I thank Deputy Healy-Rae. Now, can we go back to the consultative forum? I call Deputy Pringle of the Independent Group.

Before I start, I want to be totally dissociated from any of the comments previously made in the Chamber. I think it was an absolute disgrace. I want to make that clear before I go on.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on the report of the Consultative Forum on International Security Policy. It is no secret that-----

Do not anyone call me a disgrace here. I am elected by the people of Kerry and I am every bit as good as you are. You are not entitled to call me a disgrace, today, tomorrow or any other day.

Deputy Healy-Rae-----

It is obvious you do not fucking listen to what anybody says because that is not what I said. Next time, open your ears instead of your mouth, you might fucking understand what people are saying.

Deputy Pringle, I will give you your full time but I am asking Deputy Healy-Rae to stop, please. You went over a minute and a half over your time. You are now eating into other people's time.

I never interfered with you good, bad or indifferent.

Can you please just stop and allow other people speak? We will go back to Deputy Pringle.

It is no secret that I was very vocally against this forum and its set-up. The constitution of the panels at the forum was completely skewed towards those who are either opposed to Ireland’s current policy of neutrality, or those who seek to weaken it. Those with expertise on peacebuilding, arms control and humanitarian work were a significant minority on the panels and so you can understand why I am very sceptical of the report that came from this forum. We have said time and time again that if the Government wanted to start a national conversation, as the Tánaiste mentions in his opening statement, then this should have been done in the form of a citizens’ assembly. This forum was not a national discussion; it was a discussion between security experts and therefore those who have an interest in advancing military capabilities in Ireland, despite the opinion of the population. The chair’s report itself admitted this, saying "it must be borne in mind that the submissions were not a random or representative sample of the population, rather the views of citizens engaged in these issues; therefore, it would be unwise to extrapolate from these views to the population-at-large". Yet that is what the Tánaiste does in his opening statement today. He said this is a national conversation that has been taking place here, when clearly it has not. He goes on to contradict himself in his opening statement as well, where he talks about the need to get over the fact that the Security Council has not approved any new peacekeeping missions for us to participate in but then generally goes on to talk about how the Security Council is important. What is happening here is an absolute sham and dressing up to get participation and military responses right across the world; that is what we are seeing here. What is in the Tánaiste's statement is just a way of making sure that will happen on behalf of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Green Party, which are willing to participate in this. That is what is absolutely wrong.

The Government will make sure it will not give the people a say in this because the one thing they can be certain of is that the Irish people will have a different view and will want to ensure this will not happen and the ongoing militarisation that Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Greens have been pursuing will not happen now or in the future.

I also strongly disagree with the chair’s opinion that "It would seem, therefore, 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." There are many organisations that would also disagree with this assessment, including the New Agenda Coalition, of which Ireland is a member, which are committed to nuclear disarmament. Ireland’s policy of neutrality has been praised many times by NGOs and even UN officials. It is seen as a great asset to peace negotiations in the likes of Colombia and to discussions on things like nuclear disarmament.

It was not just the make-up of the forum that was questionable but also the content of it. I was disappointed at the lack of focus on biodiversity, especially since the greatest threat to our collective security is the climate and biodiversity crisis. Although cybersecurity is important, it will mean very little when we are faced with the enormous threat of climate change. In her conclusion the chair states "it will be important to ensure that future Irish governments have maximum flexibility to respond with deliberation and speed when called upon to ensure the safety and security of our citizens". Our citizens know that they have that through peaceful co-operation and the neutrality policy we have pursued.

I do not think in three minutes and 15 seconds I can do justice to what I feel and believe regarding this consultative forum. It was framed for a particular purpose. It has delivered on that purpose, albeit very badly. It is very badly written and did not give policy directions, which it was not allowed to. From that forum, we have a Tánaiste here today with an eight-page speech. I do not know who wrote it for him. We are told we are going to get rid of the triple lock. We were told this consultative forum was the start of a national conversation. He has just finished that national conversation and has told us he is going to bring in legislation now to get rid of the triple lock. That is absolutely shocking and unacceptable.

Hear, hear.

I really think he should consider his position in respect of what he has told us. Repeatedly through this, the chair told us we were not listening when various Government spokespeople said they were not getting rid of neutrality or changing it. Quite clearly, that is wrong. At the very least I would have asked that the report have a different title as the start of a conversation. It should have been "What does neutrality mean?" How do we make it work in the world as a neutral country and make our voices heard now more than ever? How do we do that? Instead, we have framed the whole thing from beginning to end and we have been ostracised and labelled as people who are not rational. I am a very rational human being and a female TD and I do not stand over Government policy on changing our neutrality. We should make it mean something when we need it in the world.

If we look at the backbenchers from Fianna Fáil and we look at the Green Party, Deputy Eamon Ryan told us the triple lock was essential less than a year ago. O'Dea told us we should stop fiddling around and talking about it, keep it and get on to the things that matter. Here we are today with a speech of eight pages and right in the middle, we say we are going to change the triple lock. Up to this point we were changing the triple lock because of Russia and it was about Russia misusing the veto. Nobody looked at America or chose not to refer to them. Professor Ray Murphy states that a quick review of the use of the veto shows how the US has most often exercised this prerogative, especially in relation to the Israel-Palestine conflict. In 2002, 21 years ago, the US threatened to use its veto to prevent the renewal of all UN operations in its effort to evade the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. It has continued, of course, to evade the jurisdiction of that court. The same professor outlines that the UN is often dysfunctional and inefficient but it remains the most important international organisation with responsibility for peace and security.

I say shame on the Tánaiste and on any backbencher who backs this instead of standing up for a neutral policy that means something now more than ever when we need voices for peace. Absolute shame on you.

Hear, hear.