65. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Minister for Defence if she will outline her proposals to remove the triple lock neutrality protection; when she intends to bring forward a Bill in relation to same; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [33425/26]
Sentiment score: 0.04
The volatile nature of the world underlines all the more the reason that Ireland needs to maintain an independent foreign policy. Central to that policy, as was articulated by members of the Government while in opposition is the triple lock. This is a crucial protection for our neutrality. I would like an update as to where this legislation stands and what consideration the Minister has given to the pre-legislative scrutiny report from the committee.
Sentiment score: 0.09
The Minister thanked the committee and I acknowledge that. It was under a different Minister, and I would say it is not an unheard-of occurrence, but it is remarkable that Government TDs and Senators on the committee were whipped to prevent extra hearings because there was such a rush in terms of this legislation, and now it is many months since that process was concluded. I find that hard to understand. We had a desire within the committee to ensure that it would see full scrutiny. Members of the committee were clearly whipped to prevent the extension of it. That was a tremendous shame. I would make the point to the Minister that the triple lock is a protection for future Governments as well. More importantly, I would make the point that it is our decision. The Defence (Amendment) Act is Irish legislation. It is legislation constructed and passed by these two Houses on the basis that our troops should serve on peacekeeping missions that are mandated by the UN. If we are going to be serving on peacekeeping missions that are not mandated by the UN, under which auspices are we undertaking those peacekeeping missions or other missions generally?
Sentiment score: 0.33
The Minister spoke about the SCDP and potential deployment. Could she elaborate on that? Is she saying there would potentially be a CSDP deployment to Lebanon in place of UNIFIL? Could she please clarify that? The issue in relation to the protection of future Governments is crucially important. That is my view, and I think it is the view of the people. Our troops have served under the UN flag with incredible distinction. I think it is profoundly dangerous that UNIFIL is coming to an end. I really regret that decision. It is important that we continue to push for UN reform. I would like to hear the Minister say some more about that. Ultimately, if we are not deploying troops under a UN flag, they are going to be deployed in another context. It is not difficult at all to see circumstances where if we remove the triple lock, pressure comes on a future Irish Government to deploy troops to a scenario or theatre that would clearly endanger our neutrality. The Minister has said that the Irish people support neutrality. This potentially brings future Irish Governments into a position where they are pressurised into deploying troops in situations that would undermine our neutrality.
Sentiment score: 0.04
We can do that.
Sentiment score: 0.00
67. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Minister for Defence further to recent Dáil Éireann 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 their medical needs are met; and the other supports that can be offered to the category affected as a whole. [33426/26]
Sentiment score: 0.29
Since our last engagement on this issue, we have had the "RTÉ Investigates" documentary, considerable reporting by Neil Michael from the Irish Examiner, and many disturbing and worrying disclosures and descriptions of what was going on. It is clear that Air Corps personnel were exposed to unsafe working conditions and to dangerous chemicals and there seems to be a strong correlation to very serious illness and bad health outcomes. These are people who served the State. They should get support. What does the Minister intend to do about it and how does she intend to ensure that they are looked after?
Sentiment score: -0.06
To be honest, that is a frustrating response because the Minister is well aware that I have outlined the point in the past. I would say there are issues in relation to the handling of the State Claims Agency of these cases. It is not appropriate for us to get into individual cases. I have never asked the Minister to do so. I have never tried to discuss individual cases in this Chamber, with the Minister or her predecessor. The issue here is in relation to a category of people who were acting in the service of the State. They were supporting the Defence Forces in terms of maintenance of aircraft. As the Air Corps Chemical Abuse Survivors group outlined, there have been 130 potential premature deaths. Clearly, we need to get to the bottom of that. I am not asking for an update on the legal side, although I think there are issues in relation to the State Claims Agency's approach. What I am asking for is what the Minister proposes to do, and which we discussed previously, in terms of the whole category, a potential package of health supports and health safeguarding, including forms of screening, and an accountability mechanism. There has to be an accountability mechanism as well.
Sentiment score: 0.13
If there is a pattern, we are not going to find that out in the High Court. That will be found out through a process the Department seems to be considering. A memo was due to be brought to the Minister in the first quarter but we are past the first quarter now. That is what I recall the Minister saying. Has the Minister considered this memo in relation to a whole-category approach? I ask the Minister to not go back into the legal cases. The clear example is in relation to Australia where the Australian air force saw that there was an issue, it engaged with the group and the people retained their right to take cases as they saw fit but there was health screening, an accountability mechanism and health supports. There is nothing preventing the Minister from doing that. When will she make a decision as to whether the Government will put in place a process such as there was in Australia - a study of health outcomes, identifying whether there is causation and ensuring support for people who are very sick? Among these people, there have been heart conditions, colorectal cancer and suicides. Clearly there is a need for things like routine cardiac screening. These are all things that can be done without any reference to the court cases. When will the Minister make a decision on a solution for the whole category?
Sentiment score: 0.10
No, but it still goes on.
Sentiment score: -0.15
We should find out.
Sentiment score: 0.00
When will we find out?
Sentiment score: 0.00
I hear the Minister saying that but when will we find out?
Sentiment score: 0.00