement operation as envisaged in Article 42 of the United Nations charter, but rather a peacekeeping operation that would be carried out with the consent and co-operation of the parties to the conflict. That is the bottom line and Deputy Murphy knows that. The Security Council-----

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Go back and read the debate from 2006.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----will approve or not approve peacekeeping missions. It has not approved any since 2014. That is the bottom line. I mentioned Russia. I do not believe Irish foreign policy or our decision to participate in peacekeeping missions should be vetoed by a country like Russia. I will name Russia.

Deputy Howlin asked me what our policy is anchored in. It is anchored in multilateralism. It is centred on human rights. This was demonstrated by our performance on the Security Council for two years. Our policy involved a peaceful resolution of conflict, especially protecting women, in particular, in conflict.

We had a good record internationally, but listening to the Opposition one would imagine we had some sort of terrible reputation internationally. For God's sake, the Opposition should at least acknowledge the positives in Irish foreign policy. I listened to Sinn Féin Deputy after Sinn Féin Deputy talk about warmongering and militarisation. It is all nonsense and cannot be substantiated on any basis because Ireland has a good international position.

That is what came across in the consultative forum, which was not a packed forum. It is a disgrace to assert that and an insult to the people who turned up at that consultative forum and gave very important viewpoints. In my view, what was a disgrace was that Members of this House and organisations outside of the House tried to suppress debate and said that the forum should not meet and we should not discuss this.

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I did not try to suppress debate.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not talking about you. I am talking about Deputy Murphy, who clearly did not want it to happen.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wanted a citizens' assembly like you wanted. You changed your mind.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy was of the view that it should not happen. You try to entrap people who participated and it continues. Deputy Carthy said publicly at one stage that he would support PESCO projects.

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, he did not say that. You cannot say that. He said he would take every one as it comes, look at it and decide then.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He said if he was ever elected to Government, he would not reverse participation-----

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He said he would take everything you are bringing forward to us and we would look at it. We are looking at it------

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He spoke publicly. It was interpreted at the time as meaning that he would not reverse-----

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are having a bit of a back-and-forth.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister is asking for an interaction. Can we do it through the Chair on both sides? The Minister has the floor.

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister has encouraged debate.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand that. I am asking the Minister to speak through the Chair.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What I am now hearing from Sinn Féin is that it will oppose our participation in the PESCO projects that are before us today for approval.

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I told the Tánaiste I will look at every motion he brings before us and we will decide on that basis.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Sinn Féin is going to oppose a proposal for four to six members of the Defence Forces, per year, to participate in an energy management course that will cost €1,500. It is doing so for reasons I do not know. That is Sinn Féin's foreign policy for you. We have 17 installations. The Defence Forces are the biggest users of energy in the public service. Why is there an objection to the Defence Forces participating in an EDA or PESCO programme to learn about energy-saving technologies? Why in the name of God would anyone vote against that? It is a fair question to put to Sinn Féin Members. I ask the same of Deputy Danny Healy-Rae. He made a fair point in his contribution. He should vote in support of it.

Deputy Fitzpatrick referred to pay and benefits, as did Deputy Ward. Significant measures have been implemented in this regard. For the first time, all enlisted members of the Defence Forces are eligible for private healthcare. I introduced that measure as Minister.

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If we had a decent health service, nobody would need private health insurance.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On the pay issue, there are significant changes. We have removed the requirement for a private to mark time for the first three years. We have provided for payment of the full rate of military service allowance to all. The patrol duty allowance is being doubled. New public service pay agreements will apply. All of this means that on completion of training, which takes approximately 24 weeks, recruits will now start on €39,321 in year one, move to €40,718 in year two and to €42,005 in year three. A graduate cadet, on commissioning, starts on a pay scale, which includes military service allowance, from €48,505, depending on the type of appointment. A school-leaver cadet starts on €43,000. That is above most starting rates across the public service. We need to develop a more positive narrative about the Defence Forces than some Deputies have suggested today.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In accordance with Standing Order 80(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time later this evening.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves Ireland's participation in the following: (i) two Permanent Structured Cooperation Projects in accordance with the Programme for Government commitment:

(a) Network of Logistic Hubs in Europe and Support to Operations, and

(b) Critical Seabed Infrastructure Protection and the associated Category B European Defence Agency support to the project, and

(ii) two European Defence Agency projects pursuant to section 2 of the Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009:

(a) Defence Energy Managers' Course II, and

(b) Cyber Defence Exercises.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In accordance with Standing Order 80(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time later this evening.