157. Deputy Sinéad Gibney asked the Minister for Defence the status of her plans to abolish the triple lock and if she will make a statement on the matter. [54106/26]

Sentiment score: 0.04

I will build on the Minister's conversations with Deputy Ó Laoghaire and ask about the status of her plans to abolish the triple lock, the timelines and so forth as regards the legislation that is intended to be discussed later this year.

Sentiment score: 0.00

I am curious as to why the Minister has chosen not to take this question. In her earlier exchange with Deputy Ó Laoghaire, she said that she welcomed debate. For continuity, I intended to pick up on some of the things the Minister said, so it is a shame that we are chopping and changing. The triple lock and the UN constitute international law in action. That it is what we are looking at. It is not, as the Minister of State has reduced it to, a veto. That is not what is happening here. Throughout this debate, the Department and the Government have displayed a lack of appetite to reform the Security Council or to get General Assembly approval. They have tried nothing and yet they are all out of ideas. The uniting for peace resolution has been used in the past. Any time we raise these as suggestions, they are batted off as being too hard or too complex but the Government has not made the effort. At a time when international law is so precarious and the United Nations is under so much pressure, this is not the approach we need. What we need is collaboration, co-operation and an upholding of the global order.

Sentiment score: 0.09

If you are, why are you not answering?

Sentiment score: 0.00

When the Minister of State referred to office roles in Brussels, was he describing roles in NATO headquarters? The international forces the Minister of State is describing are exactly like the coalition that invaded Iraq. It was clarified at the defence committee that, should the triple lock not have been in place, we would have been in a position to deploy troops to Iraq. I again go back to the point that the Government's whole argument on this is dependent on the fact that it continues to maintain it supports neutrality. Once we cut that out from underneath its argument, everything else collapses. I maintain that is indeed the position. What the Minister of State is describing about the triple lock being this big bad beast that is preventing the Government from doing everything is just not true. What is true is that the Government wishes to pivot from peacekeeping towards the deployment of troops for regional interests. That is the actual truth. Once we start to pick that apart, it is clear the public does not agree with the Government. In poll after poll, members of the public do not agree with it. Councils throughout the country do not agree and have voted to protect the triple lock. The Government's backbenchers are revolting; they too do not agree.

Sentiment score: -0.01

In the NATO building?

Sentiment score: 0.00