Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces: Statements

Minister for Defence (Deputy Simon Coveney)

I welcome this opportunity to engage with Members of the Dáil on matters relating to the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces, and I look forward to hearing the contributions of Deputies today. The establishment of a Commission on the Defence Forces was set out in the programme for Government and was a key priority for me as Minister for Defence. The publication of the commission's report represents the culmination of the work carried out over the past 13 months, and is testament to the considerable efforts of all of those who contributed to its completion. I would like to put on record my thanks to the chair, Aidan O'Driscoll, and all the members of the commission for their hard work and dedication in producing this substantial report.

In December 2020 the Government authorised the establishment of the commission and agreed its terms of reference and membership. The terms of reference cover the structures and size of the Defence Forces, defence capabilities, HR policies and strategies, the Reserve Defence Force, governance, high-level command and control in the Defence Forces and pay structures. The commission has interacted with both the Defence Forces and my Department. It undertook a process of wide consultation, including receiving nearly 500 public submissions. It has also met a wide stakeholder group, including organisations such as the European External Action Service, other Departments and public bodies and agencies. Commission members conducted site visits across a large number of military locations across the country and met more than 1,000 Defence Forces members, the Defence Forces representative associations, veterans' associations and senior members of the Defence Forces past and present.

This report is wide-ranging, blunt in its assessment, challenging and comprehensive. It proposes significant changes for the Defence Forces and defence provision in Ireland. The report poses serious questions on defence provision that we as a society must carefully consider. I hope that this report will foster real debate about the defence that we need as a modern neutral European country.

The report encompasses recommendations on high-level command arrangements, Defence Forces structures, defence capabilities, the Reserve Defence Force and funding. People matters are a key aspect of the report and the sections of the report dealing with these issues are forthright in challenging the current culture within the Defence Forces. The report dedicates a chapter to an analysis of the security environment and echoes many of the threats identified in the White Paper's assessment a number of years ago. The commission's report identifies an overarching trend of unpredictability and sets out four interrelated trends in the security environment. It examines these trends, considers their implications for Ireland and the Defence Forces and notes that in a security environment characterised by volatility and unpredictability, societal and organisational resilience is a critical asset we need to invest in. Ireland is contributing 567 Defence Forces personnel to nine different missions throughout the world.

The work of the commission was carried out against the backdrop of the defence policy framework as set out in the White Paper of 2015 and the White Paper update of 2019, both of which were developed by joint civil and military teams. The commission's report examines the roles carried out by the Defence Forces in the military defence of the State, aid to the civil power, ATCP, maritime and air security, international peace and security and aid to the civil authority, ATCA. The commission set out its belief that a level of ambition, LOA, for each of the roles assigned to the Defence Forces is not currently clearly specified. The report recommends that specific taskings of the Defence Forces, including those arising from ATCP and ATCA, should be subject to regular review for continued relevance and priority. Other proposals include the development of a whole-of-government maritime security strategy and a national aviation security strategy.

The commission's report sets out a high level of ambition for the future of the Defence Forces and considers the issue of the overall level of ambition The report sets out three indicative levels of ambition namely, LOA 1, LOA 2 and LOA 3. LOA 1 represents current capability, which is aiming to uphold sovereign rights and serve on peace support operations to the same extent as at present. This would require additional defence funding of about €47 million per annum at full strength. As the House knows, we certainly are not at full strength at the moment. LOA 2 represents enhanced capabilities, which would involve building on the current capability to address specific priority gaps in our ability to deal with an assault on Irish sovereignty and to serve in higher intensity peace support, crisis management and humanitarian relief operations overseas. This would involve a significant defence funding increase of approximately €500 million per annum above current defence spending. LOA 3 represents a level of conventional capacity, which would involve developing full spectrum defence capabilities to protect Ireland and its people to an extent comparable to similar-sized countries in Europe. The report sets out costings of about €3 billion per annum for this LOA, based on defence spending in eight comparator countries.

It is important to state to the House that this report looks at three levels in monetary terms. The first is what it would cost to stay as we are today, which is less than one third of the average spend in comparable EU countries. To move to LOA 2 would mean we would spend roughly half of what those countries spend and to move to LOA 3 would be to move into a similar spending bracket to those eight countries. The commission's report makes a number of recommendations on capabilities based around these three LOAs. The commission also calls for the establishment of a capability development planning process through a joint civil and military permanent structure to work on an iterative capability development plan.

The commission report has identified the capability requirements for each LOA. The main recommendations on each are as follows. For LOA 1, current capabilities would be maintained through renewal and replacement programmes. LOA 2 would require significantly enhanced capabilities. This would require an extra 2,000 personnel, including many new personnel in the Naval Service because it is recommending double-crewing for a naval fleet of nine, which is what we have today. It would also require the development of a primary radar capability; a strategic reach aircraft and two additional medium lift helicopters; additional armoured personnel carriers with a higher level of armour protection and sufficient firepower; and a new air defence system for land forces. LOA 2 would also require increased military intelligence capabilities and an increase in the special operations forces establishment and capabilities. The report envisages the creation of an information command that would manage Defence Forces IT services, communications and information services, CIS, and a new joint cyber command for the Defence Forces with an extra 100 personnel. This LOA would also require the development of capabilities to deal with hybrid attacks and see an increased focus on green defence, particularly in procurement. It is important to note that LOA 2 is a significant increase in capability that would take some time to achieve.

If LOA 3 were to be pursued, by 2040 the Army would have a significant mechanised component and units would have organic lift capacity, combat support elements and artillery and cavalry elements fully interoperable to NATO standards. The Naval Service would have a 12-ship fleet. The Air Corps would see the development of an air combat and intercept capability and combat helicopters would be required for the special operations force. Each level of ambition outlined above would require increased defence funding, and we in government must carefully consider the implications of each possible course of action.

One of the key recommendations on defence force structures involves a unitary command structure with command assigned by the Minister to a new military position of Chief of Defence, or CHOD as it is known internationally. The CHOD would be the head of the Defence Forces with a joint force commander, or vice CHOD, and three service chiefs in the Army, the Air Corps and the Navy also reporting to the CHOD. A new strategic headquarters would be established to support the CHOD, including a new civilian head of transformation reporting directly to the CHOD. The report also recommends the establishment of an office of reserve affairs. The CHOD would carry out an urgent review of Army structures, assisted by external experts. The commission recommends that any new structures arising from this review would need to be regionally balanced.

Other recommendations relating to structures include the Naval Service being renamed the Irish Navy, the Air Corps being renamed the Irish Air Force and the Army Ranger Wing being renamed Ireland's Special Operations Force or IrlSOF, along with the establishment of special operations force air and maritime task groups in Casement aerodrome and Haulbowline naval base. The commission recognises that arising from these recommendations, the governance and oversight framework of the Minister and the Department of Defence will need to be reviewed to provide effective assurance, oversight and accountability. This is a key consideration and one which will require interdepartmental discussion, agreement and legal advice.

The commission carried out a large body of work relating to people as the key strategic resource of the Defence Forces. This is reflected in Chapter 8, which is by far the largest section of the report. The people chapter is broken into four separate subsections covering a wide range of issues including but not limited to strategic HR, career progression, culture, morale, training, recruitment and pay structures. The recommendations on Defence Forces people and human resources are forthright and certainly challenge the status quo. The commission considers that cultural change is required in the Defence Forces and that a fundamental cultural change process should be undertaken and without that cultural change, it is very clear that the potential of this report will not be realised. The report recommends that a strategic approach to HR be implemented with the establishment of a strategic HR change leadership team to be led by an externally recruited civilian head of transformation. The report also recommends the creation of a permanent training establishment and the provision of greater flexibility for managers, within the overall establishment number, to allocate staff across formations and ranks. The report recommends the redevelopment of promotion systems to ensure that they are open, competitive and entirely merit based. The approach to recruitment should also be changed, with direct entry, civilianisation and utilisation of members of the Reserve Defence Forces, RDF, as part of the approach to deliver required services. Increasing female participation in the Defence Forces is essential and the report recommends a target of 35% female participation to be achieved over time. While that is not an easy task, it is certainly something to aim for. In terms of work-life balance, the report suggests that urgent reform of the existing work practices is required, including flexible work practices, family friendly initiatives and the introduction of a non-financial labour hours budget.

The commission found that in broad terms, levels of average turnover are not out of line with other military organisations internationally. However, there are gaps in specialist areas which have a disproportionate impact on operations. The commission believes that greater transparency of the wider benefits of membership of the Defence Forces should become a central feature in future recruitment campaigns and that the visibility of the total remuneration package should be increased. In terms of specialist posts, the commission recommends that there should be increased direct entry with appropriately adjusted training and physical fitness requirements. Recommendations are also made around affiliation to ICTU and pay structures, particularly for privates in their first three years of service and I intend to follow up on those issues as quickly as possible.

