Vol. 1054 No. 3
4. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the timeline for when the tribunal of inquiry to examine the effectiveness of the complaints process in the Defence Forces will be fully up and running; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22038/24]
21. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence further to Parliamentary Question No. 6 of 21 March 2024, the status of the tribunal of inquiry to examine the effectiveness of the complaints process in the Defence Forces; the details of how people can make submissions to the tribunal; what legal supports will be available to people who make submissions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22003/24]
My question specifically relates to the tribunal of inquiry to examine the effectiveness of the complaints process of the Defence Forces. When will it sit to hear, bearing in mind that in September it will be three years since the Katie Hannon show featuring the Women of Honour, who showed courage. It is more than two years since the independent review. We are into our fourth month since the Tánaiste announced the tribunal of inquiry. Will he give us the details?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 and 21 together.
The Government recently approved the terms of reference for a tribunal of inquiry, pursuant to the provisions of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. The tribunal will examine the effectiveness of the complaints processes in the Defence Forces concerning workplace issues relating to discrimination, bullying, harassment, sexual harassment, sexual misconduct and the use of hazardous chemicals within Air Corps headquarters at Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel. The Government also approved the appointment of Ms Justice Ann Power to chair the tribunal. The motions to establish the tribunal of inquiry were subsequently approved by both Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann.
The tribunal chair is currently finalising arrangements to allow the inquiry to commence its work at the earliest possible date. This includes the appointment of legal and administrative staff to support the work of the tribunal. A premises in Smithfield, Dublin, has been provided by the Office of Public Works for the purposes of the inquiry and arrangements are ongoing to ensure that it is ready for its first public sitting day.
I will be signing a statutory instrument to give effect to the formal establishment of the tribunal very shortly. Following this, I anticipate that the tribunal will publish an opening statement containing general guidance for all persons who wish to engage with it on matters relevant to its terms of reference. This would include information about how people can make submissions to the tribunal. It will be a matter for the tribunal to determine how it conducts its subsequent investigations. As is normal in these cases, decisions on the granting of legal representation will be entirely a matter for the tribunal.
I welcome the fact that we are beginning to get a little bit of clarity. A premises has been procured, which is good. The statutory instrument has not yet been signed, which is not so good. What is the delay? When will that be signed? That is still vague. I am conscious all of the time of the background to this, the delay and the whole history, which I will not go into at this time. The inquiry that was set up said "Notwithstanding the role of the Defence Forces, neither men nor women in the Defence Forces are working in a safe working environment." That is putting it mildly and taking the easiest statement from the inquiry's report. Many things harsher than that were said. It is essential that we get clarity around that. There will be a public statement from the person who is appointed. The question of legal help and legal advice is still unclear. The Minister says it is a matter for the tribunal. Will those who come forward make oral submissions or written submissions? I also seek clarity on legal assistance and costs.
We have indicated that the tribunal will be located in Smithfield. There were issues to discuss regarding legal representation, costs and so on. That is all sorted. I anticipate the commencement order being signed within the next fortnight. My officials will bring the commencement order for me to sign. It is normally the case that, once we appoint a chairperson, that chairperson organises the conduct of the tribunal and I do not see that changing in this instance. While parties will have entitlements to legal representation and so forth, it is a matter for the chair to organise how the tribunal is conducted and the nature of submissions made, whether written or oral. I do not want to go into the work of the chair of the tribunal. Once the Dáil approves the terms of reference and the Government appoints a chair, the tribunal will operate within the context of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 as a public inquiry under that Act. That is what the Women of Honour group and others sought because they wanted full transparency. The chair will operate within that Act. We are determined. As the Deputy has said, very serious issues were raised in the work of the independent review group, which was established after the revelations of the "Women of Honour" programme on RTÉ. That work took a year. The group made its conclusions, which were important in themselves, and that then led to the establishment of the tribunal.
The Tánaiste has gone back a little bit. What happened here, the length of time and the whole lot, was simply unacceptable. It took a documentary to spur the Government into action but that is now history. At this point, have the administrative staff been appointed? Is a full team now in place? When will the statutory instrument be signed? Will it be signed today or tomorrow? Are the administrative staff in place? The actual procedures are also very important for people. This is a tribunal into the effectiveness of the complaints process, which is absurd in itself but that is where we are. It is clear that the complaints process was totally inadequate and ineffective and led to abuse of process. That is my opinion and it is certainly the opinion of many others as well. To make sure that there is trust, we need clarity on how people are going to make their submissions and on the legal advice that will be available to them. Will legal advice be available to them? Will that be made clear on the first day the tribunal sits? When will the tribunal sit for its opening day?
As I said in my previous reply, I expect to sign that commencement order within a fortnight, if not sooner. A tribunal has to do a lot of preparatory work before hearings are announced. That is normal and allows for people to make submissions and so forth. I do not anticipate any difference from the legal representation parties have had in previous tribunals of inquiry. A lot of progress has been made on staffing and on getting this up and running but a lot of preparatory work is required to get a tribunal of this nature established. It will require a lot of resources on the part of the Department and the Defence Forces to allow them to co-operate fully with the tribunal. Others making submissions will obviously also require support.
