Vol. 970 No. 7
40. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence his views on the proposal by the European Commission to increase funding to PESCO and other military spending in the draft multi-annual financial framework; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27729/18]
What are the Minister of State's views on the proposal of the European Commission to increase funding both to PESCO and to other military spending, which is contained in the draft multi-annual financial framework? Will he make a statement on the matter?
The next EU multi-annual Financial framework, MFF, will determine the budget spending for the EU for the period from 2021 to 2027. On 2 May 2018, the European Commission presented its EU budget proposals for the multi-annual financial framework. Included in this, the Commission proposed that a budget of €13 billion over the 7 year period be dedicated to the European defence fund - €4.1 billion to defence research and €8.9 billion to the development of defence capabilities.
There are links between the European Defence Fund and PESCO projects. A project that qualifies for co-funding under the capability window of the defence fund and is also a PESCO project will receive an additional 10% funding under PESCO.
The PESCO projects where Ireland has confirmed our participation relate to the ongoing development of Defence Forces capabilities for peace support and crisis management operations and for domestic operations. Maritime surveillance enhancement will assist the Naval Service in developing capability and capacity both for overseas and domestic operations. The Training Mission Competence Centre will support Ireland's engagement in missions such as the training mission in Mali.
It is envisaged that the European Defence Fund will promote co-operation and cost savings among member states. By pooling resources, it is proposed that individual member states can achieve greater output and develop defence technology and equipment that may not be feasible on their own. The fund will also foster innovation and allow economies of scale, which will enhance the competitiveness of the EU defence industry. The fund will co-ordinate, supplement and amplify national investments in defence. Collaborative projects with significant cross-border participation by small and medium-sized enterprises will be particularly encouraged. This will ensure that the fund remains open to recipients from all member states, regardless of their size and location in the Union.
The MFF process is at a very early stage. The allocation of resources across all of the various EU sectoral funds will be considered in the context of the eventual total agreed budget for the EU.
I understand there was a meeting yesterday of the European foreign affairs and defence ministers. Who attended representing the Irish Government? I understand it was agreed yesterday to establish a co-ordinated annual review on defence, CARD. The review of defence spending by the European Defence Agency covers individual member states. The aim is to provide an overview of national defence plans. Can the Minister of State confirm that Ireland's defence spending will be monitored under this new system? Can he confirm that the reviewers can put proposals to the Irish Government and State? Can he confirm that the proposals will be binding? I believed we had the troika out of this place a couple of years back but now we see European monitoring bodies, such as the one in question, making recommendations that I understand are binding in respect of defence expenditure in this State. The Minister of State might confirm that.
Any expenditure on defence is a matter for the Government, as the Deputy knows. The Deputy has now seen two budgets going through this House. He has an opportunity to vote on all the budget outcomes. It is up to each Member of this House to do so. It is a matter for the Government to bring forward a budget. If the Government wants to spend a certain amount, be it on agriculture, enterprise, arts and heritage, defence, justice or education, it is a matter for it. As with all budgets, all proposals are passed by the House.
I was unable to attend the Council meetings of yesterday and today because of parliamentary questions. It is quite difficult to change the schedule for parliamentary questions. My Secretary General, Mr. Maurice Quinn, and the assistant secretary with responsibility in this area had a joint meeting with representatives of the Department of Foreign affairs and Trade. The Tánaiste, Deputy Simon Coveney, attended with his officials. I will be getting a full briefing on the outcome of the meetings yesterday and today upon their return.
The Minister of State might tell us what happens if CARD makes a recommendation on increasing defence expenditure in this or that area in this State and the State, Government or this House does not accept it. Could the Minister of State please clarify the position?
What is agreed in these proposals is European Defence Fund expenditure of €13 billion over seven years. That is not a doubling, trebling or quadrupling; it is a 22-times increase in European defence spending. It requires Ireland to increase expenditure from 0.5% to 2% under the PESCO proposals, in other words from €905 million to €3.62 billion. We have a homelessness and housing emergency. How many houses would the money build? How many child care workers would it provide? If a house costs €150,000 to build, which is probably the absolute minimum, the money would build 24,000 homes. Does the Minister of State believe that what is being done represents the best allocation of resources available to the State?