The commission recommends that the RDF be regenerated and revitalised through a new high-level vision, with a regeneration plan to be quickly developed. The commission is clear that the RDF should be a key aspect of Ireland's defence capabilities and recognises that much work is required to bring the RDF up to its establishment level. The report recommends a reserve for all three services, with the introduction of an Air Corps reserve and a focus on attracting specialists. The report suggests that the recruitment process for the RDF should become more efficient and be completely revamped. The regeneration of the RDF would be facilitated by the establishment of a dedicated office of reserve affairs which would report directly into the CHOD.

In the area of funding, the report concludes that Ireland is an outlier compared to our peers in western and northern Europe in relation to defence spending and has been for quite some time. The commission believes that the current level of financial commitment delivers military capabilities which are inadequate for the defence of Ireland and its people from the threats identified in its security environment assessment. The commission recommends that consideration be given to a step-up in funding to LOA 2 in the short term pending a more detailed policy debate and decisions required for higher levels of ambition in the future.

The commission has highlighted five core areas that it considers must be addressed in a detailed implementation plan on foot of policy decisions relating to the level of ambition and budget. These are transformational change to modernise the organisational structure, its human resource strategy and practices; reform of high level command and control and the creation of a joint strategic headquarters; revitalising the RDF; reform and restructuring of the three services; and joint capability development. The commission also recommends, following Government decisions on the recommendations in the report, the appointment of an implementation oversight group with an independent chair, the establishment of an implementation management office and the appointment of an external change management support team.

The report is a significant body of work running to 224 pages, including appendices. It contains 69 principal recommendations with many of these having a number of sub-recommendations, giving a total of 133 recommendations. The recommendations are challenging and far-reaching and some on the structure side require significant governance consideration. There is a requirement for careful consideration of the recommendations which will require interdepartmental consultation and agreement on a number of cross-cutting matters before a proposal can be put forward for Government agreement. Given the breadth and complexity of certain of the recommendations, a period of four to five months is now required to facilitate appropriate consideration and consultation on the report and to prepare a proposed response and high-level action plan, which the Government can then consider and, I hope, agree.

I would like to reassure Deputies that this does not mean that all of the commission's recommendations are on hold. I have heard some commentary to that effect but significant work is already under way and ongoing in a number of areas, which the commission has referred to in its report. This work includes the establishment of a capability development planning process through the creation of a permanent civil-military structure; an independent review group established to review dignity and equality issues in the Defence Forces to ensure that the Defence Forces is a safe workplace for all current serving members while also reviewing historical allegations; ongoing procurement of equipment in accordance with the equipment development planning process; management of the defence estate in accordance with the defence infrastructure plan; direct-entry competitions; and the amendment of legislation relating to the working time directive which, as I have said in this House previously, the Government is absolutely committed to. Other ongoing work includes an exploration of the opportunities offered by the EU's Permanent Structured Cooperation, PESCO, to develop Ireland's defence capabilities; liaison with the Ombudsman for Defence Forces to examine and potentially enhance the remit of his office; and progression of the programme for Government commitment to extend provision of private healthcare to all enlisted personnel in the Defence Forces. I also want to commence discussions with representative bodies on the relationship with ICTU in advance of the new public sector pay discussions getting under way in the months ahead.

These and other initiatives will continue to be developed during the intervening months.

I am committed to progressing the work carried out by the commission and seizing this opportunity to develop Defence Forces that are agile and modern, designed not just for today but also for the future. Matters of national defence have traditionally been supported widely in the Oireachtas and I am eager to hear the views of Deputies today and throughout the course of deliberations on the report to feed into the wider consultative process.

I genuinely hope that we can create a cross-party consensus on how we respond as an Oireachtas and that it can feed into the recommendations the Minister of State and I can bring to the Government in a few months. Let us not focus on whether it is two, three or four months. The important thing is to get this right. We are talking about fundamentally changing the Defence Forces for the better in the future. I think that it is a realistic target to bring forward serious recommendations, which will come with significant funding obligations, before the summer.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Deputy Jack Chambers)

I welcome this opportunity to hear Deputies' views on the recently published report of the Commission on the Defence Forces. Since my appointment as Minister of State at the Department of Defence, I have had the opportunity to see the work that is undertaken by the Defence Forces, the Department of Defence and Civil Defence throughout the country and would like to put on record my appreciation of their service. We have seen during the Covid crisis the support the Defence Forces have provided to the State from working at vaccination centres to flying samples to Germany for testing.

This report provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to review and refocus defence provision in Ireland. The establishment of the Commission on the Defence Forces was a key defence aspect of the programme for Government and of the Government's commitment to the Defence Forces. The commission was given wide-ranging terms of reference and the length of the report, which runs to over 200 pages, reflects the breadth of subjects covered. The report covers the main topics of capabilities, structures, staffing, the Reserve and funding. The Minister, Deputy Coveney, has outlined the main recommendations under these headings but I will touch on a number of its recommendations and issues.

The report is very ambitious about the level of defence provision the commission believes Ireland requires. These recommendations would require significant increases in expenditure against competing demands on public funds. To bring these increases about will require a wide debate about the level of defence provision the public desire, as well as choices around public expenditure. As the Minister said, it is important that we get consensus on this. The equipment and personnel increases outlined would enhance our current capabilities. Any increase in capabilities will require long lead-in times and decisions around where to prioritise. These decisions on personnel and equipment will fall out of larger strategic decisions on defence provision, what our overarching defence policy will be and how that will inform what capabilities are required, along with the correct structures and staffing.

The report recommends major changes as to how the Defence Forces are currently structured both at high level and in relation to a proposed restructuring of the Army. It notes that the current structure is out of step with international comparators, particularly in relation to the cohesion between the three services. The report provides an opportunity to take a fresh look at how our Defence Forces are structured and to make the changes required to provide for an agile and adaptive structure to provide for the most efficient and effective Defence Forces both now and into the future.

Any changes to structures will require deep analysis, given the importance of civil control of the military and what the changes would mean for governance and accountability. These are areas that will require consultation and consideration before decisions can be made. The recommendations on staffing are wide-ranging. Given the volume and range of issues, the report has four separate sections on staffing issues. The women and men who serve in the Defence Forces are the heart of the Defence Forces. The commission's proposals seek to make the Defence Forces an employer of choice. Its recommendations cover areas such as strategic HR, career progression and promotion and training systems for those currently serving, to address issues raised during the commission’s consultation with Defence Force members. The commission also makes recommendations on culture, morale, gender and diversity. It particularly recommends a fundamental cultural change process. There have been disturbing reports in the media recently on the culture in the Defence Forces. The recommendations in this section of the report seek to address these and other issues. The Minister, Deputy Coveney, has already started to address this by establishing the independent review of dignity and equality issues in the Defence Forces to ensure that they are a safe workplace for all serving members, while also reviewing historical allegations. Addressing these cultural issues is a key aspect of modernising the Defence Forces and a key element of this report.

Other elements dealing with the people in the Defence Forces cover important issues of modernising working practices such as family-friendly working and the working time directive. Again, these recommendations seek to make the Defence Forces a more attractive workplace.

Pay structures are addressed with recommendations on how the total remuneration package is presented and how the wider benefits of a career in the Defence Forces should be highlighted. While the Government is aware of recruitment and retention issues, it is important to highlight the benefits of joining the Defence Forces and the wider social benefit of the training provided to individuals in their time in the Defence Forces.

The commission was specifically tasked with reviewing the Reserve Defence Force. The report contains some sharp criticism of the current strength levels and how the Reserve is currently utilised. The recommendations call for a regeneration plan to revitalise the Reserve. The report argues that this is possible with the establishment of an office of Reserve affairs and commitment at all levels. The commission calls for the development of revamped and more efficient recruitment processes to address the issue of the long lag time between people applying to join the Reserve and then joining. This presents an opportunity to revitalise the Reserve and increase its utility to the Permanent Defence Force.

The commission also addressed defence funding. It collected the comparative data from a number of western and northern European countries of comparable size. The data clearly highlight the difference in defence spending between Ireland and these comparable countries. These countries all have their own unique circumstances informing their position on defence provision, born out of their own security environment, historical perspective and funding available. Any move to comparable defence spending would require a sea change in our thinking on defence provision in Ireland.

Overall, the report presents a challenging and wide-ranging review of current defence provision and where it should move to up to 2040. As the Minister has stated, it is hoped this report will spark a wider conversation about defence provision in Ireland and what the Irish public considers a required level of ambition should be. The security environment is assessed as being unpredictable and ever-changing and there is a requirement for Defence Forces that are agile to address this.

Given the wide ranging and significant recommendations in the report, wide consultation will be required both across the Government and with relevant stakeholders. I look forward to the input of Deputies today in what is a vital topic for Government and the people of Ireland.

