Bill to scrap UN approval on sending troops overseas to begin pre-legislative scrutiny
The so-called triple lock demands that any deployment overseas above 12 soldiers must have Government, Dáil, and UN approval.
The General Scheme of the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2025 is due to begin pre-legislative scrutiny this Thursday, with the Government hoping to have this process completed before the summer recess.
The proposal to remove the UN block on Ireland sending troops aboard on a peacekeeping mission is being resisted by opposition parties.
Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald said earlier this month that the party would 'fight like hell' to stop the Government's plans, adding that it would "defend" the policy of neutrality.
Neutrality is not mentioned in the bill and there are no provisions in it that have a legal impact on the Constitution, which states that Ireland cannot join an EU 'common defence'.
The Government has said that the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, which includes Russia, should not have a veto over a decision of a sovereign nation such as Ireland on where its troops can go.
It has also said the scrapping of the veto will not impact the policy of military neutrality. Ireland is thought to be unique in requiring, in law, UN approval to deploy its troops abroad.
Head six of the Defence Bill states that a contingent or members of the Defence Forces can be dispatched and deployed outside the State 'as part of an International Force' on foot of a Dáil resolution approving the dispatch.
It says that a subsequent resolution is not required for a replacement contingent. In addition, it states that a resolution is not required to send a contingent of 'not more than 50 members', which reflects the size of a platoon and support.
'International force'
It states the definition of an 'international force' is a body established, led, or controlled by the UN; Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe; EU; or any other regional arrangement that operates in a manner consistent with the UN Charter and international law.
It states the international force will operate for the 'purposes of peace-keeping, conflict prevention, and strengthening international security' consistent with the principles of the UN Charter.
It adds that the force will 'contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security', in conformity with the principles of justice and international law.
Head seven covers the dispatch of personnel abroad for reasons other than an international force. New reasons included in the 2025 bill are:
Military close protection duties or security duties in high-risk environments, including Irish embassies and ministers travelling to such regions;
Undertaking humanitarian tasks or civilian evacuation operations of Irish citizens from high risk and/or volatile security environments;
Participating in international operations to counter illicit drug trafficking by sea and air. The provision says the defence minister may also authorise dispatch of personnel abroad for training or participation in sporting events.
A separate provision of the bill updates the law on the suspension of enlisted members and officers — including in cases where they are charged, but not yet convicted of a serious criminal offence.
It also obliges personnel to tell their commanding officer if they are under investigation in connection with a criminal offence and to keep them updated on developments.
The law provides for the minister of defence to make regulations covering procedures regarding suspensions.
The chair of the Oireachtas committee on defence and national security, Sinn Féin TD Rose Conway-Walsh, has indicated that the eight weeks allotted for pre-legislative scrutiny may not be enough.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Irish Sun
an hour ago
- The Irish Sun
Stealth hike in Irish personal injury insurance payouts will hit us all in the pocket – Govt's timing couldn't be worse
INSURANCE premiums are another rising cost in Ireland's affordability crisis, with prices outpacing those in many other European countries. The average cost of 3 The rises can cause real world problems for many people Credit: Getty Images - Getty 3 Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan Credit: Alamy 3 Brian Hanley said prices outpace those in many other European countries Credit: social media collect - IVAN COOPER That's almost double the price of the average And there are fears they could shoot up even more, as the proposed personal injury award guidelines are to be increased by almost 17 per cent. These rises can cause real world problems for many people. It could mean driving less or taking Small READ MORE IN OPINION Justice Minister Brian Hanley of the Alliance for Insurance Reform, says the timing of an increase in personal injury awards couldn't be worse for policyholders. IF you are a motorist, small business owner, The Most read in The Irish Sun Now, in the middle of this affordability crisis, the Government is preparing to quietly make things even worse. A proposal is set to be brought to Cabinet to increase personal injury awards by nearly 17 per cent, reversing much of the progress made over the past three years to bring a degree of balance and consistency to injury compensation in Ireland. HIGHER THAN ENGLAND Nobody disputes that people who suffer injuries deserve fair compensation, but Irish awards are already among the highest in Europe. A 2019 analysis by the Personal Injuries Commission showed personal injury awards here were 440 per cent higher than those in That kind of disparity isn't fair — it's unsustainable. The move comes