Decisions on spending are and will always be a matter for the Dáil. Dáil votes will determine how Ireland spends its money on defence, as I stated to the Deputy a while ago. Deputy Barry and many like him with similar views on defence come into the House and give out about what we spend on equipment and defence matters. If something happened to people overseas, whether they were killed or badly injured, the Deputy would be the first person breaking in the door here, jumping up and down, as he did earlier, and doing a jig on the floor looking for an explanation as to why we were not spending and allocating resources. I have no issue whatsoever defending every penny we spend on our Defence Forces' members and equipment. It is like somebody coming in here today saying that in Operation Sophia we gave migrants over to the Libyan coastguard. The individual concerned had hardly got an explanation when he was gone. He said he got a reply to a question on it. It could not be further from the truth. His line and Deputy Barry's line suited their left-wing agenda. I want Deputy Barry to think about this. I will defend every penny spent on equipment for members of the Defence Forces because their safety is my priority.
42. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the extent to which the strength of the Defence Forces continues to be maintained or increased, or both; the degree to which gender balance continues to be observed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27710/18]
45. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence his plans to address problems with recruitment and retention across the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27741/18]
51. Deputy Jack Chambers asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence his plans to increase the number of women in the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27754/18]
53. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence his plans to increase the number of personnel serving in the Permanent Defence Force in 2019; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27705/18]
58. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the number of personnel serving in the Permanent Defence Force; the expected enlistment at the end of 2018; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27704/18]
This question relates to the extent to which the strength of all ranks of the Defence Forces is being maintained, notwithstanding resignations or retirements. Are sufficient procedures in place to ensure this prevails?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 42, 45, 51, 53 and 58 together.
As of 30 May 2018, the strength of the Permanent Defence Force was 9,010 personnel – whole-time equivalents – of which 589 were females. Given the unique and demanding nature of military life, there is understandably a relatively high level of turnover among Defence Forces personnel. This is not new and the Permanent Defence Force has always had a level of turnover that far exceeds other areas of the public service. This is a feature of military organisations internationally as well as in the Defence Forces.
The overall numbers departing the Permanent Defence Force in recent years are broadly consistent with the long-term trend, with some exceptions. As the Deputy will be aware, under my direction the Department brought the issue of recruitment and retention of certain specialists to the attention of the Public Service Pay Commission. Initial data have been submitted and further data and information on the defence sector will be forwarded in the coming weeks.
To address vacancies in specialist positions, I have initiated a full range of actions, including developing proposals for the re-entry of suitably qualified former members of the Permanent Defence Force to fill appointments and for expanding direct entry for suitable posts. Work on these matters is ongoing.
The White Paper on Defence recognises that continuous recruitment is the lifeblood of the Defence Forces. The recruitment plan proposed by the Defence Forces envisages 800 new entrants being inducted across all services and competition streams in 2018.
Similar to other areas in the public service, the Defence Forces must compete with the private sector for applicants. It is too early at this juncture to give precise targets for recruitment in 2019 but I expect them to be broadly in line with this year.
The pay of the Defence Forces is increasing in accordance with public sector pay agreements. The pay of a newly qualified three-star private has increased by 25% in the past 12 months. At €27,257, it is favourable when compared with entry rates across the public service. The starting rate for newly qualified officers is €35,000 and for new graduate officers in excess of €40,000. These amounts are inclusive of military service allowance. This compares favourably with the average starting pay for graduates across other sectors of employment.
The Government is committed to a policy of equal opportunity for men and women throughout the Defence Forces, as well as the full participation by women in all aspects of Defence Forces activity. This is underlined by a commitment in the programme for Government to increase the level of female participation in the Defence Forces.
Several specific initiatives have been implemented to increase the level of female participation in the Defence Forces. These include targeting of female persons in online recruitment campaigns, the adjustment of physical standards for female applicants etc. Over the lifetime of the White Paper, further projects will be progressed to ensure increased female participation in the Defence Forces continues.
I remain committed to ensuring the Defence Forces retain the capacity to operate effectively across all roles required of them by Government at home and overseas.
Will the Minister of State indicate the extent, if any, to which it has been possible to identify particular areas where difficulty has arisen in keeping the strength of the Defence Forces at an optimum level? To what extent do the present numbers reflect the status quo in this regard? Are there particular sectors of the Defence Forces in which it has been found particularly difficult to attract female recruits?
The Department of Defence, in conjunction with the Defence Forces, raised recruitment and retention issues for certain specialists as part of its submission to the Public Service Pay Commission. This is specifically referenced by the commission in paragraph 6.13 of its report. Section 3 of the Public Service Stability Agreement 2018-2020 provides that the Public Service Pay Commission be requested to complete a comprehensive examination of underlying difficulties in recruitment and retention in those sectors, as well as employment streams identified in the report.