Deputy John Brady

I thank the commission for its efforts in producing this report. While I do not agree with 100% of its contents, it is a timely and comprehensive report. It outlines a litany of failures under the Minister's watch. That includes the failure to implement previous reports such as the White Paper on Defence and the high-level implementation plan. Essentially, the report deals with the legacy of the Minister's failures.

The Minister's inability to address the core issues at the heart of the Defence Forces has resulted in the steady and alarming rate of departure from the Defence Forces by its members. It is now an enduring major crisis. Retention and recruitment are the primary issues affecting the operational effectiveness of the Defence Forces. This is largely due to years of neglect of matters relating to pay and conditions by the Government.

The Minister's refusal to allow the representative associations of the Defence Forces to affiliate to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, remains as a key concern to members of the Defence Forces. The capacity of representative associations such as PDFORRA or the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers, RACO, to input into public sector pay policy, particularly as it relates to the commissions, is crucial for members. PDFORRA has made it clear that it is prepared to withdraw its legal action on the issue of affiliation to ICTU when the Minister advises that he is prepared to grant the Defence Forces representative groups the right to association.

That right is enjoyed by members of various defence forces right across Europe. It would be illogical for the Minister to continue with a policy of withholding permission for PDFORRA to associate with ICTU only to come to some agreement on the steps of a court. The worst possible outcome for PDFORRA would be for the group to withdraw its court action only for the Minister and Government to then deny permission for the right to associate. In that case, PDFORRA would not be allowed to enter its case again at any stage. It is time for the Minister to listen. It is time to listen to the growing list of independent voices who have now effectively sanctioned the granting of association, which includes the European Committee of Social Rights, ECSR, the Barry review, this commission and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE. The granting of associate status can be achieved by the Minister through the powers he has. With the pay talks coming up there is a real danger failure to act will result in members of the Defence Forces being excluded again. That must not be allowed to happen.

I welcome the commission's recommendation there be a removal of the exclusion of the Defence Forces from the working time directive. Personnel shortages in the Defence Forces mean that serving members are being forced to make up the shortfall. In real terms, this can mean serving at sea or being on overseas deployments lasting months on a repeated basis. RACO has continually highlighted we are at serious risk of being unable to fulfil our UN mandate, and that is even with mandatory selection for overseas deployment, something that is leading to huge volumes of burnout. There has been no attempt to record the hours worked by personnel, which would reveal the true picture, namely, that the current strength of the Defence Forces is much worse than the Minister would concede. The working time directive needs to be fully implemented without delay.

The Minister also needs to acknowledge the need to examine the case for the implementation of a specialised instructor's allowance. A qualified instructor who volunteers for specialised training immediately signs himself or herself on for up to 60 or 70 hours per week for which there is no extra payment. In the modern world with family and community commitments that is simply not feasible. Consequently, the Defence Forces are left with a shortage of qualified instructors. The Minister knows well that 35% of Defence Forces members have less than five years' experience. The knowledge, skill and learning of experienced personnel and their ability to transfer that to less-experienced colleagues will largely determine the shape and calibre of the Defence Forces for a long time. I have received, as I am sure the Minister has, reports of the consequences of the skills shortages, such as cancelled training courses, a failure to deliver adequate live-fire exercises and indeed many near misses. The accumulation of these issues on the morale of the Defence Forces is feeding the exodus of personnel.

I welcome the proposals relating to the Reserve Defence Force. One proposal that can be fast-tracked relates to the recruitment process. Too much potential and talent is being lost due to the extended and unnecessary time it takes to process applications. Employment laws also need to be updated immediately to protect members of the Reserve because there is a wealth of talent, commitment and skill in it that needs to be utilised to its full potential.

The core of the debate surrounding the role of the Defence Forces centres on the principle of neutrality. This principled position enjoys the support the overwhelming majority of people. Many opinion polls have consistently shown support levels for neutrality are in and around 80%. Ireland as a sovereign nation has accrued considerable prestige and respect based on our neutrality. Neutrality has gifted our small nation a platform in international affairs that far exceeds the economic, political or military strength of our small island. It is a platform from which Ireland can meet the expectations of those nations that have invested their faith in our country. Central to our ability to remain neutral and retain our levels of international prestige and influence is the capacity of our Defence Forces to defend our neutrality from threat. While we are nominally free from formal involvement in any military alliance, Government support for and participation in PESCO challenged this, and we are yet absolutely and completely militarily dependent on our European neighbours. The safety of our skies is dependent on an agreement with the British Government that allows the Royal Air Force to provide flight interdiction in specific emergencies. This agreement embarrasses the Government to the point it appears to have difficulty even acknowledging its existence.

As an island nation, our seas represent one of our nation's richest and most strategically important assets yet we are again depending on our EU neighbours to provide naval patrols to guarantee the security of our seas, even within our 12-mile zone. Recent events have exposed our vulnerability to the hybrid nature of modern threats to the State and the human cost of the cyberattack on the HSE has yet to be fully determined. The continual cancellation of naval patrols, with ten in January alone, is seriously impacting on the ability of the State to disrupt the importation of illegal drugs. The cost of that is paraded across our TV screens daily. We remain unable to protect our fisheries. The debacle over Russia's intention to hold naval drills off our southern coast clearly illustrated the ineffectiveness of Ireland's ability to not only secure our seas or indeed our airspace but our inability to secure vital transatlantic data cables and air routes. The proportion of transatlantic civilian air traffic that passes through our exclusive economic zone, EEZ, is 75%, yet we lack the capacity to secure its safety.

We need to see the principle of neutrality protected by enshrining it in our Constitution via a referendum. We need to invest in our Defence Forces to ensure our nation has the capacity to defend its security. As I have outlined, the first step to securing the establishment number of our Defence Forces is to halt the exodus of key personnel from ranks right across the Defence Forces. We must also provide the Defence Forces with the means to protect us. We need the means to secure our skies and indeed our seas. We need a cybersecurity system that actually works. We need the capacity to provide the necessary security to reap the potential benefits our coastal waters provide for investment in offshore energy infrastructure.

How the Government responds to this report will not only reveal its attitude to the members of the Defence Forces but its vision for Ireland's place and standing within the international community for years to come.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Tá sé go maith go bhfuil an tuairisc seo foilsithe agus go bhfuil sí á plé inniu. Tá an cuma ar an scéal go bhfuil daoine chun a bheith dáiríre, sa deireadh thiar thall, faoi dhéileáil leis na fadhbanna atá ann sna Fórsaí Cosanta anois agus sa todhchaí. Tá sé go maith go bhfuil an cuma ar an scéal go bhfuil an cheannaireacht sásta athruithe a dhéanamh. Tá súil agam go mbeidh an Roinn agus an tAire sásta é sin a dhéanamh. Tá athruithe áirithe luaite sa tuairisc. Ní fheicim cén fáth go bhfuil roinnt acu ann in aon chor. Tá gá le roinnt eile agus is "pie in the sky" atá i gceist le roinnt eile.

Before we can do much of what I and others have said or what is in the report, there is a job of work that needs to be done to tackle the legacy of bad management, of abuse and a culture of secrecy and cover-ups that I and many others have seen in the Defence Forces. In recent times we have seen the Women of Honour and the courage they have had in coming forward to outline the abuse they and others have suffered in the Defence Forces.

I know the Minister is aware of many other allegations of sexual abuse and claims against people still serving in the Defence Forces who abused men, boys and women. These have not been part of the claims to date, but are separate. I do not know the veracity of those claims. I am not an investigating officer, but given the extent of those charges or allegations, most of which are beyond the remit of the review the Minister has set up, An Garda Síochána, the Defence Forces and even the UN should be encouraged to address and investigate them with greater urgency.

Beyond that, the Defence Forces and the Minister need to learn from other defence forces that have addressed and been open about legacy issues, such as that relating to Lariam. This was a drug that was poisonous to some people, although for others it did what it was meant to do in addressing malaria. The regime of using Lariam continued beyond what should have been the case. When people were warned about it, they continued to use it.

Members of the Air Corps experienced decades-long exposure to poisons. While safety regimes may have been addressed, the legacy issue has never been dealt with. Following years of exposure to those poisons and chemicals, there are clusters of very serious and rare cancers among those who served in the Defence Forces, in particular the Air Corps. There were also incidences of suicide and other illnesses. In these cases, it is time to admit the truth, admit the error and not fight every single claim. This is to make sure those who served, and who are very proud of their service in the Defence Forces and in fact regale us with tales about it, could be people who encourage recruitment and encourage people to stay in. They feel let down and will not do so because the State is fighting them. It is not embracing them and looking after their health now that they have been cashiered out, have served their time or are too ill to serve. They need to be looked after. People will not join the Defence Forces if they believe they will ignore or forget about them in their time of need.