as the latest Central More claims and rising repair costs — driven by inflation — have already pushed up the cost of cover. The one factor helping to contain those costs was a reduction in injury awards. Now, that progress risks being undone. This is especially concerning for Tracy Sheridan, who runs Kidspace play centres in Rathfarnham and Rathcoole and is a board member of the Alliance for Insurance Reform, sees the effect first-hand. HARDER TO KEEP GOING She says: 'Every month we're hearing about premiums going up. The only bright spot had been that awards had come down. If Government raises them now, there'll be no brake on rising insurance costs. It's just not sustainable.' And it's not just businesses feeling the strain. Across the country, voluntary groups, sports clubs and community organisations — many operating on a shoestring — are finding it harder and harder to keep going. They're doing everything right: improving safety, reducing risk, keeping clean records. Yet when the insurance renewal comes around, the premium has risen again. Here's the kicker: for liability insurance, which covers injuries that happen in places like community centres or sports pitches, the cost of claims has actually gone down — by ten per cent in the same six-month period. In a properly functioning market, that should lead to lower premiums, but that hasn't happened. What's worrying is how little public discussion there's been about this planned increase. The Government has been virtually silent for six months, even though this change affects every single policyholder in the country. There's been no proper scrutiny from the In 2021, new Personal Injuries Guidelines were introduced to bring more consistency and fairness. They helped align Irish awards more closely with international norms. FOOT THE BILL Those reforms were a step in the right direction — but they are now at risk of being reversed before they've had a chance to deliver lasting impact. The Central Bank's report makes another key point: legal costs blow up when claims are settled through litigation instead of the Injuries Resolution Board. For liability claims under €100,000 — which account for 94 per cent of all personal injury cases — legal fees go from just €597 at the Injuries Board to over €24,000 for claims settled in litigation. The average award for claimants is actually the same, so you're left asking who really benefits from almost 70 per cent of cases going into litigation? Not claimants and certainly not policyholders. It's the public — motorists, business owners, The Government must now pause this proposal and refer it to the relevant Oireachtas committee. We need transparency, data, and evidence — not quiet decisions made behind closed doors. Let's debate the facts, consult the experts and hear from the people who are paying the premiums. Because if insurance keeps going the way it is going, the damage won't just be financial — it will be social and structural. Ireland needs a personal injury system that is fair for claimants, and affordable for everyone else.
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Expect plenty of cribbin' and moanin' as the budget games begin
The budget games are under way, right enough. Impending decisions about spending priorities for next year and into the future are now the unavoidable context of every political exchange – especially those within Government , some of which you'll see, most of which you won't. They are the subtext of every interview, news story and speech between now and October. As ever, the management of expectations at the centre is essential at this stage. At the recent National Economic Dialogue Paschal Donohoe solemnly warned of deep uncertainty about the future and that (inconveniently) positive headline economic figures so far this year mask 'considerable vulnerabilities'. 'The mood music is changing,' Donohoe warned. His party leader saw 'dark clouds on the horizon'. For the Taoiseach , 'challenging,' was the mot juste. In the Dáil this week, Minister for Public Expenditure Jack Chambers returned to the theme. READ MORE 'We face significant economic uncertainty,' he said. 'Everyone in this House needs to realise the level and degree of ... corporate risks that exists right now.' As the Bert used to say during the late stage hubris of the Celtic Tiger, sure this is all cribbin' and moanin' and talkin' down the country. Still, you can see what they're at. The country and its political system have become accustomed to massive giveaway budgets, and cannot contemplate restraint. Well, let me qualify that thought: everyone can contemplate restraint, just not for themselves. Everyone has a demand for extra spending, sourced from the public purse. Some have a good case; all believe they deserve priority. Much of our media – especially RTÉ – is in the habit of promoting the causes of all comers relentlessly and uncritically. Of course, RTÉ might feel a special affinity with bodies looking for money from the Government. But still. Some context would not go amiss – how much would this cost? What is the existing budget? Where might the money come from? What should not be done in order to pay for this? What taxes should be increased? The list of supplicants for greater public funding is literally unending. A casual glance at a political correspondent's inbox gives a flavour of the requests bombarding the budget ministers: extra provision for education for people with disabilities; extra funding for school capitation; VAT cuts for the embattled hospitality industry; a €25 per week increase in welfare rates; this week's cause celebre – retaining the €1,000 discount on fees for third level students; and