It is an ongoing programme of human resources development within the defence organisation, part of which is aimed at ensuring an appropriate work-life balance. The Chief of Staff is actively addressing matters in the Defence Forces to this end. I have commenced several initiatives ranging from the review of the conciliation and arbitration scheme, a review of the criteria governing contracts for enlisted personnel and a comprehensive skills gap analysis across the defence organisation.
I have almost concluded the bringing forward of measures to allow former members of the Defence Forces with specialist skills, such as pilots and engineers, to re-enter the Defence Forces. I will be looking at extending that to former enlisted personnel.
Has it been possible to ensure that particularly sensitive sectors in the Defence Forces do not fall below a certain strength? Would it be possible to over-recruit, by way of compensation, during recruitment drives? Will the Minister of State indicate whether this has been tried out? Defence is a sensitive area and it is never known when or how the Defence Forces may be called upon in an emergency. Is he satisfied that sufficient strength remains available for the Defence Forces and the Reserve Defence Force to be deployed at short notice?
Several specific initiatives have been implemented to increase female participation in the Defence Forces. These include the introduction of best practices in recruitment, such as the adjustment of physical standards for female applicants; special consideration is paid to women as a target group for recruitment; a balanced composition between men and women on recruitment and selection boards; all promotions and career courses are open to both sexes on merit; a gender adviser has been appointed to promote gender equality policies and training within the Defence Forces.
As in the White Paper, the Department of Defence recognised the requirement to develop a diversity and inclusion strategy. This, together with the associate action plan, has been achieved. We target specific organisations, such as camogie and ladies football teams, to get women into the organisation.
There used to be recruitment once a year. Last year, I brought in two phases for recruitment in the first part and then the second part of the year. It was unfair for people to apply to join the Defence Forces in February only to be left on a list for 14 months and then, by the time they were reached on the panel, they had moved on to further employment. Now, we have recruitment in two months of the year. I am seriously examining over-recruitment to ensure there is a cushion available.
During Storm Ophelia and Storm Emma, we were able to get members of the Defence Forces on the streets quickly and they were able to do an outstanding job at short notice.
The Minister of State is keen to slag off the agenda of the left. I have a big problem with boosting military expenditure at the behest of the European Union to bolster the military-industrial complex and arms manufacturers in Europe. I would be quite happy, however, to see money spent on soldiers and their families to give them a decent wage and livelihood in order that they do not have to depend on family income supplement. Up to 25% of the Defence Forces have to take up family income supplement, forcing their families to go out protesting. That is at the root of the significant recruitment and retention difficulties, resulting in the Defence Forces being way below strength. Health and safety has been compromised because of the exodus of experienced personnel from the Air Corps, the Army and the Naval Service. It all comes down to low levels of pay, as well as poor conditions of accommodation, food and other factors which are a result of the Government not putting investment into the soldiers.
Will the Minister of State give us the figures for the last recruitment drive? How many people were actually recruited? I know 3,000 expressed an interest, 381 went as far as being processed and only 180 were called. How many people were actually recruited?
Where did the Deputy get the figure that 25% of the Defence Forces is in receipt of family income supplement?
That is what the soldiers said to us when they were outside protesting.
A little over 1% of the Defence Forces are in receipt of family income supplement. I have addressed this matter until I am blue in the face. The only place where these accusations come from is from the left. Other Members have taken on board what I have stated on this before. I went to the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection myself to check the figures. I ask the Deputy to believe me when I say that. When it is stated that so many members of the defence organisation are in receipt of family income supplement, that figure includes members of the Department as well.
The Deputy knows the meaning of family income supplement. One could be on €50,000 a year but, if one has 15 children, one is entitled to family income supplement. It is an income supplement that depends on the circumstances of a family.
The Deputy talks about the working family payment. He really should consider the meaning of the payment and what it is all about. I do not have them to hand here but I will come back to him with the full figures for the applications we received during the last intake
How does the Minister of State explain the following comment from one member of the Defence Forces?:
We're only a priority for the State when the State wants to highlight it themselves worldwide. We are far from a priority when it comes to the welfare of our troops, their wages, their conditions, their health.