5. Deputy Brendan Griffin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if he will further review the pandemic recognition payment for Defence Forces personnel who worked in test centres to make sure all deserving individuals received the payment, given that some did not; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22112/24]
This question relates to Defence Forces personnel who worked in Covid testing and vaccination centres during the pandemic. Many of these people worked in these centres for 12 to 16 months and provided a very valuable resource but they have not been considered for the pandemic recognition payment. This is wrong. Can the matter be reviewed? Some specific personnel did great work but did not get the payment and that is very unfair.
I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. As he will know, in January 2022, the Government announced a Covid-19 pandemic recognition payment for front-line public sector healthcare workers to recognise their unique role during the pandemic. At Government level, the Department of Health has primary policy responsibility for this initiative, having received the consent of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, as it was then. The payment is not subject to income tax, USC or PRSI. The Government announcement also made provision for a pro rata application of the payment. The payment amounts to €1,000 for those eligible staff who worked at least 60% whole-time equivalent for at least four weeks during the period between 1 March 2020 and 30 June 2021 and €600 for those who worked below 60% whole-time equivalent. Those who worked less than four weeks are not within the scope of the measure.
The measure is ring-fenced to eligible staff who were ordinarily on-site in Covid-19 exposed healthcare environments during the pandemic. As it relates to Defence Forces personnel, this means members of the Defence Forces redeployed to work in front-line Covid-19 exposed environments in the HSE. I understand that work to identify all Covid-related duties undertaken by members of the Defence Forces has been completed by military management in order to identify personnel who may be eligible for this recognition payment.
It is important to note that ultimate interpretation of the scheme was a matter for the Minister for Health with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. The validation and subsequent payment of the recognition payment to those members of the Defence Forces deemed eligible and therefore in line for payment have been processed by the Department of Defence based on information supplied by military management, a process which went on from October 2022 to the end of 2023. I am assured that all members of the Defence Forces deemed within scope for payment of the recognition payment have received their payments and I have been advised that there are no outstanding cases. If the Deputy knows of some outstanding cases, perhaps we can discuss them in the time ahead.
Perhaps, on foot of this question, the Tánaiste might initiate a review. My understanding is that all members were initially on lists created by their units but that those lists were not fully accepted at a higher level. Apparently, the criteria specified that only those military personnel who were physically administering vaccines or taking swabs would ultimately receive the payment. The people who were not picked up included those who spent more than a year directing traffic through centres at Defence Forces sites, those who were directly engaging with people at the gates of testing centres and those who were looking after the stock on site. None of these were considered. I was in those testing centres during the pandemic. We can be proud of the way our military personnel conducted their operations. I have spoken to some since and it is a shame that some were overlooked. In the interests of fairness, the matter could be reviewed. It would be very fair to reconsider these people.
I will have a look at the situation again to satisfy myself as to how the process was conducted and I will revert then.
Further people involved include those directly in contact with the healthcare workers on site. Patient transfer teams were not considered. These people did similar jobs to people in ambulance teams bringing people for tests who needed to be transported. For example, the Tralee testing centre was manned by military personnel for 12 to 16 months, including Christmas and all public holidays. I was in there many times with family members and for tests myself. It was an efficient operation and the Tánaiste would be proud of the way everything was conducted. Some people feel hurt they were not included in the scheme. Sometimes with red tape and bureaucracy people slip through the net. I hope it would not be too difficult to revisit and put right.
It was very challenging all round to demarcate those entitled to payments across all public services. A total of 717 Defence Forces personnel were deemed eligible and have been paid the full €1,000 pandemic recognition payment. It is not an inconsiderable number. Both Permanent Defence Forces representative associations on two separate occasions issued information circulars to their respective members requesting those who believe themselves eligible for the payment to engage with the joint task force.
The Department is confident all those eligible have received the payment. The Department fully examined all cases for the pandemic recognition payment over a protracted period of 18 months. An extensive validation process took place, including engagement with the Defence Forces joint task force - that was the unit responsible for the deployment of personnel - to include the recording of duties undertaken during the Covid pandemic by defence personnel.
This has not been raised with me prior to today. I will discuss it with my officials again to make absolutely sure.
6. Deputy Robert Troy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence when a decision will be taken on the location of the new Army headquarters; if Athlone will be considered given its central location; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22145/24]
I ask about the proposed location for the new Army headquarters. When will a decision be taken on that? Will the Tánaiste commit to giving Custume Barracks, Athlone, favourable consideration?
I thank the Deputy, who has been strongly advocating for Athlone for this role for some time. The Commission on the Defence Forces was established on foot of a commitment in the programme for Government and the Government decision in December 2020, which also agreed its terms of reference and membership. The report was published on 9 February 2022.
The commission undertook a significant body of work, encompassing wide-ranging terms of reference. It recommended significant changes for the Defence Forces and defence provision. It covers high-level Defence Forces structures, defence capabilities, organisation, culture and human resources, the Reserve Defence Force and funding.
In July 2022, the Government approved a high-level action plan in response to the commission report. As part of this, approval was given for a move over a six-year period to a level of Defence Forces capability equivalent to level of ambition 2, as set out in the capability framework devised by the commission, which will entail funding increases to reach a defence budget of circa €1.5 billion, at January 2022 prices, by 2028 through the annual Estimates process.
There are a number of recommendations contained in the report which may impact on the structure of the Defence Forces, including that the structure of the Army be reviewed, and, in that context, the disposition of units across the Defence Forces may be considered. The recommendation that the structure of the Army be reviewed was identified as an early action in the high-level action plan.