so on, and so on. [ The Irish Times view on college fees: Government has a choice to make Opens in new window ] Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan played a more subtle hand. Speaking at the Free Legal Advice Centre in Dublin, he said it was clear that Ireland has 'a big problem' with domestic violence. He would like to provide more resources for Flac and for civil legal aid – but 'I'm limited in terms of budget'. He is getting to the heart of the entire question of budgeting: it's all a question of priorities. Few people would quibble with increasing the budget for legal aid to ensure that people can have access to justice and to the protection of the law, when that question is taken in isolation. But governments cannot take any of these questions in isolation – they must weigh it all up as part of a coherent and credible whole of Government budgetary plan. Within the justice budget, for example, how does that measure up as a priority against recruiting more gardaí? Or fixing the problem of prison overcrowding? Or supporting the victims of crime? Or rehabilitating young people who have fallen into criminality? And how should the justice allocation be compared to the other budgets within Government? Should justice be constrained so that we can spend more money on health? On disabilities? On child poverty? Not so simple now, is it? And, yes, you might want to do all these things. But you can't. Anyone who pretends you can isn't being straight. You have to choose. Now let's not feel too bad for Messers Donohoe and Chambers. It may be hard being in charge of budgets during a time of plenty, but it's better than being Rachel Reeves . As the tears rolled down Reeves' cheeks in the House of Commons on Wednesday, both sterling and the UK's standing in the bond markets were headed in the same direction. Whatever the problems of prosperity that Jack and Paschal have to manage, they are far, far preferable to the other kind of problem, now facing Reeves and her prime minister. Better to have surpluses than deficits. So you might think that an overriding national priority would be to maintain steady and stable public finances. To do that, the budget ministers and the leaders of the Government parties have decided, they must eliminate the once-off giveaways of the last three budgets. 'We can't and we won't' continue with them, Donohoe told Ivan Yates on Newstalk on Thursday. But how firm is that determination? My sense is that Donohoe's is rock solid. He is not, however, in charge of the Government. Both Simon Harris and Micheál Martin, while ruling out another goody basket of one-off giveaways, have insisted that they will also seek to help people with rising costs in the budget. Does this signal a middle ground will be found? This week's controversy over student fees shows just how hard it is to withdraw benefits to which voters have become accustomed. Does the Government have the political will and the capacity to restrain itself and take politically difficult but necessary decisions to position the country for future growth and to protect it against future adversity – or will we cross our fingers, plough on and hope for the best? We'll see. But I know one thing: the politics of no hard choices never, ever ends well.
RTÉ News
2 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Controversial Gaza aid group vows to keep operating despite mass killings of Palestinians
The Israel and US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is less than six weeks old, but it has already mired in controversy, with near daily mass killings of hungry Palestinians seeking food from its aid hubs. Israeli and US officials say the new system, operated by American contractors, was set up to stop aid falling into the hands of Hamas militants and have called on the UN and other agencies to cooperate. But the UN denies widespread diversion of aid from its long-established distribution networks and describes the foundation as a "death trap" that has "weaponised aid" for starving Gazans. Since the GHF began operating on 27 May, after a 78-day Israeli total blockade on food, water and medicine into Gaza, international organisations estimate more than 600 Palestinians have been killed and more than 4,000 wounded near four GHF-operated aid distribution sites. On Tuesday, 170 charities and humanitarian organisations, including Oxfam, Save the Children and Amnesty International, called for the GHF to be shut down, citing "routine" shootings and "repeated massacres in blatant disregard for international humanitarian law". The next day, Swiss authorities moved to close the Geneva office of the foundation. But Reverend Johnnie Moore, the American evangelical Christian pastor who is chair of the GHF, vowed that the sites would continue operating and indicated that other countries, including European nations, may soon pledge their support publicly. "There are also European countries that have been involved largely behind the scenes – hopefully that will change in the future," Mr Moore told the BBC. So far, the US State Department has announced €26m in funding. But the initial funding came from "two anonymous European countries," Mr Moore said. Shrouded in the fog of war, the GHF is now at the heart of a battle of narratives where Israeli authorities blame Hamas militants for the shooting of starving civilians and of running a propaganda campaign against the Israeli military. But eyewitnesses, international NGOs and local rescuers say IDF troops have deployed tanks, machine guns and mortar fire against unarmed men, women and children. This week, GHF whistleblowers came forward to reveal that US contractors used live bullets and stun