Another member talks about the fact that he earned approximately €150 per week more between 2005 and 2007, when he was able to get a mortgage, than he earns today. This is the reality, and this is why the Department is unable to recruit and retain people and they are flooding out of the Defence Forces. The Department buys new naval vessels but does not have the personnel to put on them, so the vessels go out to sea but I hear reports that they then cannot do the fisheries patrols because they do not have enough personnel to board ships. The Department is buying new CASA airplanes, but I understand there are only three CASA pilots, some of whom may even leave, yet it takes years to train these pilots. Where will we get the pilots to fly the planes? It is interesting the Minister of State does not have the figures for the result of the recruitment drive. There are all these expressions of interest, but then they decrease to a tiny number because the applicants discover what the pay and conditions are and will not touch the positions with a bargepole.
The Deputy's question is "[to ask] the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence his plans to address problems with recruitment and retention across the Defence Forces", and I am outlining them. Had he asked me for the specific figures, I would have had them to hand, but he did not ask that specific question. He does not have to table another question; I will come back to him with that information. We have issues with pilot retention, air traffic controllers and engineers, and I am taking steps to address all these issues by ensuring direct entry and re-entry of personnel. People who left the organisation want to re-enter it, and they will improve the skills reserve of the Defence Forces. I am working with the Department and the Defence Forces on this issue. I will defend everything we spend on defence equipment. The Deputy specifically highlighted naval vessels. Members of the Defence Forces deserve the best equipment to carry out their day-to-day duties.
We must have people to sail the ships.
I met the CEO of the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority last Friday.
The Minister of State's time has expired.
I spoke to her about the service level agreement we have with the agency, and she did not highlight any of the issues the Deputy has raised.
The Minister of State mentioned in reply to Deputy Durkan some of the initiatives to increase female participation in respect of recruitment. We are failing abysmally against the international metric. The total of females in our Defence Forces is approximately 6.5%, which is way below international norms. The figure for the US is 16%; New Zealand, 17%; Canada, 15%; and Britain, 9%. Female participation in the Air Corps specifically is below 5% while it is approximately 7% in the Army and the Navy. According to figures received by my colleague, Deputy Lisa Chambers, there was a 9.7% female recruitment rate last year within the Defence Forces, which does not even match the norms in the countries I have mentioned. Clearly, therefore, we need a greater recruitment initiative which involves more than just contacting the GAA or other sports clubs. We need to do more to increase female participation because this will have a drag effect if we want to try to increase the percentage in years to come. A 9.7% rate last year is not good enough. We should seek at the very least to match international norms in respect of recruitment in order that we increase the number of females in the Defence Forces.
A number of specific initiatives have been implemented to increase the level of female participation. Women's websites and magazines are targeted. I just mentioned sports clubs and organisations as examples. I agree that it is difficult to attract women to the Defence Forces. We must change the mindset. I am not sure why women might think a career in the Defence Forces is not an attractive future for them. We must help to change this. I have spoken to the Chief of Staff and the general staff about this. We have discussed using the women within the organisation to promote the organisation, whether through visits to third level or second level institutions, and giving them every opportunity in order that women are well aware that the Defence Forces are an attractive place to work. This will be difficult but we will continue to do it. Female inductions in the cadets increased by 13% in 2017 and is down 1% in 2018. The 2017 numbers were up on the 2016 numbers, and I hope the final figures for 2018 will be up on 2017.
I accept the Department has implemented some initiatives. They have not worked, and I am glad the Minister of State has recognised that. One constructive suggestion I have concerns something the British army does. It has changed its recruitment portal and the way in which the recruitment process works. I know many people who have applied to the Defence Forces and who received an email seeking to confirm their acceptance of their applications to the Defence Forces. A centralised portal is needed. The UK uses a buddy system whereby someone within the force works with the people as they apply. Many people are just waiting for an email signalling acceptance or whether the application has been successful. A centralised portal would help facilitate increased recruitment or give people certainty regarding their applications. The Defence Forces should not use email as a means to determine whether someone has been successful in his or her application. The technology for the recruitment process needs to be modernised in order that there is greater certainty for potential applicants, and the Minister of State should examine what is done in the UK. It has helped many applicants. I know Irish people who have applied to the British army and say it is a much better system of recruitment.