No decisions on the future disposition or locations of Defence Forces formations, installations and personnel have been made at this time. In keeping with the recommendations of the Commission on the Defence Forces, military authorities have established an office of Army force design which will undertake the work required to give effect to this recommendation.
The detailed implementation plan approved by Government in November last year sets out a number of work streams that will inform phase 2 of the Army design process which is expected to deliver an agile, flexible and regionally balanced force.
The Tánaiste will remember that the last time he visited Custume Barracks he met with me and councillors Keena and O'Rourke, who put a strong case for considering Athlone as the future Army headquarters. The Tánaiste is right to say it was among the Fianna Fáil party requests for the programme for Government that a commission be established on the future of the Defence Forces. I welcome its establishment, the work it did, the publication of the report and its acceptance by the Government. The report recommends that a new Army headquarters be established. For the first time ever, we would have a stand-alone Army in the Defence Forces. Part of the recommendation is that the Army headquarters be centrally located. It further recommends the Army's footprint be regionally disposed to aid recruitment and retention. I do not think anyone would argue against the contention that the most central location for the Army would be Athlone. I ask that the Tánaiste take that on board, accept the recommendations of the commission and implement them as soon as practically possible.
I recall meeting the Deputy with councillors Keena and O'Rourke at Custume Barracks. We are investing in Custume Barracks in support of the personnel and operations there. Improvement works are ongoing, including the band hall. The Defence Forces school of music is based there, and that project, which is almost complete, provided an energy retrofit and refurbishment. The emergency aeromedical service operates from Custume Barracks. The project is to replace the unsuitable hangar with a new redeployable hangar that is fully insulated, all-weather and appropriate for the AW139 helicopter used for the service. That will cost about €1.5 million - €1,445,764 to be exact, just in case anyone gets any ideas. It is proposed to provide a modern, fit-for-purpose secure engineer equipment storage facility that complies with health, safety, building and fire regulations. That will cost an estimated €600,000.
We have to organise the design of the force before getting into the specifics of locations but it is fair to say Custume Barracks is a key installation for the Army in the support of operations at home and overseas. We will keep a close eye on this but I have to await military advice. The deliberations on this issue will take some time.
The Tánaiste mentioned a target for Defence Forces strength of 11,500 by 2028. The current figure is 7,500 and we are, I am told, losing 50 personnel net per month. Critical to reaching our 2028 target is having an Army that is regionally disposed to aid retention and facilitate recruitment. I would argue a decision needs to be taken relatively quickly to ensure we meet the stated objectives of the commission's report. I presume the Government accepts the commission's recommendations. Will the Tánaiste clarify that? If it does accept them, those recommendations clearly state the Army structure should involve a stand-alone Army with its own headquarters in a central location. To me it is as clear as day versus night that the central location should be Custume Barracks, Athlone.
It is acknowledged we have to significantly improve recruitment and retention in the Defence Forces. We have taken many decisions to facilitate that, not least the big recent decision to extend the retirement age to 60. That will be followed up with legislation to extend it to 62 and to improve the date at which people can apply, and raise that threshold also. There are various allowances and there has been a significant improvement in starting pay for members of the Defence Forces.
It is a very comprehensive agenda ahead of us in terms of the commission. We do accept the commission's report and the Government has announced the priorities. We have a detailed implementation plan with timelines against each recommendation that the Government has accepted. One of those is the establishment of an Army force design team with a colonel rank in the lead. With initial supporting staff appointed, it is tasked to progress post phase 1 planning in respect of the structures of the Army. That was identified as an early action in the high-level action plan. We have to let the team do its work, which I will assess that when I get the team's report.
I hear very strongly what the Deputy says about the geographic location of Custume Barracks and its history and tradition in facilitating further recruitment, as well as the various installations in the barracks and the activities that take place there. It is key with regard to deployment domestically and overseas.
7. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if he will set out his proposals to alter the current triple lock mechanism governing the deployment of Irish Defence Forces overseas; when he proposes to introduce amending legislation on this issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21844/24]
43. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the timeframe in which he intends to publish a draft scheme in relation to his proposals to remove the triple lock neutrality protection; and if he intends to conduct both a public consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny. [22044/24]
51. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the legislative and policy changes planned in order to proceed with his proposal to dismantle the triple lock; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22039/24]
Will the Tánaiste set out the specifics of the mechanism he is proposing to deploy Irish Defence Forces overseas when he removes the triple lock? When does he propose to introduce legislation to bring that about?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 43 and 51 together.
Last year's consultative forum on international security policy featured a well-informed discussion on the issue of UN peacekeeping and overseas deployments, which formed a central part of the publicly available chair's report. That report was presented to the Government on 17 October and a Dáil debate on the outcomes of the report was held on 22 November last.
Five contested areas were explored in the chair's report, which included the triple lock. The prevailing view, based on the discussions at the forum and the several hundred public submissions received, is that it should be reconsidered. As I set out in the Dáil on a number of occasions, a new process is clearly needed to replace the current system governing how we deploy our Defence Forces and we should no longer allow a system which effectively allows UN Security Council members to bind Ireland's hands in its international engagement.