Deputy Mark Ward

I will read out a statement from the commission's report:

There is a patriarchal approach [in the Defence Forces] that takes responsibility for lower ranks to the point of disabling them, and is resistant to females and so creates an uncomfortable place for them to work. This culture is grounded in long outdated social concepts, such as the male being the breadwinner in a family, a creation of male and female roles and linking salary to selfworth.

This is 2022, not 1922. Only last week we discussed the Women of Honour. These are the very conditions that led to the culture of abuse these women had to suffer. Abuse and harassment are totally unacceptable in any workplace. As a society, we must show zero tolerance for it. The Defence Forces should be no different. All Defence Forces personnel should be treated equally, with dignity and respect. I again ask the Minister to engage with the key stakeholders, the Women of Honour group, and create a fit-for-purpose terms of reference that will provide an adequate scope to deal with the issues through a statutory inquiry, not just a review

I will also speak about Cathal Brugha Barracks because it is the only operational military installation in Dublin city. It is a barracks I know very well. My father was stationed there for most of his military career. I previously spoke to the Minister about what it was like to grow up as the son of a soldier, and the conditions, low pay and what we had to endure as a family, despite my father doing very hard and important work. Things have not changed on that, but I will speak about the barracks on this occasion. There are many concerns among members of the Defence Forces, following a recent kite-flying exercise by a Minister, about the future and possible relocation of Cathal Brugha Barracks. A response to a parliamentary question stated that there will be: "an exploratory exercise, the purpose of which is to allow for the identification of all the implications and practicalities of such a possible relocation." This exploratory exercise must include the people who currently reside in the barracks and call it home. As I stated, this barracks is the only operational military installation in Dublin city. What implications will relocation have on other military operations the Army carries out in the city at present? Will it lead to An Garda Síochána becoming more militarised? This exercise must also take into consideration that the Military Archives are in Cathal Brugha Barracks. These archives go back to the formation of the State and even before that. They are very important to the culture and history of our nation.

I will raise an issue also raised by Deputy Ó Snodaigh. It relates to the ongoing issue in my area regarding Casement Aerodrome in Baldonnel and the overexposure of people in the Air Corps to poisonous and toxic chemicals. While this report is about moving forward and future recommendations and future planning for the Defence Forces, we cannot shut the door on the past. We must also look back and help these people who have been failed by the Defence Forces over the years.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú

A major body of work has been done by this commission, which is necessary. I will add my voice to the commendations of the commission for that work. I will also add my voice to what some of my colleagues have spoken about, which are the legacy issues that still remain and have had a significant impact on certain people's lives. We talked about chemicals and poisoning in respect of the Air Corps and the outstanding issue relating to Lariam. This probably continues the long history of this State not putting its hand up, accepting that wrong was done and trying to treat people in a reasonable way, but instead just shutting the doors and trying to defend itself. That does not serve any purpose for any of us. It is something that needs to change.

We were all in the Chamber last week dealing with the issue of the Women of Honour. These are people who bravely came forward to highlight utterly unacceptable and criminal behaviour that should not be part of any entity in any state. The message went out clearly that this sort of behaviour is utterly unacceptable and needs to be dealt with. I accept that the Minister and others agree with that, but the fact is, as has been done previously, in an attempt to deal with the issue we did not take those people with us who brought the issue up and who had suffered the abuse. That is a serious failing. Even at this stage, there is a requirement to re-engage with all the stakeholders and those women to come up with an investigative mechanism or inquiry that is acceptable to them. That is absolutely necessary. As I stated, it is just one of those things we have failed to do in this State.

The commission has put a number of questions regarding the future of the Defence Forces. It will probably beg wider questions across this House, but we all accept that we need a fit-for-purpose Defence Forces. We all know about the issue of retention. I will speak about members of the Defence Forces that I talk to in Dundalk. I remember one man telling me that he could not advise any young woman or man to join the Army at this point. He said it just would not make sense as such young people would not be coming in under the same conditions he did. That is a dreadful thing to be said. We are all aware that there is a particular issue in respect of those who are just in the door and have only two or three years' service. We know the ratios need to be looked at in that a serious amount of institutional knowledge has been lost and we do not necessarily have people who could operate in a mentoring or advisory capacity in the necessary hierarchy of the military set-up. These are the matters we need to address straight out.

Deputy Brady spoke far more eloquently than me about the fact we need to deal with ICTU affiliations for RACO and PDFORRA and the legal questions that still remain. I ask the Minister to use the powers he has to deal with this issue. At the end of the day, the fact is, as in any job, respect is derived from working conditions and pay conditions.

They are the issues he also brought up in regard to the working time directive and a military that is under severe pressure. In those cases, people will be overworked, hours will be overlooked and people will have to double-up. Within that, due diligence that should be done will not be done. We have had the issues with regard to training exercises being cancelled. It is frightening if any of this impacts with regard to live-firing, training or whatever else.

I recall that many years ago when I was in Dublin City University, DCU, - I was not the greatest student at that time - there were many Defence Forces personnel there studying computing in particular. At that point in time, it was a different set-up. We now have multiple failings. Much has been said in regard to neutrality being an absolute requirement for this State. There is a wider question in regard to the military spend, but we need to have the capacity to be a neutral State at this point in time.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

The Minister previously described this report as a "watershed". It certainly is a time for honest and open debate and, I hope and I believe, clear decision-making.

Since the Second World War and the establishment of the principle of Ireland's neutrality, successive Governments have felt that being neutral meant we did not need or, perhaps, want a military with the real capacity to protect our country from foreign aggression. Throughout those decades, we had many other priorities and calls on our money and we still do. We raised the flag of neutrality and that shielded us from having to invest in the array of equipment and the capacity that are the hallmarks of a militarily neutral nation, one that does not depend on others to monitor its airspace or economic waters. For our own convenience, we have sometimes confused military neutrality with military impotence. Neutrality is a truly important principle that I believe commands the majority support of our people but we need to define what we mean by it and truly invest in it.

I join with the Minister and others in thanking the chair and commission members for their outreach work and for producing this document. It requires us to now give real consideration to all of its recommendations and to make decisions. The report presents us with a number of options on the future of our Defence Forces. It describes and presents three levels of ambition. Ambition level 1 is to continue as we are, acknowledging in doing so that we can no longer pretend, if we invest as is or maintain our capacity as is, that we are able to conduct a meaningful defence of the State against a sustained act of aggression from a conventional military force, as the report suggests, and we would likely need to reduce our commitment to international peace and humanitarian activities. I genuinely do not believe the majority of Members of this House or the majority of our electorate want us to make that choice. If we continue as is, we now have to do it with our eyes open to exactly what that means. We have no means of knowing who or what is transiting our skies, territorial waters or economic zone, other than if another nation tells us about it. That is not being neutral if we are dependent on another nation, however friendly it might be, to tell us who is transiting our skies and seas.

In my view, the realistic option and the difficult choice presented to all of us in this House and to the Government in particular is to accept ambition level 2 or ambition level 2 with some modifications. The first priority is the women and men who serve this nation in our Defence Forces. They are the starting point and the fundamental building block. They deserve better pay, better working conditions, better accommodation and better equipment. That is the starting point. We need to ensure they are valued truly by providing decent wage packets, decent accommodation in which they can house themselves and their families and the appropriate equipment to carry out the roles with which we task them. Having a content and motivated force, whose voice is effectively represented by its trade union representatives as part of the normal trade union movement and as a fully integrated part of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, in my view must be our first and most urgent priority. Unless and until we ensure our soldiers, air crews and sailors are valued and truly appreciated in real and practical terms, not by way of speeches in this House but by money in their pay packets and the accommodation that is worthy of them, everything else we talk about in terms of our Defence Forces will fail.

I want to look at each branch separately and briefly. I will start with what is advised for the Army. We need to protect our troops by replacing the existing APCs with level 4 armoured vehicles, establishing joint cyber defence command and providing 100 additional specialists to manage cyber defence and defence IT. This is a truly important aspect of the recommendations. Various committees, including the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs, have looked at cyber defence. We need to protect ourselves from a different type of potential attack into the future. The report also advises the strengthening of military intelligence capabilities, which means the establishment of a joint military intelligence service and an intelligence school, and the development and renaming of the Army Ranger Wing in line with best international practices.

It is recommended that the Naval Service be renamed the Irish Navy and that, at least, nine modern ships be provided by the end of this decade, with double crews providing a minimum of 220 days each at sea. As the Minister, Deputy Coveney, will know in the worst of times we provided the four newest vessels, the LÉ Samuel Beckett, the LÉ William Butler Yeats, the LÉ George Bernard Shaw and the LÉ James Joyce. They are the only really modern vessels we have. We need to see investment in replacement of our flagship and the type of vessels that will provide the capacity to patrol the most difficult waters of the North Atlantic that are our waters.