I am always open to suggestions. However, I have looked at the British system and a private company does a lot of the recruitment for the British army. This year, 15% of the applications for the cadets have been from females. If my memory serves me correctly, the figure for general service recruitment for females was 13%. However, the Deputy is correct that we must change our recruitment methods. My officials and I are looking at the various systems overseas. We must learn from other countries whether we need a centralised system and whether there should be departmental involvement. We must look seriously at this. We must change the way we recruit, which is what the Deputy is talking about, and that is the way I see it happening. We must look at changing the system we have. This is one of the reasons I am looking at direct entry and re-entry and the two-phase recruitment during the year. I was not happy with one recruitment drive each year. Two-phase recruitment presents better opportunities for people. They do not have to wait around for as long to be part of that. A significant number of people, whether well educated or less educated, have different contributions to make to the Defence Forces. If there are people out there who want to apply to the Defence Forces, I encourage them to do so because they ought to have something to offer to the organisation.
43. Deputy Jack Chambers asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if he will report on the May 2018 meeting of EU defence Ministers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27756/18]
This question is to ask the Minister for Defence if he will report on the May 2018 meeting of EU Ministers and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The informal EU defence ministerial meeting was held in Sofia on 4 and 5 May. The meeting was hosted by Bulgaria, which currently holds the Presidency of the EU.
There were two working sessions over the course of the meeting which was chaired by the High Representative, Ms Federica Mogherini. The two sessions dealt with a range of ongoing developments in regard to EU Common Security and Defence Policy, CSDP, specifically aspects of PESCO and a discussion on perspectives on crisis management.
The PESCO session involved a discussion on the implementation of PESCO and the governance rules for PESCO projects. It was clear at this session that the focus should and will be on positive outcomes for the people of Europe. The work ahead to implement PESCO focuses on the governance arrangements, third country participation and achieving real deliverables through the projects.
The discussion on crisis management reflected on the current security challenges and the role of the EU in support of international peace and security. This session was attended by the UN Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping and the NATO Deputy Secretary General. This facilitated a reflection on operational co-operation and mutual support between the EU, the UN and NATO, both at the strategic level and also on the ground where units or contingents from each organisation may be deployed in the same theatre of operations.
I welcome the process under way to review the long-standing and important UN-EU Strategic Partnership on Peacekeeping and Crisis Management. I look forward to close engagement with my EU ministerial colleagues in regard to that. Ireland is committed to the development of EU capabilities in the area of crisis management in support of the UN and to enhancing EU-UN co-operation.
Ireland is an active participant in all aspects of CSDP, both civilian and military. We endorse the position that crisis management operations are most effective when part of a wider approach, linking up with diplomacy, development and rule of law instruments. Discussions during this session were constructive and inclusive.
En marge of the meeting, I met with Jean-Pierre Lacroix, UN Under-Secretary-General primarily in regard to UNIFIL and UNDOF, and separately with my UK, Czech and Cypriot colleagues.
While in Sofia, I also attended a meeting of the European Defence Agency steering board.
I thank the Minister of State. At the press conference, Federica Mogherini spoke about how the EU defence package this year entered real implementation and of 17 projects under Permanent Structured Cooperation, PESCO, that are now up and running. Will the Minister of State outline Ireland's position regarding those 17 projects? Ms Mogherini also said that a number of countries had advanced ideas for new PESCO projects. Was Ireland one of those countries? Can the Minister of State elaborate on those projects and the ideas that were advanced? What is his opinion on the discussion regarding potential PESCO projects? Also, the multi-annual financial framework was mentioned, with an explicit heading for defence, and that there will be an off-budget instrument for defence works. Can the Minister of State outline the position on that in an Irish context?
The PESCO commitments will include a regular increase in defence budgets in real terms, collective benchmarks such as an increase in defence investment expenditure to 20% of total defence spending and 2% of total defence spending allocated to research and technology. The benchmarks are for the EU as a whole rather than for individual member states; increased co-operation in cyber defence; develop a database of available and deployable capabilities such as what we do currently with the United Nations; participate in at least one project under PESCO; and use the European Defence Agency, EDA, as a forum for joint capability development.
As the Deputy stated, there are 17 projects that range from the European medical command, European secure software defined radio, the network of logistic hubs, military mobility, the European Union Training Mission Competence Centre, the European training certification centre for European armies, the energy operational function, the deployable military disaster relief capabilities package, the maritime systems for mine countermeasures, harbour and marine surveillance and protection, upgrade of maritime surveillance, cyber threats, cyber rapid response, strategic command and control, armoured infantry fighting vehicles, indirect fire support and crisis response agencies. We are signed up to two of those projects already, namely, the European agency on training mission competence and the upgrade of maritime surveillance.