grenades against Palestinians queuing for aid. The GHF dismissed the reports as false. Israel has banned international media organisations from reporting in Gaza. Last week, the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz published testimony of unnamed IDF soldiers who said they had been given orders to shoot at crowds of Palestinians queuing for aid, despite the civilians posing no threat. One soldier described the approach routes to a GHF distribution site as a "killing field". There are no crowd control measures or tear gas, the soldier told the newspaper, and troops dubbed the operation "Salted fish," the Israeli version of the children's game of "red light, green light" – an apparent reference to the Korean television programme Squid Game. The IDF has admitted to firing "warning shots" on several occasions but denied accounts of deliberate shootings. Following the Ha'aretz exposé, the Israeli military ordered an internal investigation. But the report was denounced by the Israeli government. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Israel Katz accused the paper of publishing a "blood libel". "These are malicious falsehoods designed to defame the IDF, the most moral military in the world," they said in a joint statement. However, the accounts given by the Israeli soldiers and GHF whistleblowers appear to corroborate testimony gathered by Budour Hassan, researcher on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories at Amnesty International. Eyewitnesses described arrows painted onto the asphalt ground, indicating the direction for people to walk as they approach the aid point, she told RTÉ News. "We have tens of thousands of people [in these lines]," Ms Hassan said, "and the moment people stray from the line designated for them to pass through, the shooting starts". People also described low-hovering drones and quadcopters that fire bullets into the crowds. One case she documented was of a 17-year-old boy who went to look for his father who had previously gone missing near a GHF site. "The boy was shot in the leg while looking for his father," she said. Three eyewitnesses in separate interviews described hearing a voice transmitted in Arabic from a quadcopter, telling the crowds there was no aid available that day and to return home, followed by laughter, Ms Hassan said. The aid hubs usually operate either very late at night or very early in the morning, she said. "We're talking about from 12am to 2am - sometimes at 5am," she said and "[people] have to walk for more than four or five hours on foot, because there's no fuel, no transportation and roads are destroyed". Eyewitnesses described scenes of chaos when the gates of the aid distribution sites opened as aid is accessed on a first-come, first-served basis, she said. "Sometimes it's very dark at night, you can barely see what's next to you and they start chasing whatever scraps they can get," she said,"and then they start shooting". "We have been talking to several families whose loved ones have been missing for over a month, since attempting to collect food from the GHF, and to this day, they have no idea where they are," she said. "They never came back." Had the GHF proved successful in delivering aid to the Palestinians humanely, humanitarian organisations would have been the first to congratulate them, Ms Hassan told RTÉ News. This organisation has a clear role, she said, and that is to "do the dirty work, unfortunately, of the Israeli military". But the US acting representative to the United Nations, John Kelley, told a meeting of the UN Security Council on Monday that the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation "has committed to delivering aid consistent with humanitarian principles". "And, contrary to what Hamas wants the world to believe, the GHF continues to provide vital food aid to Palestinian civilians in Gaza, distributing over 50 million meals as of June 29," he told the Security Council. The head of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation also accused the United Nations and other international aid organisations of "sabotage" and of spreading "lies that originate in Hamas". Reverend Johnnie Moore took over GHF after its previous boss Jake Wood resigned, citing concerns over the plan's adherence to "humanitarian principles". "Respectable — I don't even call them respectable anymore — elite organisations that we would assume [have] good intent have just attacked us again and again," Mr Moore told a podcast produced by the Israel-based Misgav Institute for National Security. "The whole time, we're like 'cooperate with us … teach us, let's find ways of solving problems together,'" to no avail," he said. Mr Moore said he would have liked to collaborate with the World Food Programme and other UN bodies but that the UN had "been trying to sabotage us from the very beginning". Asked by RTÉ News for a response to the accusation of sabotage, Stéphane Dujarric, the spokesperson for the UN Secretary General said "no - we've never told people not to go to their sites". "Who are we that are fed to say to people who are hungry, don't do this?" he said. "All we're asking is for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation to operate within internationally accepted norms," Mr Dujarric told RTÉ News. The UN does not have and is not asking for a monopoly on humanitarian aid distribution in Gaza, he said. "There is enough work for everyone," Mr Dujarric said. "All that we ask is that people operate with the minimum standards, that are globally accepted on humanitarian aid: impartiality, independence, [and] operate in a way that doesn't put the recipients at risk of being shot at," he added.
