I will try to spend the majority of my time discussing the consultative forum and the findings from it but inevitably we will not be able to step away from other events that are taking place in the world, particularly in the Middle East, and from our role within those events.

There was an assertion in the consultative forum's conclusion: "that Ireland’s policy of neutrality is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for Ireland’s global standing as a force for good in international affairs". That was contained in the findings of the report. I found that reminiscent of the Tánaiste's comments in the summer, that Ireland's neutrality was not a lucky charm to protect Ireland and that a reimagining is needed. Those comments were made in the context of Russia's grotesque invasion of Ukraine but those were the words he used. I will return to that point but I want to refute the assertion made about neutrality in that consultative forum. There is no evidence for it in the reality of Ireland's position in the world as it is. It is almost revisionist of the position we have etched out painstakingly through decades of work by Irish politicians and diplomats at UN level over the course of over 70 years. Let us not forget the people who put themselves in harm's way in the name on UN peacekeeping missions.

From the outset, the values of self-determination, anti-imperialism and anti-militarism were derived from Ireland's colonial and post-colonial experience and have defined our contribution to peace proposals at the United Nations.

Mr. Liam Cosgrave, our first Minister for External Affairs to attend the UN, outlined that Ireland is unique in that it is the only western country that has a long experience of being treated as a colony, not only of being temporarily occupied during a war but of being governed over many generations by a foreign country whose rule people rejected and strove to shake off. He said this at a UN plenary meeting in 1956. Ireland's diplomats and Ministers have used this history to claim an understanding of the psychology of opposing belligerents and have always appealed to both sides in a conflict, where possible. This is reminiscent of the Taoiseach's words shortly after 7 October, when he asked us to take a step back and understand the psyche of some our European counterparts who would not even call for a ceasefire. Let us also understand our own psyche and our own position. Mr. Frank Aiken, who was a member of the Tánaiste's party, said that like many of our fellow members of the UN, Ireland was a young state but had a people with a proud and ancient history. He said that coming from such a country, he spoke in the hope that Ireland's profound convictions, born of long experience of tragic frustration, may carry weight with the UN Assembly. That was on 23 September 1957 and in the present day, Irish ambassadors are aware that most UN member states that are small or former colonies identify with Ireland's size and history and with our commitment to the rule of law, equality, justice and, where possible, multilateralism. They also identify with our discourse, policies and voting positions on decolonisation and disarmament at the UN. This is the soft power that is invaluable to our position in the world and is something we should not let go of lightly. Mr. Aiken insisted that Ireland should maintain independence and not become part of any tight group bound by agreements to support one another no matter what the subject for discussion. Radical and groundbreaking proposals from Aiken led to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which is probably one of the greatest achievements of Irish diplomacy, and diplomacy as a whole, over the past 100 years.

Since our foundation as a State, it has been precisely our position of, and adherence to, neutrality that has given us legitimacy on the world stage and any erosion of this impacts our standing. This is an important point to make as politicians on the Government side, following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, started to see neutrality almost as a form of weakness on the global stage when it is the exact opposite and always has been. The sense of being a maverick independent is what has given us credibility and legitimacy and given us our place. Now, when the dogs of war and the hawks are assembling, is it the Irish position to simply go and give a little bark behind them or will we stand up and be a voice for peace?

Why is the Tánaiste shaking his hands?

Sorry? I apologise.

In terms of the Tánaiste's position, where we differ is that he offers words but in terms of the Middle East conflict, we want him to go forward and offer actions. That is where we have diverged. I have highlighted examples of people from the Tánaiste's own party that I have admiration for, including Mr. Frank Aiken-----

Frank Aiken was from Fianna Fáil and in favour of neutrality.

Yes, exactly. That is what I am trying to say.

The Deputy should get real. He should not be lecturing us on it.

I am using the example of Frank Aiken to demonstrate a time when Ireland took a maverick position, stepped out from the group and acted unilaterally as a way of achieving something. Now we seem to have lost the courage to go beyond ourselves. It is with that spirit in mind that I am saying to the Tánaiste that now, when the dogs of war are once again assembling and when we are seeing a genocide being inflicted upon the people of Gaza, we should go further and where necessary, act unilaterally.

I do not doubt the Tánaiste's commitment, integrity or desire to bring peace to the Middle East. I do not doubt his conviction in going over there and while I would disagree with some elements of the visit, that is fine because this is a parliamentary democracy. What I would love this State to do is to be the first to call for sanctions because in the context of what we are speaking about now, everything is going to come back to Israel's gross genocide. What Israel has not experienced, either in this genocide and invasion or the apartheid it has inflicted through 75 years of oppression and occupation and forced displacement of Palestinian people, is consequences. That is why we are pushing so far. The Tánaiste was not here last week for the debate on the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador. I appreciate that we went quite far with that call but what we left out there were several other calls to which the Government could actually respond. It could say that it was not going to do that but that it appreciated the need for action to be taken. We left, for example, EU trade agreements on the table. The Tánaiste's own party colleague, the MEP Mr. Chris Andrews has endorsed that proposal at EU level.

Chris Andrews is on that side of the House.

Sorry, I meant to say Barry Andrews. It is hard to tell the difference. There was a range of actions the Government could have taken. I disagree with the fact that we have continued to use words when action is what we are calling for.

There has been action.

This is no laughing matter. We have asked for things like the progression of the Control of Economic Activities (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018. It was Fianna Fáil in 2019 that brought that Bill to Second Stage in the Dáil. When introducing it, Deputy Niall Collins asked if not now, when?