With regard to the discussion on crisis management attended by the UN Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping and the NATO Deputy Secretary General, I gather that involved a reflection on operational co-operation and neutral support between the EU, the UN and NATO, both at a strategic level and also on the ground where operations from each may be deployed in the same theatre of operations. What view did the Minister of State take in terms of an Irish context and were any changes mooted? I know this is an informal meeting where decisions are not taken but was anything suggested as being worthy of a decision at a formal meeting and can the Minister of State outline when that might happen?
As the Deputy understands, regarding NATO, we are not members of NATO but we are involved with it in Partnership for Peace. There were no decisions taken at that meeting, as the Deputy stated. It was more for the participation of NATO member states rather than Ireland's participation because of our term of neutrality.
44. Deputy Jack Chambers asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the status of the development of a new institute for peace support and leadership training at the Defence Forces Training Centre, Curragh Camp; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27757/18]
I ask the Minister the status of the development of a new institute for peace support and leadership training at the Defence Forces Training Centre, Curragh Camp, and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The White Paper on Defence includes a commitment to evaluate the potential development of a new institute for peace support and leadership training in the Defence Forces Training Centre in the Curragh. A Programme for a Partnership Government also includes a commitment to develop this institute. It is foreseen that the new institute would have international standing and contribute to the overall development of knowledge and experience in the areas of peace support, leadership and conflict resolution.
Scoping work was carried out on the proposal throughout 2016. A concept paper was developed and some initial consultations took place with national and international third level and research institutes, as well as potential philanthropic contributors. Arising from this, it was decided to conduct a formal feasibility study. Following a tender process in 2017, a contract was awarded to a consultancy body to complete this study. Work on the study commenced in January 2018 and an interim report is expected in July. This interim report will inform the next steps to be taken.
I thank the Minister of State. This is an issue we mentioned as a party in 2013 and my colleague, the current Ceann Comhaire, sought to have it progressed. I am concerned that there was a two-year period during which this was a scoping exercise and now it is a feasibility study. Is that an indication that there is significant doubt within the Department of Defence towards progressing it? It is moving at a very slow pace and I would like to believe it will be progressed at a quicker pace. That is important. We saw Kofi Annan launch a new peacekeeping training centre in China recently. They are trying to develop an expertise around cyber security. In an Irish context we have the Government's policy on foreign direct investment, FDI, the progression on data centres and technology control around peacekeeping but also developing the intelligence expertise in a particular centre to address serious safety issues in terms of cyber security that will threaten companies but also the State itself. We need to be looking at developing a model of expertise that can become international best practice. We need to move beyond feasibility studies and I would like to see a more defined proposal from the Minister of State and his Department.
Initial research and consultation suggests there is a considerable number of national and international operators within the areas of peace and support leadership and conflict resolution. Therefore, in order to identify and leverage Ireland's unique selling points, for example, our neutrality and the Northern Ireland peace process, I felt it appropriate when I was appointed as Minister of State to carry out a detailed evaluation and feasibility study to determine how best to proceed.
It is envisaged the study will assist in the validation, development or amendment of the existing concept. The successful development of an institute will require substantial investment of taxpayers' money and must be properly evaluated and planned. On my appointment in 2016, I did not want to go ahead with the peace and leadership institute for it to flop within two years because so many institutes are offering the same thing. That is why I wanted a scoping exercise to find out what kind of leadership courses we could offer that are not already available. Piggy-backing on our expertise in peacekeeping, the peace process in Northern Ireland and in neutrality, we will be able to offer courses in those areas.
When does the Minister of State expect a decision to be made? When will the feasibility study be completed? When will the Minister of State make a decision on it? It is mentioned in the White Paper that work on the concept will be developed over the following 12 months with a view to its initial shape being showcased in 2016. We are now in 2018. The Minister of State has given the reasons for the evaluation, scoping study and feasibility analysis. When will he make a decision on this? It is underpinned by the White Paper. The Minister of State should give a timeline to the House on when he will be in a position to formalise this. It is important in a future defence context for Ireland to develop the expertise. I gave the example of cyber intelligence. The Minister of State mentioned our historic strides in peacekeeping. He needs to make a decision on it and give a timeline for when he will do it instead of having another feasibility study of the evaluations. There will be a cycle of repetition. We need a formal decision.
