Yesterday marked the third anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. At this time, we remember all those who have lost their lives, homes and families in the brutal war that has ensued. We must reaffirm our solidarity with the people Ukraine at this time.

On this sad anniversary, US President Trump joined with Belarus and North Korea at the United Nations, siding with the dictator Vladimir Putin, and voted against a resolution condemning Russia’s brutal war on Ukraine. It was a dark day for the United Nations and an extraordinary change of policy for the US. It is turning its back on European democracies.

While the US goes rogue, we in Ireland must stand firm against despots and warmongers. We in the Labour Party have welcomed the Taoiseach's commitment to continued solidarity with Ukraine in the face of the Russian aggressor. However, I ask that he now take this opportunity to condemn both President Putin and President Trump because the US vote yesterday was a crude reminder of the dark threat to our international rules-based order. Putin has effectively received an endorsement from the US, despite his illegal war. In the Middle East, we are all very conscious that Netanyahu is flagrantly breaching international law with the brutal bombardment and siege of Gaza and with Israel’s tanks now in the occupied West Bank. At this time, we must maintain our support for international law, peacekeeping, humanitarianism and political - not military - solutions to end global conflict.

We understand that proposals are being brought to the Cabinet next month to end the triple lock. This alarming proposed change appears to be a pet project of the Taoiseach. Over several years now, he has sought different ways to remove or undermine the triple lock. We are concerned that ending the triple lock would have an inherent impact on our military neutrality. It would open the door for members of our Defence Forces to participate in foreign conflicts that lack the protection of the blue beret and a United Nations mandate and that would compromise our neutrality. The Taoiseach has denied that this is the case in the past. If that is so, why is this being proposed?

In a changing world, of course we need to discuss Ireland’s defence and security.

We know that military neutrality comes at a cost but our Defence Forces are desperately under-resourced. As the former line Minister the Taoiseach must be embarrassed that members of the Defence Forces have reported having to sleep in their cars because they could not afford to rent a home on their salary. Why not afford decent pay and conditions to those who are defending our country? Why not act now to address the recruitment and retention crisis in the Defence Forces and invest in our defence infrastructure? The reality is that with or without the triple lock Ireland is highly vulnerable to attack and cyber attack. Closer alignment with NATO would not change that but proper investment would. Does the Taoiseach condemn President Trump for his siding with Russia, and his betrayal of Ukraine and European democracy? Will the Taoiseach commit now to retaining the triple lock and addressing Irish security by investing in our Defence Forces?

I wonder does the Deputy reflect on the absolute contradictions within her presentation. Deputy Bacik is asking me to condemn President Putin and President Trump yet in the very same presentation she is suggesting they should continue to have a freeze on Ireland's participation in peacekeeping. That is exactly the Deputy's proposition.

No.

It is exactly what she has said.

No, it is not.

The reason we have consistently said that the triple lock needs to change is that the powers on the Security Council should not be able to stop or veto Ireland's participation in a peacekeeping mission. It is absolutely nothing to do with military neutrality as is asserted time and again in this House. Nothing. It is a pragmatic and sensible decision to take. We should control the destiny of how we participate in peacekeeping. We should control those decisions in this House and by the Government of the day. We have a very honourable tradition of peacekeeping in this country. I pay tribute to members of the Defence Forces. Over the last number of years we have significantly increased pay and conditions and it was unfair of the Deputy not to acknowledge that. Over a year ago now we introduced, for example, free secondary care for every member of the Defence Forces. We have increased starting pay in the Defence Forces such that it is significantly better now than many starting pay levels of many other public servants, or indeed people in the private sector. I invite the Deputy to study that. Last year we significantly increased allowances such as doubling of the patrol duty allowance. This was a very significant move for our Naval Service. Last year for the first time since 2017 we turned a corner in having a net increase of recruitment into our Defence Forces. We need much more, of course. We have invested hugely in barracks, in accommodation, and in the naval base. We will continue to invest hugely. There will be a master plan for every barracks, for Baldonnel and for the Naval Service. We have to increase defence capability in this country. We must do it in a progressive way and in a way that makes sense in terms of procurement capacity. There is all sorts of talk about doubling this and doubling that but the bottom line is we have to do it in an organised way and - in the spirit of the moment - a value-for-money way. It is not about throwing money at the defence issue or the capability issue. Procurement takes time. We have to assess what we need and what the vulnerabilities are. Cyber security is one key area and sub-sea cables is another. We are investing in our capability and our resilience in that respect.

We are facing potentially tectonic changes in the global world order. On the other hand, the European Union has resolved, and I agree with this, to continue engagement with the United States Government and Administration, which is crucial to the Europe-US relationship and to the Ireland-US relationship. I believe that President Macron's visit yesterday was a positive step in the right direction in that regard.

I am glad the Taoiseach acknowledges the need for greater investment in the Defence Forces. We are all very aware of that. On the triple lock, however, the Taoiseach continues to say that retaining the requirement for a UN mandate leaves us at the mercy of Russia or China having a veto. The Taoiseach knows that the legislation underpinning the triple lock enables a UN mandate to give authorisation to the General Assembly and not the Security Council. The Taoiseach knows this. Further, it may be imperfect but the UN is the only legitimate international agency capable of authorising multilateral peacekeeping missions in which we would want to see Irish troops serving. It is imperfect and all of us want to see its processes reformed but nobody, including the Taoiseach, has offered any practical alternative. The Taoiseach spoke at an international conference yesterday and said that for small countries like Ireland “our only ultimate security is rooted in the international rules-based order”. He also commended Ukraine on fighting to uphold the principles of the UN charter. The UN represents an international rules-based order.

President Trump is intent on breaking up that order. He should be condemned for that by all democratic leaders in Europe, because he turned his back on us with his vote at the United Nations yesterday.

I am absolutely committed and have articulated the need for a multilateral and rules-based order. The point I made yesterday was that for small open economies or states like Ireland, our ultimate security is not in optimal defence capability, it is in a rules-based order. That is our ultimate security. We support Ukraine because its territorial integrity and sovereignty were violated and the UN Charter was breached. There is no equivocation in that regard. I took the opportunity yesterday to reassert that. That General Assembly notion is just a notion. It is always Security Council resolutions that underpin peacekeeping missions.

We have had significant challenges during our time on the Security Council, even in respect of keeping humanitarian corridors to north-west Syria and Tigre open. Humanitarian corridors are used to get vital aid to people in war zones. We got first-hand experience of the challenges and modern-day reality that exist when we were on the Security Council.