As the Deputy is aware, under the United Nations Charter, the UN Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Extremely regrettably, however, no new peacekeeping missions have been approved by the UN Security Council since 2014. The five permanent members of the council can use their veto power to prevent the Security Council from taking decisions, including those related to the mandates of peacekeeping operations. It could be argued, as I said, that even the threat of the veto has impacted on new peacekeeping operations being proposed.
We are living in a new era in Europe and the world in which Ireland also faces significantly new security and defence challenges. We, too, must consider how best to respond. Given the changing nature of international conflict, it is appropriate and necessary at this time to amend existing legislation. As legislators, we have a duty to ensure that our legislation is fully up to date and fit for purpose, which will thereby allow us to dispatch the Defence Forces overseas to respond to situations where UN Security Council members are preventing agreement on a vital peacekeeping operation or to support crisis management evacuation operations involving our citizens.
In addition to modifying the triple lock, it is also intended to amend provisions relating to the deployment of Defence Forces personnel overseas to provide for non-combatant evacuation operations to support Irish citizens. The changes proposed will allow us to respond to crisis situations with more agility.
We are all agreed that Ireland's policy of military neutrality remains a very important strand of our independent foreign policy, informing our active approach to peace support or operations, crisis management, conflict resolution and peacebuilding. Let there be no doubt in this regard. The proposed amendments to this legislation remain fully consistent with the principles of the UN Charter and international law and in no way affect Ireland's policy of military neutrality. The proposed legislative changes are not about Ireland turning its back on UN peacekeeping. Ireland will remain fully committed to the United Nations. The purpose of these modifications is to reinforce Ireland's ability to pursue an independent foreign policy by removing the power of the UN Security Council's permanent members to veto our national sovereign decisions.
With regard to a timeframe, on 30 April last, the Government approved a proposal to draft a general scheme of a Bill to govern overseas deployments into the future. Work on drafting those legislative proposals is under way and this will involve, where required, further consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and other key Government Departments and stakeholders. It is proposed to revert to the Government in June 2024 with the general scheme of the Bill seeking approval to publish the scheme.
I thank the Tánaiste for his response. I am still no wiser about the specifics of the proposal being drafted. Obviously, the Tánaiste has given instructions to his Department and the Office of the Attorney General on what exactly will replace the triple lock. Is it to be a double lock in simply removing the requirement a UN mandate? Is it to be an altered mechanism with some substitution for the third leg of the current stool, if you look? I would welcome clarity on that.
The long-standing triple lock principle has been given repeatedly by all of us, including me, as an assurance to the Irish people during debates on EU treaties in the past when there were concerns about a diminution of authority. It is also seen as a layer of security for our troops deployed abroad that they are not being deployed as part of a geopolitical group but, rather, with the overall mandate of United Nations. How are these matters to be addressed in the Minister's proposals?
Deputy Carthy and many others are seeking greater engagement with the Opposition. The record of the House will show that the Tánaiste has denied requests to refer matters to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence for detailed scrutiny and that votes on related but distinct matters have been taken as a singular vote. Deputy Carthy and other members of that committee have learned of important and sensitive developments through the media, rather than through considered, informed engagement with the Minister's office.
There is no statement on where the Minister wants to deploy Defence Forces personnel. He will not acknowledge that this is a breach of the commitment his Government made to the Irish people in advance of the second Nice and Lisbon treaty referendums. Will the Tánaiste commit to following what have been the standard procedures for new legislative proposals, including holding a full and meaningful public consultation, and that pre-legislative scrutiny will be conducted on the proposed Bill? I also ask for clarity on what will replace the triple lock?
I will not be so polite in relation to this. If the Tánaiste thinks that getting rid of the triple lock will lead to a more peaceful world, he is deluded. It is disgraceful and disingenuous of him to tell us that getting rid of the triple lock will not interfere with our neutrality. Our questions are trying to elicit details on the mechanism by which the Tánaiste is going to do this. He referred to the consultative forum as giving the prevailing view. That is also not correct. The consultative forum was hand-picked. Its report states: "a large number of voices expressed the view that the Triple Lock ought to be changed." It does not tell us who those voices are or that it was the prevailing view. The Government set up a mechanism for a prearranged final outcome and this is now the next step. It is absolutely disgraceful and unacceptable. If the Tánaiste thinks my opinions are strong, I can tell him that the feeling on the ground is far more intense than what I am expressing.
Personal vitriol is not going to change my mind-----
It is not personal vitriol.
Stop now. Through the Chair.
Sorry. I apologise.
I behaved absolutely in accordance with parliamentary procedure and processes here. There is nothing abnormal about a Government proposing a legislative proposal, publishing a general scheme and bringing it before the House for debate for all Members of the House. The Bill will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. To address Deputy Howlin's question and the point he made, we envisage Dáil approval and Government approval-----
It is a double lock.
The Deputy can call it a double lock. I have said publicly that the legislation will have to be within the framework of the United Nations Charter and international humanitarian law and that the spirit, the esprit de corps, of the United Nations will inform any decision by the Government and the Dáil, which would legislatively reflect that.
The UN has endorsed the utilisation of regional groups, be it the European Union, the OSCE or the African Union, in peacekeeping missions. These are potential fora in any decision to participate in a peacekeeping mission.