Talking about repetition, what I do not want is to have a leadership institute that will collapse in two, three, four or five years' time. I want something that is attractive and will be there for years to come. We have to get the expertise of partners involved. When we let this go out to a feasibility study in January 2018 we asked the company to interact with the Department, the Defence Forces and education organisations, including universities, institutes of technologies and other peace and leadership institutes. We asked for an examination of what they were offering and what could make us different from and more attractive than them. The people I spoke to said there is a huge amount of work involved in this. It is not just about building the building, bringing people in from overseas and talking about Ireland's neutrality or how great we are at peacekeeping overseas. We are outstanding but we have to look beyond that. We have to look at ten or 15 years down the road instead of three or five years down the road.
46. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence his plans to ensure that members of the Defence Forces are in a position to avail of the protections of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 in view of the recent High Court litigation on the matter. [27735/18]
This question relates to a previous question on the Working Time Directive and the court judgment from last week. What action will the Minister of State take? Will he waste more taxpayers' money defending what the courts have already decided is indefensible?
I previously informed the House that a Government decision on 18 November 2016 approved the drafting of the heads of Bill to amend the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. This will remove the blanket exclusion of An Garda Síochána and members of the Defence Forces from its scope. It will be subject to the application of the appropriate exclusions or derogations permitted by EU Directive No. 2003/88/EC.
Work is under way in the Departments of Defence and Employment Affairs and Social Protection on this decision. The Department of Defence and the Defence Forces have undertaken significant work in examining the nature of the duties of the Defence Forces and how the Working Time Directive can be applied to members of the Defence Forces. I will amend the Defence Force regulations, as required, to facilitate this process.
I recently signed an amendment to Defence Forces regulation A11 dealing with leave. This amendment increases to four working weeks from 19 days the amount of carry-over leave allowed to members of the Permanent Defence Force in circumstances where the member could not take annual leave as a result of being on certified sick leave, adoptive leave or maternity leave.
My Department will also engage, through the conciliation and arbitration process, with the Defence Forces representative associations to discuss the application of the provisions of the Working Time Directive to the Defence Forces. However, this can be constrained if litigation is being pursued. Litigation taken by a member of the Permanent Defence Force in respect of the applicability of certain elements of the Working Time Directive to the Defence Forces was settled recently in the High Court having regard to the specific circumstances of that case. Further litigation on the Working Time Directive as it relates to the Defence Forces is pending.
For these reasons it would not be appropriate to comment further.
I congratulate PDFORRA, its general secretary, Gerard Guinan, and others who supported the case that was taken recently. Both PDFORRA and RACO have made estimates of the number of annual leave days lost in 2016. PDFORRA said its members lost up to 37,000 days of annual leave. RACO said its members lost nearly ten annual leave days in the same year. Will retrospective payment or recognition of the days lost require a supplementary budget? Has the Minister of State made the Minister for Finance aware that, based on the findings of the court case, there is a need for a supplementary budget to address the outstanding days leave that have been lost? What action will the Minister of State take? When will the defence regulations the Minister of State signed or will sign take effect?
The case before the High Court on 14 June was settled on consent of all the parties in the proceedings in respect of one specific aspect of an individual's claim in so far as it related to the carry-over of her annual leave. There was no court ruling made on the wider issue of the claim given the settlement reached by parties. The facts of the case were not opened to the court. Decisions to change the legislative part of the working time directive were not made on foot of this court case. It has been under way in the Departments of Employment Affairs and Social Protection and Defence for quite some time. Work is being undertaken. The Department and the Defence Forces are working together on this. My Department has met officials from the representative associations recently. They will continue with their meetings. We will conclude this as soon as possible. It is a priority for me and my Department and the Defence Forces to bring this to a conclusion as soon as possible.
While the Minister of State says the change to the Working Time Directive and the regulations were not a consequence of the court case, the basis of the court case that was settled recently arose in 2013. The Department was well aware of it and the 11 subsequent cases that are still ongoing. They have a bearing on it. I am asking the Minister of State if at all possible to address the other potential court cases - there are 36,000 annual leave days unaccounted for in this way - with a supplementary budget or some other mechanisms that will address it once and for all rather than having it hanging over us again next year.
As I previously stated, I want the deliberations to continue between my Department and the representative associations. What I said was the legislative process was not embarked upon on foot of the decision made in the court case. It has been ongoing since 2016. It is not just about the Defence Forces; it also involves members of An Garda Síochána.
The Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection works with both Departments on this issue.