For the Air Corps the report recommends an increased and enlarged fleet of fixed and rotary aircraft, primary radar capacity to ensure that a complete recognised air picture is maintained such that, as I said earlier, we know, rather than be dependent on others to tell us, who is transiting our airspace; the development of anti-drone or counter unmanned aircraft systems, UAS, capacity; and the development of strategic air lift capacity. Post-Kabul, I tabled a parliamentary question as to whether we can provide air lift capacity, either on our own or in conjunction with others because there is shared capacity across small and medium sized countries. It certainly is something we should provide.

In terms of our Reserve Defence Force, it needs to be revitalised and truly integrated into a genuine single Defence Force across all spheres of defence. In ten minutes, I cannot do anything like justice to this report. It is a truly comprehensive programme of change that will require considerable support and buy-in from the personnel who compose the Defence Forces, military and civilian, and all of us in this House. It has been, I know, always easier to fund a new school or a new health centre than it is to fund military equipment. We need to bring the public with us.

Perhaps we can now ignite a popular debate about what we, as a nation, want from our Defence Forces.

In past decades, we asked our troops, women and men, to face down armed criminal gangs, to defend this State against armed subversives and to put themselves in harm's way in defence of peace across this globe, from Lebanon to Timor-Leste. We owe all of them a debt of gratitude. We can now honour that debt by ensuring a modern and confident Ireland can have modern and confident Defence Forces that are fit for purpose and suitable for our times. It is over to the Government, in the first instance. I heard the Minister say the commission's recommendations are not on hold. However, we cannot simply allow this report to join the litany of other reports that have been carried out. I believe the Minister when he says he will come back here with concrete proposals to make transformative changes that will give security to the Defence Forces to provide the security that this nation requires and deserves.

Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage (Deputy Malcolm Noonan)

My dad served in the Irish Defence Forces for some 37 years, during which time he served three tours of duty in the Congo in one of the earliest Irish overseas missions. In 1960, they landed in Lagos in bull's wool uniform and heavy black boots. They did not have much except for their small arms weapons and very little armour. They did, however, have their Irish spirit and the ability to get on with everything and everyone, no matter the environment. I am proud of my father's service. I am proud that I grew up in the married quarters of a military barracks. I am also proud of the Defence Forces today, with almost 700 personnel overseas in 13 missions, 12 countries and one on sea. The Covid emergency has only highlighted their role here today in Ireland in contingency response. They never fail to front up in any emergency when asked, with their many capabilities including engineering, logistics, transport, cyber and communications, medical, air and maritime. This is the core of my few words today. While the core role of the Defence Forces is the defence of the State, its citizens and interests, including our economy, we must never forget their role in national resilience and emergency management.

The Irish Defence Forces have become internationally respected as an impartial peacekeeping force, a force for good in fragile states and in places of conflict. The commission report highlights a need to invest in military capability to bolster Ireland’s security and consideration of the greatest threat to global security, that is, climate change and biodiversity loss.

In April of last year, the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, and I travelled to Killarney National Park following a devastating fire that destroyed species rich habitat, contaminated the water, destabilised carbon rich soils and released CO2 into the atmosphere. We were grateful to the Irish Air Corps for its support in controlling the fire. It took a huge effort to bring it under control. While the Killarney fire was raging, there were also multiple fires taking place in various locations across the country and there simply was not sufficient State or private air cover to deal with them. Over the past decade, we have witnessed record temperatures, record winter temperatures and increased frequency of extreme weather and flooding events, all of which are evidence pointing towards a changing climate.

Later this year, our Department will lead on legislating for marine protected areas to protect biodiversity and habitats around our coasts. Our climate preparedness should include the consideration of the multipurpose use of our Defence Forces, Navy and Air Corps for enhanced protection of our communities in the face of extreme weather events, wildfires and flooding, and in protecting the biodiversity of our territorial waters and coastal communities in the face of rising sea levels.

From my perspective, every piece of equipment we buy as a State should be dual purpose. Every troop-carrying helicopter can be used for firefighting and helping communities. Consider a strategic helicopter with airlift capability to lift our troops to major missions. The same aircraft can support the Department of Foreign Affairs in disaster relief in places such as Afghanistan but it can also support the HSE. Our Naval Service has a huge role to play in the future on our coastlines and in our seas, not just in defending the State against a military threat or criminality but in protecting, managing and monitoring our environment, ecology and economy. Our Army needs field hospitals, emergency bridging and flood relief capabilities. Our Civil Defence needs to be resourced. Every Government Department and agency should be consulted on defence and in particular on providing national resilience and contingency capabilities. We need to broaden our horizons beyond our land borders and into our seas and airspace.

Our Naval Service has performed heroics in the Mediterranean Sea in rescuing migrants, many of whom are fleeing the impacts, direct or indirect, of climate change. These humanitarian missions will need to continue and our Naval Service needs to be adequately equipped to carry out this vital work safely and effectively. This work is referenced in terms of strengthening capabilities towards deeper engagement in international peace and humanitarian missions.

I welcome reference in the report to the revitalisation of the Reserve Defence Force, RDF. I would like to see a role for the RDF in our collective actions on climate and biodiversity.

The review of the aid to civil power, ATCP, states that ATCP and aid to the civil authority, ATCA, should be subject to regular review for continued relevance and priority. Section 4.6, dealing with ATCPs, outlines the need for a whole-of-Government needs analysis to highlight trends and predict needs. Section 6.2 on capability development planning advocates the creation of a civil-military structure to embed capability development. These recommendations point towards a way forward in integrating this reform process within the Defence Forces with the wider needs of the State and the State’s assets, namely our land and water and the important ecosystem services they provide.

While issues of pay and conditions are outside the scope of this report, I, like others, am of the view that in order to build capacity within our Defence Forces and to attract young men and women who might be considering this as a career option it is vital that it is an attractive career option. I welcome the recommendations regarding gender equality and diversity in the report.

The commission report outlines the current threat and risk environment within the context of the Defence Forces designated roles. It states:

Versatility, flexibility, and resiliency will be required to adapt to change and to react, learn and recover from predicted as well as unpredicted threats and risks. Moreover, it places a high value on the ability to collaborate across service branches, government agencies, societal sectors, and/or national borders.

I can think of no more important sphere for such collaboration than in our battle to offset the worst impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss. In this context I fully support the Minister in his work to raise the capability of our Defence Forces and propose that all future planning should include a collaborative role for the Defence Forces in protecting people, land, sea and all of our natural resources.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I must be honest and say that I have not read the report. I have not had the opportunity to do so. I will respond in more detail to the very detailed report when I get that opportunity. There are, however, basic principles I think we can lay down. I have long questioned the Minister about the issue of pay in the Defence Forces and the work burden that soldiers face. I welcome the fact that the Minister will be initiating discussions, albeit belatedly, with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform regarding the establishment of a permanent pay review body that would reflect the unique nature of military service. Personnel can be called at any time to serve very long hours for the same wage. We know that pay and conditions have long been issues of contention in the Defence Forces. If we are going to retain well-trained officers, non-commissioned officers, men and women, in the Defence Forces, we are going to have to pay them the going rate for the job.

We also need to deal urgently with the issues highlighted by the "Women of Honour" programme. Those are serious issues. It seems that women were brought into the Defence Forces but no adequate plan was put in place to ensure they would not suffer humiliation and worse within those Defence Forces. That issue is of considerable urgency.

I welcome the report and what I have read of it. I agree that we need to invest. That is obvious. However, I think we must decide what to invest and where lie the real challenges that we, as a nation, face. Is it really likely that the Russians will come in with a conventional army and pick Ireland, a small island off the west coast of Britain, as a launching pad? It is much more likely they would go into their next-door neighbours. There are challenges there, to which I will come in a moment. However, I believe that as an ex-colonised country, as a country which won its freedom and laid out a clear stall, we should look at what the Constitution says about our attitude towards international affairs. In Article 29.1, "Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality." It goes on, in Article 29.2, to state, "Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination."

The first thing we should do is become much more active at the UN and internationally, pushing that this be the way issues should be resolved between nations and not by the threat of an ever worse war by one side or the other. The second thing is that there is a growing lobby in this country, which I accept, that favours an EU combined military and foreign policy approach and that that combined approach would also involve the UK, a former EU member state, in close co-operation. Most EU states are in NATO and have mutual defence pacts.

It was interesting that the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, ALDE, Party reported today that:

EU Commission Executive Vice-President ... and Commissioner Thierry Breton have put forward a set of initiatives to enhance integration and competitiveness of the European defence market, reducing EU’s dependency in the security and defence areas and protecting it from the new threats.

In the EUobserver of 25 January, it was reported that the EU was "preparing to boost its naval presence [this corporate EU presence of which, remember, we are part] in the north west Indian Ocean 'to uphold freedom of navigation'...". The article continued, "The Indian Ocean project was outlined in a 'concept note' by the EU foreign service on 19 January." It went on to state:

"Member states deploying assets [warships] in the new NWIO [north west Indian Ocean] MAI ... would be a good opportunity" to "enhance the EU's diplomatic influence" there, the foreign service said.