There is a point that we have to deal with honestly in the House. I genuinely do not feel the issue of the paralysis at the Security Council has been addressed by Members. I am labelled disgraceful, yet it seems people are suggesting, by implication, that it is okay that Russia, given its current status and nature as an imperial power that has behaved disgracefully with its illegal invasion of Ukraine and the destruction of 85% of all energy infrastructure in Ukraine, should have a veto over whether we participate in peacekeeping. Russia deploys the Wagner Group all over the world, including in Africa. Are we seriously suggesting that, in this day and age, a power like Russia should be vetoing Ireland’s participation in peacekeeping? I can give examples. We had to fight very hard at the Security Council regarding Operation Althea, whereby we have five members in Bosnia and Herzegovina. There was a genuine challenge. We have five members; they would have had to pull out. It is really problematic. We see this in the Middle East. The Security Council is not fit for purpose anyway, given current global circumstances, in respect of which there should be far more representation and fewer vetoes.
I will not be adding to any vitriol but I do want clarity. We have a very proud record of deployment of UN peacekeepers, always under the umbrella of acting in the interest of the world community. A move away from the endorsement of the United Nations to simply domestic endorsement, or endorsement as part of a geopolitical group, would have two consequences. One, it would put our troops in much more danger because they would be seen not as acting as part of the world community but as acting for part of the world, a geopolitical grouping. Second, and as the Tánaiste is right in saying, there is the total undermining of the UN. We have been advocates of and defenders of the UN but this move will add to the autocratic view that we should pull it down. We have seen the attitude of Israel to the UN. Even when 143 nations vote, they are all to be decried. However, UN institutions are the post-Second World War best hope. Would it not be better for us to seek to reform the mechanisms of the UN rather than add to the cavalcade undermining it?
I agree that we have a great history of peacekeeping. I, like many others, have referred here many times to the Irish people’s belief in staying non-aligned. They do not want to see any move away from neutrality. The fact is that it is very difficult to see the removal of the triple lock as being anything but a step in a particular direction. It does put our troops in danger and takes away the protection we have through being seen as a safe pair of hands or being non-aligned.
We dealt many times with the death of Seán Rooney. It is being reported that the Tánaiste is demanding progress in the murder trial and raising concerns with the Lebanese authorities over how it is going. We have spoken about the need for justice and the engagement the Minister has with the family, but also about ensuring not only that justice is achieved but also that all lessons from the incident are learned. If the Minister could comment on this, I would appreciate it.
I have never been given to personal vitriol but I will repeat what I said: disgraceful, deluded, disingenuous. Sweet words of war have to be called out for what they are. A choreographed agenda to lose our neutrality has to be called out. In theory, the UN, while faulty and while it must be changed with our help and involvement, is the only safeguard we have. The Minister constantly calls out Russia. I am on record repeatedly as calling out the illegal invasion of Ukraine. The Minister has utterly failed to call out America, which has disgracefully used the veto over and over. He has utterly failed to call it out regarding the supply of arms to Israel and the slaughter on the streets of Palestine. How dare he stand here and ask us to remain patient or use pleasant parliamentary language. This is one of our last opportunities to call out what he is doing. What he is doing is not in our name.
In the Minister’s words, the role of the General Assembly has been utterly bypassed. It has a very strong role in offsetting the veto. The Minister failed to mention all the other states that use the veto or threaten to use it. Belatedly in the past while, he has raised America. I apologise for going over time but the Minister had extra time and has the power on his side and a narrative that we must challenge at every step and every minute of the way.
Deputy Howlin agreed that the UN needs reform. There is a problem here.
The fundamental problem is that there has not been a peacekeeping mission approved by the UN Security Council since 2014. We are on that council. The consultative forum was not prearranged. What was disgraceful was the attempt to stop it from convening and the attempts to undermine the legitimate debate and consultation to hear a wide variety of views, as we did hear over four days. It was a good exercise but people in this House, including Deputy Connolly, tried to demonise it before it started and as it happened. They are now trying to do it afterwards. That is very regrettable because we live in a democracy. I can never get around why people sought to undermine a legitimate exercise in informing. It was insightful and people found it impressive. Maybe Deputy Connolly did not. It is not about getting rid of neutrality. The Fianna Fáil Party, from the time of Eamon de Valera on, has been central regarding our military neutrality, so there is no agenda whatsoever. People do not seem to want to accept the realities of where we are. I respectfully suggest that it is deluded to think we should depend on the Security Council in respect of the sanctioning of any future peacekeeping missions. We want to participate in peacekeeping. That is our raison d’être, our contribution. We are not a military power and have never been.
I did actually refer to the use of the veto by the US. I made the point earlier that the US, China and Russia have their interests. Increasingly, this is militating against UN Security Council sanctioning. With regard to the General Assembly itself, we have been strong advocates and proactive participants. We cosponsored at the General Assembly the motion to admit Palestine to the UN, but the Security Council, through the US veto, stopped that. Genuine issues with the Security Council are being glided over by Opposition Members in respect of the core issue. Essentially, we are saying we will not be participating in any future peacekeeping missions at all if we allow the current situation-----
Referring to the hand-picked nature of the forum is not the same as demonising it.
The Deputy did demonise it.
9. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if further consideration will be given to the re-opening of Dún Uí Néill, Cavan, as a forward operating base as that region has a long land border with a neighbouring jurisdiction (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22083/24]
50. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if, in view of the lack of an Army barracks in the central Border area, further consideration will be given to the re-opening of Dún Uí Néill, Cavan, as an Army barracks, given the recommendation in the Commission on the Defence Forces that the structure of the Army be reviewed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22084/24]
I spoke to the Tánaiste previously about the opportunity that exists to provide much-needed additional accommodation for our Army. Unfortunately, the most modern army barracks in Europe, which opened in 1990, was closed in 2012. As the Tánaiste knows, Dún Uí Néill is centrally situated in the Border region. The next Army barracks, Aiken Barracks, is to the east, in Dundalk, and there is also Finner Camp, County Donegal. Therefore, a large tract of the Border area does not have an Army barracks. In view of the geopolitical situation and the security assessment, the Minister must urgently consider the reopening of Dún Uí Néill, first as a forward operating base and then as a full Army barracks.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 50 together.
I thank the Deputy. I am aware he has raised this before. As he knows, the Commission on the Defence Forces was established on foot of a commitment in the programme for Government and the Government decision in December 2020 that agreed to its terms of reference and membership. The report was published on 9 February 2022. The Commission undertook a significant body of work, encompassing wide-ranging terms of reference. It recommended significant changes for the Defence Forces and defence provision in Ireland.
It covers high-level Defence Forces structures, defence capabilities, organisation, culture and human resources, the Reserve Defence Force and funding.
In July 2022, the Government approved a high-level action plan in response to the commission report. As part of this, approval was given for a move, over a six-year period, to a level of Defence Forces’ capability equivalent to level of ambition 2, LOA 2, as set out in the capability framework devised by the commission, which will entail funding increases to reach a defence budget of circa €1.5 billion by 2028 through the annual Estimates process.
Implementation structures have been put in place, including an implementation oversight group and a high-level steering board, to support the implementation of the overall transformation programme required to implement recommendations from the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces. There are a number of recommendations contained in the report which may impact on the structure of the Defence Forces, including that the structure of the Army be reviewed and in that context, the disposition of units across the Defence Forces may be considered.
The recommendation that the structure of the Army be reviewed was identified as an early action in the high-level action plan. However, no decisions on the future disposition or locations of Defence Forces formations, installations and personnel have been made at this time. As I said earlier, military authorities have established an office of Army force design, which will undertake the significant work required to give effect to this recommendation.
To be frank with the Deputy, there are no plans to consider the Dún Uí Néill site in Cavan as a forward operating base but it is a matter I will discuss further with military leadership and my Department. I believe the site is currently used by the Cavan and Monaghan Education and Training Board. Given the wider recruitment issues, it is a matter on which I will reflect.
I thank the Tánaiste for his reply and welcome the fact that this suggestion will be considered. The education and training board only uses part of that site. I cannot emphasise enough that it was the most modern barracks in Europe, officially opened in 1990. I represented Cavan-Monaghan during the bad days when this island was in the era of the Troubles. We can never overestimate the important work that was carried out in our Army barracks and by Army personnel in dealing with difficult situations. Unfortunately, paramilitarism has not gone away entirely. We have a long land Border. A person would need no military experience to see clearly on a map that there is a lacuna with regard to military installations along the Border on this island. There is Finner Camp in the north west and Aiken Barracks in the north east but nothing in the central Border region.
I know, from interacting with Army personnel in Dún Uí Néill over the years, the importance of their work and the knowledge they accrued. It was important when we faced animal diseases and there was a virtual closedown of movement across the Border. There is a ready-made military facility there. It could be put back into use in a short period of time.
In response to questions from my colleague, Deputy Troy, the Tánaiste spoke about the structure of the Defence Forces. He also said that by 2028, we need 11,500 enlisted personnel. They will need accommodation.
I again thank the Deputy for raising the issue. The focus has obviously been on enhancing recruitment but I take on board what the Deputy has said about the physical quality of the barracks in Cavan. I will ensure his advocacy for the barracks as a forward operating base will be fed into the process. That is something I will do and I will revert to the Deputy.
I thank the Tánaiste. We have discussed in this House the fact that Cavan has a long and proud Army tradition. There has been stronger recruitment in areas where there is an Army barracks. Unfortunately, we are losing that attachment and that number of young people who went into the Army that we had in the past. I know the Tánaiste met some local members of the Permanent Defence Force, good friends of mine, who were recently in the Golan Heights. We still have an Army tradition but it is not as strong as I would like. To improve recruitment and retention, another Army barracks that is taking in personnel from its immediate catchment area would help to boost necessary recruitment. We all want 11,500 members to be enlisted by 2028 but that is only four years away and we are now at 7,500. Our Army will need 1,000 new recruits each year and they will need proper accommodation. Such accommodation is available in Dún Uí Néill in Cavan town and I appeal to the Tánaiste to start by establishing it as a forward operating base.
The Deputy has advocated strongly. I do not want to raise expectations too high. The consolidation of barracks created benefits in terms of the operational readiness and deployability of Defence Forces personnel. The military would argue that consolidation has improved that readiness. However, the Deputy's point about the link between recruitment and military tradition through the presence of a barracks is well made and should not be dismissed. It is something I have picked up myself. One only has to meet a deployment to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, and I have met a number. If one asks where people are from, there is a strong correlation between the presence of barracks and a military, family and community tradition. That is an important point and it is something of which I am conscious. People might worry about any venture to set up a new base in a barracks in Cavan because there may be operational deficiencies and so on but the Deputy's point was well made.