What I was going to ask before the interruptions was, why we do not have the courage to go beyond ourselves? There are examples of this from the Tánaiste's own party and I was going to list a number of them. Simply standing back and using words and rhetoric and talking about peace being built on the graves of children will do nothing. There is no courage in that. The Tánaiste may smirk, smile and throw his hands up in the air but he has a position in the world. What will his memory of this be? The Irish people want us to go further than words. We can act unilaterally. If the Tánaiste does not, so be it, we will do it without him.

When the report of the consultative forum on international security policy was published in October, my initial reaction was to wonder what all the fuss was about. When the forum was established, a storm of controversy erupted. We were told that this was all part of a sinister plot by the Government to commence the process for Ireland to join NATO. The chairperson, Professor Louise Richardson was criticised, including by people who should have known better, and protesters attempted to disrupt the panel discussions.

In my view, Professor Dame Louise Richardson is to be congratulated for the manner in which she conducted the forum and for her final report. We managed to have a respectful debate and a wide range of views were facilitated. The final report is clear, concise and easy to read. We now have a considered description of Irish neutrality, in that we are deemed to be politically aligned and militarily non-aligned. The forum has been a most useful exercise.

It is clear from the report that the geopolitical environment is changing and therefore it was absolutely essential that Ireland would consider its security policy at this time. Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine altered significantly the international security environment, particularly in Europe. Other new, emerging threats have presented themselves in recent years including cyber threats, hybrid warfare, disinformation and election interference, as well as threats to our critical infrastructure, especially our offshore infrastructure, including undersea cables connecting the US to Europe. They have become all too apparent. We have already experienced a ransomware attack on the HSE and Russian ships have been observed acting suspiciously off the south-west coast of Ireland in our exclusive economic zone.

The report also says that we are only now beginning to examine the risks to our society posed by climate change. It goes on to state that our geographical location no longer provides us with the protection that it once did, for example, as it did during the Second World War. As I have said previously in the House, it would have been reckless and irresponsible of the Government not to assess and examine these developments and engage the public on the issues. Similarly, the establishment of the Commission on the Defence Forces was extremely important.

Irish people are rightly proud of our global reputation as regards foreign policy issues. The central elements of our foreign policy are: UN peacekeeping; crisis management and conflict prevention; disarmament, arms control, and the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons; adherence to international humanitarian law; the promotion of fundamental human rights; and a commitment to humanitarian causes, including tackling global hunger and food insecurity, particularly in the global south. These priorities have evolved over many years, arising from our history and culture, including our non-colonial past. They have resulted in us exercising soft power, especially in the USA. As a result, we engage willingly and constructively in international institutions. This has been proven by our election from time to time to the UN Security Council. It is interesting that Norway, with its own unique tradition and history, and as a NATO member, has played an important role of facilitator between parties to conflicts and promotes conflict resolution and reconciliation. Ireland, with its own unique tradition and history, can do this too. The forum sums all of this up by stating that Ireland has a global reputation as an honest broker, mediator and advocate for human rights and arms control and more recently, in respect of the women, peace and security agenda. Long may this continue.

The approach of the Government to the horrific events taking place in Gaza is firmly rooted on these principles.

The forum also examined our ongoing participation in the EU Common Security and Defence Policy. Ireland participates in PESCO missions. We support the European peace facility and provide non-lethal equipment to Ukraine. Linked to this is our assistance with the EU training mission for Ukraine. We pay into the European defence fund. We have signed up to the EU strategic compass and have agreed to the concept of EU battle groups. The forum panellists all agreed there is no agenda to create a European army. In any event, member states are not interested in such an army. CSDP is not a stepping stone to a European army. We should dismiss that scaremongering once and for all. It seems generally accepted that all these CSDP initiatives are important and there is scope for deeper engagement with it as it evolves and develops. Similarly, there is no substantial objection to our ongoing participation in the NATO-led partnership for peace. I note the remarks of the Tánaiste regarding the NATO-led Partnership for Peace bringing forward an initiative to protect our underseas cables.

Where do we go from here? How should we proceed? First, we can all agree there is no question of Ireland joining NATO. Second, the triple lock is no longer fit for purpose. Government and Dáil sanction for overseas missions should be enough. The Defence Acts will need, therefore, to be amended. We cannot have authoritarian regimes exercising a veto over our deployments abroad. In this context, we are all agreed the UN needs to be reformed and we should continue to advocate for this. I welcome the comments by the Tánaiste in respect of bringing forward new legislation. I suspect it will relate to the Defence Acts. I look forward to seeing that legislation in due course. Third, there is no need to have a constitutional amendment to insert neutrality into Bunreacht na hÉireann. In any event, there is no agreed definition of "neutrality" and we need to have flexibility to respond to events quickly and without undue constraints. Fourth, we need greater public spending on all three branches of the Defence Forces to defend our land, sea and air. We need an armed neutrality, if one likes. The recommendations of the Commission on the Defence Forces must continue to be implemented. I welcome the publication yesterday of a detailed implementation plan for the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces. That is timely.

The Tánaiste in his contribution made several announcements. He announced there will be a new national security strategy, a national security authority and a maritime security strategy and indicated a robust and modern legislative framework will need to be brought forward to facilitate this. The House will have significant work to do when that legislation is brought forward. Today is only the start of the debate. This proposed legislation and these new initiatives will have to be extensively debated in the Dáil. I look forward to seeing the proposals in due course.