The EU sees itself as a counterpart to Russia, China and the United States - a military power. Let us not cod ourselves. That is very much on the agenda and if we do not see that here, we are blind to what is happening in the real world.

I do not have any interest in becoming part of military power blocs. As a small ex-colonised country, we have always gone a different way with regard to our role in the world. We have done our bit. There is this idea that Ireland has stood there and done nothing. We have done a huge amount in peacekeeping, as the Minister pointed out. We have done it with hard slog on the ground and by people interaction, not by having huge military weapons. It is well-testified too that Ireland, and Deputy Berry would know much more about this, has the unique record of creating human relations in the countries in which it has operated. We must, therefore, continue to invest in that and ensure that our soldiers who are sent abroad are well-equipped.

We have to invest in cybersecurity because we get rogue actors. They do not have to move. We saw that with the HSE. That should be under the military and we should invest significantly in that. Of course, we use the military within this country not thinking we will repel some major nation that is going to suddenly start marching down our main streets but against all sorts of rogue actors, natural disasters, coronavirus and so on. We use them as a support to the gardaí at times, for medical transfers and for ordnance disposal, as naval divers, in fishing protection and drug interdiction and so on. It is important that we invest in all those things. Do I want to spend €1 billion per year playing military games as part of a big military Europe? I would rather spend it on housing and health, and I will nail my colours to the mast on education. We could make a much better contribution to the world that way than we could by becoming part of some big military bloc with aspirations. Remember, all these are colonial countries, for instance, Portugal, Spain, France and so on. It is time we had a big open debate in this Chamber on what our military will do and on where we must invest, and we must invest.

Deputy Louise O'Reilly

I join with others in thanking the members of the commission for the work they have undertaken. I want to specifically refer to section 8.4.5. I have not had a chance to read all of the report but I have engaged with that section with which I would be the most familiar.

In 2009, when I was a union organiser, my union joined an organisation called the 24-7 Alliance, which was mostly made up of shift workers. Fianna Fáil and the Green Party were in government and as ever, with their usual regard for workers and workers' rights, they could see that workers' wages were under threat, specifically by the nature of the work they were doing because it was 24 hours per day, seven days a week shift work. The people who were represented by PDFORRA and the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers, RACO, were not allowed to be members of that association, or that alliance. They were prohibited from membership and, in fact, at our meetings, we used to put an empty chair at the table to symbolise that.

I spoke at length to members of the Defence Forces at the time. They felt very vulnerable and voiceless and very much left outside of a process that would have had profound implications for their pay and conditions. They were not allowed to be part of the alliance, although we knew we had their support.

The alliance continued into the following Government with the Labour Party and Fine Gael because the alliance was, of course, very necessary. Workers need to come together under the auspices of their trade union to defend themselves, sometimes against their employer and, indeed, sometimes against the Government.

I want to specifically refer to the section where the commission references that while it sees "no reason ... why full affiliation with ICTU could not be accommodated, it does recognise that there is greater complexity to taking this further ..." It goes on to mention "the absolute requirement for the Defence Forces to fulfil its aid to the civil power and aid to the civil authority roles i.e. to step in, without question ..." That is strike-breaking. That is essentially what that refers to. That is talking about people going to situations where there is an industrial dispute.

I do not believe it is beyond anybody to be able to resolve those issues but I think what the Defence Forces and I would like to hear from the Minister, if possible, is a commitment that they will not be used to break strikes and that through their affiliation with ICTU, they will be respected, their rights as trade union members will be respected and they will not be used in that way. I do not think it is in any way, shape or form necessary for the Defence Forces to have that fear but that is what is referenced here. The language does not directly say that is what it is but the Minister and I both know that is what it refers to. It is the undermining of industrial disputes because other than that, there is no difficulty with them being full members of the ICTU.

When we went in to negotiate pay agreements, however, we were sitting at the table and they were sitting in the next room. That was as much as they were permitted to be part of the process but they were not part of it; they were outside of the process. The old principle of trade unionism of nothing about us without us was left at the door because they were not allowed to participate. I do not believe the Minister has anything to fear from them being allowed to participate. They should be allowed to fully participate fully. I note that the Minister said he is not hostile to that. When he talks about affiliation to the ICTU, however, we need to have a discussion about what exactly that means. That means the men and women of our Defence Forces will be full trade union members and will act in accordance as trade union members. It does not mean the dereliction of duty. Ambulance personnel are trade union members who play a vital role, as are nurses and doctors.

All these things can be accommodated but we need to hear a willingness from the Minister that he has a view that the Defence Forces can and should be collectively represented by the union of their choice and affiliated to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and all that goes with that. We need to hear that they will not be used to break strikes and will be allowed to be full members of the trade union and fully participate in that way. That is what those words mean. They do not say "strike-break" but that is what it means.

I remember when I was growing up, my father used to sing a song. I will not sing it but the words were, "The buses are on strike and we can't afford a bike, roll along, army lorries, roll along." That is a small concern but I do not think it is a concern that could not be gotten over. The focus needs to be on members of the Defence Forces being full and active members of their trade union because, believe me, that is the best hope they have of achieving decent pay and conditions.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Deputy sings the song she mentioned, I will give her a little extra time.

Deputy Louise O'Reilly

I would not do that to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Deputy Gary Gannon

The Social Democrats welcomes the publication of the report on the Defence Forces, Óglaigh na hÉireann, by the Commission on the Defence Forces. The report offers an insight into the current situation in the Defence Forces and offers recommendations that can help the organisation to meet the challenges of the future, while at the same time creating a safe and positive working environment for all Defence Forces personnel. Since the founding of the State 100 years ago, personnel in Ireland's Defence Forces, Óglaigh na hÉireann, have defended the economic, political and social freedoms we enjoy. We tend to forget or shrug off that during the founding years, the Emergency period and the Cold War, members of the Defence Forces prepared for and met any eventuality presented to them by way of domestic or foreign threats. In partnership with An Garda Síochána, the Defence Forces have, time and again, protected the State from internal threats and, in more recent decades, the aid to civil power relationship has evolved to take on transnational terrorism, human trafficking and drug interdiction, with joint air and naval maritime defence and security patrols taking place in Ireland's exclusive economic zone. In addition to their routine defence of State assets and their maritime defence and security operations, the Defence Forces continue to aid civil powers in air ambulance and search and rescue missions in extreme weather and aid local authorities as and when required.

We should never forget that since the founding of the State, members of the Defence Forces have lost their lives and suffered physical or mental injury defending and protecting our freedoms and those of people elsewhere. I would state the exact figure for how many Defence Forces personnel have lost their lives in domestic service but Ireland has a convenient amnesia around the reality of the stresses and strains put on the personnel and their families from the tasks assigned to them by the Government. All of that is before we take into consideration Ireland's overseas deployments. Since 1955, this country has embraced the collective security mechanisms of the United Nations. Then, as now, the Government understood that Ireland is part of a global community and that a security threat anywhere in the world can affect us. Since the late 1950s, Ireland has committed its diplomats, aides, members of the Defence Forces and An Garda Síochána to the remote and far reaches of the globe to deal with a wide range of crisis management issues from natural disasters, the effects of interstate and intrastate conflicts, and poverty. Through peacekeeping, peacebuilding, peace enforcement and crisis prevention, Ireland's personnel have continuously put their lives on the line to bring stability to conflict regions, ensure the restoration of human rights and allow communities to go safely to work, vote freely and have their children gain an education.

Ireland is proud to be the only nation to have an unbroken record of service to blue helmet peacekeeping going back to 1958. Since then, Irish peacekeepers have served in more than 40 peacekeeping operations around the world, including Afghanistan, the Balkans, East Timor, Rwanda, the Mediterranean and Lebanon, to name just a few. Irish Defence Forces personnel have completed more than 70,000 individual tours of overseas duty since 1958. This service has not been without cost. To date, 86 members of the Defence Forces have given their lives in the service of peace. With the evolution of the European Union and its Common Foreign and Security policy and defence policy, Ireland has committed itself to the understanding that it is part of a community, the borders of which stretch from the mid-Atlantic to eastern Europe, the Arctic Circle to north Africa and the Middle East. The geographical scale of the EU, along with its global interests, has stretched Ireland's defence and security parameters even further.

Over the past two decades, the world has been challenged by increasing threats across the two main strategic paradigms, that is, traditional defence and security, and, in addition, a new strategic challenge involving ambiguous threats in the grey zone. Ireland has not remained isolated from either the old or emerging threats. Transnational terrorism, climate change as a threat multiplier, hybrid warfare and the return of geopolitics have demonstrated the new and complex relationship between all three strategic paradigms. Conflicts in Afghanistan, the Middle East and the Sahara region in central and north Africa and quasi wars and tensions in eastern Europe have created displaced peoples, a breeding ground for criminality and transnational terrorism, human trafficking, and collapsing governance and human rights. In a collective response, Ireland has deployed personnel to Afghanistan, Chad, Georgia, Mali, the Mediterranean and Syria, to name a few. In addition, Defence Forces personnel have undertaken expeditions to Libya and Afghanistan.