If we look at the Naval Service, speaking as a Corkman, I note the naval base in Haulbowline is in place but there is an argument that we have 1.5 million people living in the capital city, where that maritime and naval tradition has not existed to the same extent. We must balance all the variables.
10. Deputy Gino Kenny asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence what type of operations Irish military forces might engage in that are not currently allowed under the UN Charter if the triple lock is removed ; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20888/24]
16. Deputy Gino Kenny asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if he will retain the triple lock per the commitment in the programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20885/24]
34. Deputy Bríd Smith asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the specific issues he has with the triple lock system that need to be addressed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21888/24]
My questions relate to the triple lock. What type of operations does the Tánaiste envisage the Irish military forces being engaged in that are not allowed under the UN Charter if the triple lock is removed?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10, 16 and 34 together.
As I stated earlier in response to questions from Deputy Howlin and others, we are living in a new era in Europe and in the world in which Ireland also faces significant new security and defence challenges, and we too must consider how best to respond. Given the changing nature of international conflict and geopolitics, it is appropriate and necessary at this time to amend existing legislation with regard to overseas deployments. This will ensure that our legislation is fully up to date and fit for purpose, and will thereby allow us to dispatch the Defence Forces overseas to respond to situations where UN Security Council members are preventing agreement on a vital peacekeeping operation or to support crisis management evacuation operations involving our citizens.
In addition to modifying the triple lock, it is also intended to amend provisions relating to the deployment of Defence Forces personnel in non-combatant evacuation operations and other security duties overseas. This is particularly to support Irish citizens and the changes proposed will allow us to respond to crisis situations with more agility and clarity.
I am happy to provide the House with some examples where the existing triple lock provision has created issues by potentially restricting the deployment of members of the Defence Forces overseas. The most recent occurred in 2022 when the possibility of a UN Security Council veto emerged in relation to the renewal of UN authorisation for EUFOR Operation Althea in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where five members of the Defence Forces are currently deployed. Had this mandate extension been vetoed, we would have had to withdraw from the mission. At the time, using our membership of the UN Security Council, we successfully influenced the other members to renew the mandate. Had we been unsuccessful in our efforts, however, our contingent would have had to withdraw given the current provisions under the triple lock.
In 2017, the Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre Narcotics, MAOC(N), which is an international maritime intelligence centre supported by the European Union, requested a Naval Service ship to assist with maritime drug interdiction operations. Although Ireland is a strong supporter of the centre and was, in fact, one of the founding members, consideration could not be given to deploying a ship given there would no UN mandate for such an operation.
Another example occurred in 2015 when the European Union established a security mission in the Mediterranean known as Operation Sophia. This mission did not have a UN mandate until 2016 and, as a result, Ireland could not participate until then. The same concerns have since arisen in respect of Operation Althea and could arise in the future where a potential UN Security Council member veto will result in Ireland having to withdraw from the mission under current legislative provisions.
These are the kinds of deployments where the current provisions have created problems for Ireland in terms of our contribution to international peace and security, and it is situations such as these that the legislative changes proposed are attempting to overcome. No new peacekeeping mission has been sanctioned by the UN Security Council since 2014.
It is important, however, that I again emphasise that any legislative proposals will remain fully consistent with the principles of the UN Charter and international law. The proposed changes are not about Ireland turning its back on UN peacekeeping. Ireland is and will remain fully committed to the UN. The purpose of these modifications is to reinforce Ireland's ability to pursue an independent foreign policy by removing the power of UN Security Council permanent members to veto our national sovereign decisions. Any modification will continue to require Government and Dáil approval for the dispatch of Defence Forces personnel to take part in peacekeeping and similar missions, and will do nothing to change Ireland's traditional position of, and position on, military neutrality, which is characterised by Ireland's non-participation in any military alliance.
I do not trivialise the situations the Irish Defence Forces have encountered but there is a distinct narrative by the Government that Irish neutrality is up for grabs. The Tánaiste can shake his head all he wants but the rhetoric coming from the Government and EU leaders is that we are almost in a pre-war situation in Europe. We in the Opposition have been very concerned about this rhetoric and the militarisation of Europe. This is why we hold neutrality sacred. We do not want to be drawn into any imperialist war that could take place on mainland Europe. This is why we believe the triple lock is important to keep and not to compromise. The Tánaiste wants to compromise the triple lock. He wants us to have a double lock. This is concerning with regard to the overall strategy of neutrality in Ireland.
On the same theme, the Tánaiste said Ireland faces security and defence challenges. He went on to list instances in which it could have been possible that a veto would be used to stop us participating in some kind of peacekeeping. According to the triple lock we participate in peacekeeping with the endorsement of the UN. I honestly think he scraped the bottom of the barrel when he said that in 2022 in relation to a UN mandate in Bosnia-Herzegovina we nearly did not get what we wanted at the UN. We got it because we were able to negotiate it. Then he spoke about a narcotics operation at sea in 2017 and the peacekeeping mission in the Mediterranean. The Tánaiste is really scraping the barrel. He said there has been no obstacle to us participating in peacekeeping since 2014. Why is he taking the method that we brought into existence because people would not vote in a treaty that did not contain guarantee over our neutrality? They got that guarantee through the triple lock and now without asking people what they think, he wants to dismiss it all on the basis of very flimsy responses to the House about the why. The why is what we need to know, along with the where and the how with regard to why the Tánaiste thinks it will be necessary to remove the triple lock. Therefore, where would we send our troops and to do what, when, how and why? The Tánaiste needs to come up with better answers than he has given us.
