116. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Minister for Defence to outline her proposals to remove the triple lock neutrality protection; when she intends to bring forward a Bill; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [54261/26]
Sentiment score: 0.04
The triple lock neutrality protection is deeply valued by the Irish people. It was the basis on which the Irish people were encouraged to vote for European referendums, on the basis that the Irish people value their neutrality and an independent foreign policy. The Government proposes to get rid of the triple lock. It is not reform; it is not change - it is getting rid of the triple lock. Ultimately, a Government that commands a majority will be in a position to deploy troops to any international force as it sees fit. There is growing concern about that, including in these Houses. I ask the Minister for an update on the legislation.
Sentiment score: 0.23
No other country had a vote on the Defence Acts in the 1960s. No other country had a vote on the Defence Acts in 2006. No other country will have a vote on this Defence (Amendment) Bill. It will be decided here. These are the tests that we set sovereignly in this Parliament. That is all about it. All of this craic is neither here nor there. These are our decisions about where we see fit to deploy Irish personnel. That is ultimately what this is about. All the objects that the Government talks about achieving, such as that the world is changing or we need to invest in our defence, are not prevented by the triple lock. We should invest in our defence. We should be strong on neutrality and strong on defence. I absolutely agree with that. The Minister talks about the need to ensure that Defence Forces personnel have the ability to deploy internationally and are not prevented from participating in rescue missions. I have no problem at all with head No. 7. Actually, most of the legislation is fine. It is just head No. 8 that is a fundamental problem and a fundamental change. That is recognised by the Minister’s coalition partners, or at least all apart from two or three at the top of that political party. They are very concerned because they know this will potentially constrain our ability to have an independent foreign policy as it undermines our neutrality. Perhaps the Minister might conclude that it does not end it in the final assessment, but it does undermine it potentially.
Sentiment score: 0.04
It is not their decision; it is our decision.
Sentiment score: 0.00
I do trust them.
Sentiment score: 0.51
I do.
Sentiment score: 0.00
The Minister said it would be on the same basis as it is currently, when that is plainly not the case. She is getting rid of the requirement for a UN mandate. I will tell the Minister who I do not trust. I do not trust the likes of NATO-aligned organisations such as Partnership for Peace. Frankly, given the trajectory of their political positioning on the Middle East, there are many people at the top of the EU that I do not trust in terms of their foreign policy objectives, given the cover they gave to Israel in recent years in the context of the genocide. I do trust the Defence Forces and I do trust the people of this country. I ask the Minister whether she trusts the people of this country to make the decision. If she does, why does she not put the matter to a referendum, given that this was the basis on which many people were asked to vote in the Nice and Lisbon referendums? This matter was central to those referendums. The Minister knows quite clearly-----
Sentiment score: 0.09
-----that the decisions in the Lisbon and Nice referendums were based on things such as the Seville Declaration. I expect that many people changed their minds because they were given reassurances. Those reassurances are now disappearing into dust because of the policy of the Government.
Sentiment score: 0.37
It does not have to be in the Constitution to have a referendum.
Sentiment score: 0.00
It is not.
Sentiment score: 0.00
That is a constitutional referendum.
Sentiment score: 0.00
There are other kinds of referendums. Of course there are.
Sentiment score: 0.00
Let us invest in our Defence Forces and ensure we deploy on UN missions.
Sentiment score: 0.46
So do we.
Sentiment score: 0.00
118. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Minister for Defence further to recent Dáil debates, her views on past health and safety measures in the Air Corps; the actions she intends to take to support former aircraft maintenance and ancillary personnel; whether she intends to ensure that their medical needs are met; and the other supports that can be offered to the category affected as a whole. [54263/26]
Sentiment score: 0.29
In the context of the previous question, I submitted another question that was ruled out of order, which is fair enough. I probably did not word my question as precisely as Deputy Gibney worded hers. I record my concern about legal representation in that regard. It is important to say that. This question relates to another welfare issue. I will keep raising this issue. There is scope for the Department to take action here. It can look after the people affected without in any way conflicting with legal cases. I do not want to hear about legal cases. I know the Minister is going to talk about them anyway. Ultimately, the Department can make health and redress interventions without in any way undermining those court cases. Airport personnel were put at risk by chemicals.
Sentiment score: -0.03
These types of issues of collective harm, collective abuse in some instances and collective injury are things that the State does badly. We can see it. The Minister previously served as Minister for education. We have seen many examples in that area. The response of the State is always to tell people that they can go through the courts. If people do not go to the courts, there is an issue with that. We set up redress schemes and if people do not make a claim within a certain timeframe, they are excluded. We have the recent example of the women who attended Dunderrow National School. Women who were in the same class as Louise O'Keeffe were prevented from bringing forward redress. The point is that when enough pressure comes on, the State eventually remembers - and it knows, in truth - that it does not have to do everything through the courts. If a category of people have had wrong done to them, the State has other measures available without even accepting legal liability. The Minister knows that. There is nothing to prevent the Minister from looking after the health needs of these men and women. She knows that perfectly well.
Sentiment score: -0.07
The Minister said that she is not pushing anybody to the courts. I am not a doctor and cannot make a clinical decision, but if people suffered negative health outcomes that they believe have a connection to their clinical exposure, and they have never taken a case, how precisely is the Government going to help them? They are not going to be able to engage with the State Claims Agency unless they have made claims and gone to the courts. They are not going to be able to engage with the State Claims Agency unless they have made a claim and gone to the courts. None of this is necessary. We know what happens in Australia and the Netherlands, and in other areas of this State. Of course, every case and category is different, but the same principle applies. The State can assist people with their medical requirements and can provide ex gratia payments. It can provide a number of different things without accepting legal liability. The Minister knows that because her previous Department, the Department of education, has done it numerous times. The Department of children has done it numerous times - usually under political pressure, but it has done it. There is nothing to stop the Minister doing it. This is not going away. How is the Minister going to address the needs of those people who were exposed to these chemicals - and this is the key detail - who have not taken cases or made a claim against the State? How is the Minister going to help those people?
Sentiment score: 0.01