Rather than praising and showering our armed forces with the admiration and improved conditions they deserve, their members continue to suffer from poor working conditions, discrepancies in pay, reduced ranks and inadequate resources and equipment. How many times has the State forgotten to book flights home for overseas units? That is a reminder to them of just how much the State cares. Instead of complaining, however, they follow orders and get on with it as best they can. Rather than evolving to meet the challenges of a changing defence and security environment in Ireland, the State has systematically reduced its Defence Forces since the publication of the 1999 White Paper. After the establishment of a Permanent Defence Force of 10,500-plus and a Reserve Defence Force of 12,500, the reorganisation of 2010 to 2012, combined with the decentralising of long-standing headquarters, sent shock waves through the ranks of the armed forces from which they have not yet recovered. In the name of austerity, more barracks were closed, units disappeared overnight and corps were reduced to all but a cadre status. A quantifiable amount of State investment and training of expert specialists was gone with the stroke of a pen. With a defence budget that is one of the lowest in the world, the missions and deployments kept coming and the remaining ranks were stretched to breaking point. This was especially noticeable in the smaller corps such as the Naval Service, Air Corps and the ordnance and medical corps, which struggled to meet their daily operational requirements at home while continuing to support overseas missions. The PDF is now operating at an average of more than 1,000 below its current 9,500 establishment. The RDF has, in effect, been dismantled, with an establishment of 4,069 and a headcount of 1,622.

Disgruntled, demoralised and combating the rising cost of living, serving and retired personnel, along with their families, began to take to the streets. The Government and the nation did not seem to care. Then came the Covid-19 crisis, the cyberattack on the HSE and geopolitical tensions. The reality of the complexities of 21st century defence and security has begun to hit home. Defence Forces assets could not be deployed en masse for any of those events because they barely exist any more. Embarrassingly, the Government had to rush the procurement of a PC-12 to bring home Defence Forces personnel stranded on overseas deployment and to carry out Covid-19 logistics operations. Again, the media report on Royal Air Force assets patrolling and monitoring activities off our maritime and air space rather than the reality faced by our personnel overseas.

Nobody expects the Defence Forces to be poised and ready to tackle a belligerent invader. That is not the vision we hold for our Defence Forces. What is expected, however, or rather what we owe the personnel of Óglaigh na hÉireann who daily put themselves on the line to ensure our freedoms, is our respect, gratitude and an improvement in the conditions in which we ask them to operate. It is the responsibility of Government to ensure military personnel work in an environment that is safe and free from a culture of fear and secure in the knowledge they will not be stranded overseas. It is our responsibility as the Parliament to guarantee our Defence Forces are properly funded and resourced to meet the defence and security challenges of the 21st century.

The report makes some insightful and valuable observations, including the need for a more flexible command structure, a veteran support office and transformational change to modernise the organisational culture and its human resources strategy and practices. The report recommends the immediate establishment of a codified, top-down capacity development planning process through the creation of a permanent civil military structure in order to embed capability deployment within the Department and the Defence Forces. There is a recommendation for a graduation of levels of ambition and required levels of capability to meet those levels of ambition. The development of a national maritime security strategy and a national aviation security strategy to go alongside it are advised. Before the Government approves or implements these recommendations, we must take into consideration the Defence Forces themselves, what personnel think of the report and which recommendations the general staff have made. We must take into consideration the disruption such changes will cause to some personnel and their families. Would it be prudent, for example, to undertake an exact capability audit of what is required to, first, bring the Defence Forces up to standard and, second, ensure they are able to move forward and meet the challenges ahead?

The report does not give an insightful overview into retention and recruitment of staff, issues that have a long-term effect on the Defence Forces. Remuneration and service conditions are key enablers in this area. Remuneration must reflect extra hours worked and access to normal duty patterns while carrying out routine assignments in other countries. This is especially true of the requirement for three years of marking time in terms of pay at the beginning of members' careers, which needs to be abolished immediately. Service conditions must ensure personnel are free from bullying, harassment and a culture of fear. To that end, external expertise must be engaged to improve training and policy development in this area. The report points out that turnover in the Defence Forces is no higher than in most industries, but it does not take into consideration that hundreds of members are paying thousands to break their contracts and leave. If retention is not a problem, why are the ranks below the full establishment? Why were the ranks not refilled during the call-out in the early days of the pandemic? The lack of respect for personnel has been highlighted in particular by the issues raised by the Women of Honour group. I do not have enough time to do justice to the plight its members have suffered and continue to suffer.

This situation must end. The Government can approve spending for new equipment and accommodation and a refit, for instance, of the Curragh Camp, but there needs to be personnel to carry out deployments, fly the aircraft and sail the ships. Elsewhere, states have taken action to ameliorate the strains on their armed forces and encourage retention.

Other nations have implemented technical specialist and staff ranks, with civilians filling non-operational roles, and having active reserves to capture trained personnel who leave, rather than losing their skill sets. They also have forms of university training corps that allow for those with specialist, sought-after skills to join their armed forces in a permanent or reserve capacity.

In the space of ten minutes I cannot do justice to the amount of insight we can give to this commission report. There is an obligation on us all to respond and I look forward to working with the Minister in order to do that.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

First, I want to welcome the publication of the commission’s report. Fianna Fáil welcomes this report. We called for it to be established by a motion before the Dáil in 2019, when we were in opposition. It was a key component of our input into the programme for Government, which was agreed by all three parties. It has the commitment of the Minister and of all of the backbenchers in those three parties. The publication of the report is a crucial step forward. I look forward to the Minister's work to consult with others. I also look forward to him bringing back to Government the response to that report. It will be keenly observed, both by members of Defence Forces in my constituency, and by the many people in this House who are committed to the Defence Forces.

I wish to talk about two areas that I believe the Minister and the Government need to address when responding to the commission’s report, the first of which is the issue of pay. The report states that the issue of pay in the Defence Forces "does not seem to fully reflect the totality of the remuneration package" and the commission believes more needs to be done to better communicate what that package is. The difficulty is that that sentence does not sit with the experiences that I, and many other Members have had, when family members of Defence Forces personnel come to us to talk about pay. That includes all of the issues around basic pay, allowances and so on. We talk about pride and respect but you cannot use pride and respect to pay for your shopping, your housing or to support your children’s education.

There has been significant change in the way the Defence Forces provide things, for example, housing. Defence Forces that are more modern believe that this is perhaps not what they should do, particularly for Defence Forces families. However, we have to respect that this puts an additional cost on those families. There is the broader issue of housing in the State, which we have to reflect in the pay and conditions of members of the Defence Forces. There is obviously a significant issue around different contracts and how different members of the Defence Forces with different experiences experience that burden. The establishment of a pay body to deal with this issue in the Defence Forces is crucial, albeit it should be separate from the broader issues that are addressed in the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces.

My second point relates to the issue of military leadership, which is addressed in the commission's report in the creation of new posts for each of the different forces and so on. We also have to look at the issue of financial control, at what is to be controlled by the Department of Defence and at what is to be controlled by the leadership of the Defence Forces in terms of spending, the ability to spend and the prioritisation within that spend. Who will be the accountable officer and how will that relationship with the Oireachtas work? More needs to be done in that area. I know that the Minister understands that issue. We need to continue to work on it.

I welcome the work of the commission. Many people were highly sceptical of another commission or another body when this was established. It has shown a commitment to understanding the challenges the Defence Forces face. It clearly nails its colours to the mast when it says that the high-level ambitions for Ireland’s military capabilities, as they have been set out in the White Paper, are not supported by the resources that have been provided to the Defence Forces. That is key. That is one thing this commission has nailed. As well as this, there is a disconnect between policy, resources and capabilities. We have to urgently clarify the level of ambition. That level of ambition will be key in how the Government responds. What is our role in the world? What is the role of the Defence Forces within our foreign policy?

Earlier, Deputy Ó Cuív made reference to Article 29 of the Constitution. There are obligations within the Constitution that the Government needs to uphold. However, there are obviously different views on what our Defence Forces should do. In my view, international peacekeeping is key. It provides opportunities for members of the Defence Forces to access skills and training they would not otherwise have, if we had an isolationist approach or if we withdrew in any way from peacekeeping. I hope that this is underscored in the level of ambition that we set for the Defence Forces. We also need to look at the cost of that. We need to look at the cost of the threats such as those posed by cybersecurity. We saw what happened with the HSE cyberattack. We need to make sure that the Defence Forces are capable of aiding this State in preventing cyberattacks. This is probably now at the coalface of how many rogue governments may try to damage democracies. I want to see this protection within our level of ambition, as the commission’s report calls it.