No peacekeeping mission has been approved by the UN Security Council since 2014.
What ones have been blocked?
No, you made the point there was no obstacle. None has been approved since 2014.
But what ones have been blocked?
The Tánaiste to reply.
Deputy Kenny spoke about the militarisation of Europe and that he does not want to be involved in any imperial war. We are not going to be involved in any imperial war. We need a dose of reality in this House. We are not a military power and we are nowhere near being a military power. This is about peacekeeping and the methodology by which we can participate in peacekeeping. At the moment, Russia can veto participation by Ireland in a peacekeeping mission. There is a moral and ethical question here. Are we serious if we think a power like Russia can do this? By the way, it is the imperial power on the Continent of Europe. It has invaded a sovereign country that wanted to live in a democracy and it has visited the most appalling brutality in that country through the conduct of its military campaign. Some people in the House seem to be okay that a country and power such as this can veto our participation in peacekeeping. This is the reality. We know what it has done with the Wagner Group all over the world, including in Africa. That seems to be fine.
The European Union has no colonies. I do not see the European Union as an imperialist power. Deputy Kenny may, but this is one more of the false narratives that keep getting discussed in this debate. We get into this unreal surreal world where people speak about the militarisation of Europe and Ireland as if somehow we will assume massive military powers and resources in the next year or two and we will be out fighting everybody. That is not going to happen. That is not in the world of reality. Where we have distinguished ourselves is in peacekeeping, including in large operations such as UNIFIL UNDOF and in Chad in times past, where we were essential in ensuring that humanitarian aid got through. This was one of the biggest struggles we had on the UN Security Council. It is important that Deputies take note of this. They may say "nearly" but it is important to observe this. If every battle to maintain a humanitarian corridor, for example to northern Syria where Ireland was instrumental on the UN Security Council, and keep that corridor open-----
You did.
Yes, we did.
With the triple lock.
Would you listen for a second? The triple lock does not apply here. The politics of the Security Council is the point I am trying to enlighten Members on. The politics wanted to close it down. The permanent members wanted to close it down. This can happen at any time. My point is the Security Council, in my view, is dysfunctional in terms of these issues. There is no point in waiting until something terrible happens. Ireland incurred the wrath-----
What is the terrible thing?
I did not interrupt you Deputy and I am making some clear points. Ireland incurred the wrath of Ethiopia by strongly standing by a humanitarian measure. Our international presence is humanitarian. It is peacekeeping. Please stop trying to portray what we are about here as some sort of erosion of our military neutrality, or a sort of engagement in militarisation and imperial powers. That is so absurd it needs to be called out. We need sane rational debate about where we are in the world today. I will not tolerate attempts to undermine sane rational debates. That is what I genuinely believe.
I agree with the Tánaiste that the UN Security Council is dysfunctional. Look at the role of the United States with regard to Israel and its conduct over the past seven months, whereby 35,000 people have been killed including 15,000 children. Think about this. It is absolutely dysfunctional. The United States has played a completely detrimental role in international relations. It has undermined human solidarity in terms of the UN. Ireland has played a key role in peacekeeping in the Middle East but this has been slowly eroded over recent years in terms of militarisation across the European complex. We just have to look at the European defence industrial strategy. Look at it. I ask anybody to have a look at it. Do not tell me this is not a precursor to a European army throughout Europe.
I rest my case. The Tánaiste made the case for me. He went through a litany of how Ireland has engaged in peacekeeping roles via the mechanism of the UN. He went through Chad and what we did in the north Syrian corridor. He said we were instrumental and met opposition but convinced people. We did this with the triple lock it in place. The Tánaiste still has not given us an argument that involves peacekeeping with regard to why the triple lock should be removed. Every argument he made makes our case that we have taken part in peacekeeping operations with the triple lock in place. This means we cannot engage our troops in other conflicts without the approval of a UN mandate. He banged on and on about the obstacles that come via Russia and not, as Deputy Kenny has just highlighted, the obstacles that come to peacekeeping via the US on the Security Council. The number of times it has vetoed UN resolutions on Palestine, the Middle East was not mentioned.
It is very one-sided but it is also very confusing that the Tánaiste is trying to make a case for ending the triple lock but he is actually making the case that it has been a good thing to have in place while we also engage in peacekeeping missions.
Again, the situation in Syria was not about peacekeeping so we were not involved in Syrian peacekeeping. It was during our membership of the UN Security Council when we gained very significant insight in respect of the behaviour of permanent members of the UN Security Council. The bottom line is that the permanent members should not have a hold on Irish sovereignty. They should not dictate whether we participate in a peacekeeping mission. A peacekeeping mission has not been approved since 2014.
What ones have been blocked?
There has been none approved since 2014.
Which ones have been blocked? Which ones have been vetoed?
The time is up. I want to welcome 96 students from Tullow, County Carlow, many of whom are in the Gallery. I hope they enjoy their tour and are inspired by the proceedings.