There is also the idea of an independent foreign policy. This State has a proud tradition in this area and we in Fianna Fáil cherish it. The idea is that Ireland is neutral but that our non-aligned position does not in any way mean that we should resile from calling out aggression, militarisation and so on. I want to make sure that this independent foreign policy is also contained within the level of ambition for our Defence Forces.

The men and women who serve in the Defence Forces do an incredible job. Often there are several generations within families that have committed to the Defence Forces. This State needs to support them on a basic level in pay and conditions. We need to support them in the level of ambition we have for the Defence Forces as a country. We need to tie all of that to our ambition for our international foreign policy.

Deputy Cathal Crowe

I too welcome the publishing of the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces. It is timely that we have this report before us. However, it will not be worth anything unless it is properly acted on, resourced and funded.

Fianna Fáil called for this commission to be established back in 2019. It was a key element of our manifesto coming into the February 2020 general election, which is now two years ago. The highlights that I picked out from the report are the high-level defences, the defence capabilities of our country, the fact that there has been very little investment in the Defence Forces for many decades and the organisation, culture and human resources.

The point that sticks out in my memory is from 2018, when Pope Francis visited Phoenix Park. Members of the Garda were brought in from all over the country and were billeted in hotels and guest houses in and around Phoenix Park and in north County Dublin. On the other hand, members of our Defence Forces were bivouacking in little tents, in chalets and in makeshift accommodation in the ditches and hedgerows that surround Phoenix Park. We all saw in one of the Sunday newspapers at that time a photograph that was published by a family member of one of the soldiers. It showed where her husband had camped out overnight. Just a couple of yards away from the camp, there were syringes, bits of tinfoil and drugs paraphernalia. This is where he had to sleep overnight. The juxtaposition of how our gardaí were treated that weekend with how members of our Defence Forces were treated spoke volumes in itself. It was right and just that we called everything to a halt, in order that we could look at how we remunerate these members of our Defence Forces, as well as at all the other pay and conditions that relate to them.

I am from a small village in County Clare called Meelick. We have a distinction in this area because, beyond the Curragh, we have one of the largest soldier populations in the country. This is because there was a rural housing scheme, RHO, in County Clare back in the 1980s which saw dozens and dozens of serving soldiers who had been based in Sarsfield Barracks in Limerick coming out to County Clare to rear their families. That estate is Elton Court.

Over the years, Meelick has seen a most fantastic commitment to this nation. There are members of these families across generations who are joining the Defence Forces. When I was going to school in Meelick, many of the kids had fathers who were serving in the Defence Forces. These were guys like Ken O'Brien, Alec O'Neill and Pat Hayes. Some of the guys with whom I went to school were also in the Defence Forces, such as Jason Boyce, Stephen Hayes and others like them. They have been to Chad and to Libya and they have served with pride. They have worn the Irish uniform and have served with pride time and time again. They deserve a hell of a lot better. People tell us that the life of politicians is hard, because we are always on the road and we do not get to see our families.

We have it damn easy compared to the likes of Jason Boyce and Stephen Hayes, who go out for six or seven months at a time to countries without all the home comforts, leaving their young kids at home. They are doing it for love of their nation but they get very little pay compared to other sectors. The real litmus test of this report will be the money that backs it up. We must properly remunerate these people and ensure that awful situation in the Phoenix Park in 2018 is never again replicated. We want to know that the husbands and wives who remain at home are receiving a decent wage package while their loved ones risk life and limb on peacekeeping duties in other countries.

I have the utmost respect for Deputy Berry, who comes from the ranks of our armed forces. He has an incredible curriculum vitae, CV, beyond the Army as well and has upskilled and added to his CV and skill set. He is an authority on all things military and defence and we should be guided by his views on these matters as we have this discussion.

I have some comments on fixed-wing aircraft, particularly trainer jets. There was guffawing last week when elements of this report circulated in the media and there were suggestions that we might need F-14s or F-15s to protect Irish skies. I do not think it should be scoffed at so easily. We do not need a fleet of 15 or 20 fighter jets but we do need a training jet facility and I would suggest Shannon Airport or somewhere in the west of the country for that. People are tripping over themselves at the moment to criticise Vladimir Putin and what Russia is trying to do in Ukraine but there have been many incursions of Russian aircraft coming close to or into Irish airspace in recent years with their "Bear" bombers and we have relied on the Royal Air Force-----

Deputy Paul Murphy

What about the Americans in Shannon?

Deputy Cathal Crowe

I will finish my point. I did not interrupt other Deputies. We have relied on each and every occasion on the Royal Air Force to come and scramble its jets and that is not something that should happen.

On the issue of Russia, I am usually complimentary of the actions the Minister takes as the helmsman of the Department of Foreign Affairs but I think we were a little soft-footed with the ambassador, Yuriy Filatov, and with Vladimir Putin. We have to put a halt to the days of Ireland having imperial or cultural hang-ups with the larger nations. There can be no more tipping the cap, whether to Russia, America, Britain or whoever. Our affiliation is to the European Union and we should have been far more robust in telling the Russians to stay well beyond not only our territorial waters but also our exclusive economic zone. I understand the international law in this regard but I think they got a bit of a soft card from Ireland.

Deputy Simon Coveney

They moved their operations.

Deputy Cathal Crowe

They did but I think we could have been more robust.

Deputy Simon Coveney

That was because of Ireland's interactions with them.

Deputy Cathal Crowe

There is somebody else who is involved in protecting our nation and that is the Garda Commissioner, Drew Harris. His term of appointment was lengthened yesterday. We need to have a bit more scrutiny as a State and there are two major outstanding issues we need to look at. One is the suspension of the trial of the hooded men. That has been brushed aside and we have not focused on it. The second matter continues to be a huge issue where I live. The suspension of more than 80 members of An Garda Síochána in the Limerick garda division, which encompasses Clare, is just dragging on and on. Those matters need to be brought to ground. We cannot just-----

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I ask the Deputy to restrict his references to the report.

Deputy Cathal Crowe

Absolutely. We cannot just have contract extensions. We need scrutiny of those two major factors as well.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I ask Deputies to refer to what is under discussion and not to stray too far from it. There is great latitude with that.

Deputy Réada Cronin

It is significant that the report from the Commission on the Defence Forces was published in the same week Sinn Féin had a Private Members' motion on the Women of Honour and the need for a statutory commission of investigation into what they allege, namely, rape, sexual assault, physical violence, manipulation, harassment, bullying and intimidation. These are not allegations against a stranger in the street but their superior officers in the Defence Forces of the State. We believe the review proposed is a grave dishonour to these women, to their service, their dignity, and to the excellent members of the Defence Forces, who, like them, have served with such courage and distinction both here at home and overseas. These women are not alone. If the Government cared to listen to what former Captain Tom Clonan has to say, he would have put them straight about the scale of the wrong, the scale of the task and the scale of the response that is necessary for the women involved. A review just will not cut it. By denying them the commission of investigation they want and need-----

Deputy Simon Coveney

For the record, I have spoken to Tom Clonan at length about what we are doing and he is supportive.

Deputy Réada Cronin

That is very welcome. These women are being denied that peace of mind, despite having been tasked with keeping the peace for others on behalf of the State overseas.

The report of the Commission on the Defence Forces also arrived at a time of escalating global tensions, with uncertainty around Russian troops along the border of Ukraine. The minds of a certain cohort here at home turned to war games, with a rush of blood to their empty heads from the comfort of the armchair or, indeed, the barstool. Those furthest from the fighting shout the loudest. Among these barstool soldiers were those who never raised their voices as the British Army slaughtered unarmed people, including children, on the streets in the North. Yet, they are the first to lecture the people who survived. They are still very quiet about the reports of the police ombudsman on collusion. Beyond the island, those same barstool soldiers have their eyes wide shut to children starving to death in Yemen while billions worth or arms are manufactured, traded, and rained down on the innocent by the complicit and the powerful.

There is a lot of money to be made in arms and ammunition. This rampant capitalism is a war game in itself. It is a war on people and it is a war on the planet. This matters to us on this tiny island because when it comes to our Defence Forces and their future, the Government needs to make clear whether it is nudging them towards an EU army and involvement with PESCO, or whether we will be keeping our traditional and valued neutrality. The people need to know and they have a right to know so I ask the Minister and the Taoiseach to make that clear. Are we keeping our neutral status or are we not? Is this what Fine Gael wants? The Government might get its fancy new war gear and jet fighters but it is a double-edged sword because sooner or later it will be expected to use them.

Given the experiences of the Women of Honour and the kind of culture that suggests, it is not entirely surprising that the Defence Forces are haemorrhaging personnel. A recommendation of particular interest to me and to my party is that of representative association affiliation with ICTU. The Government could take this powerful yet simple step immediately and show its concern for members of the forces and their best interests. Such a move would indicate to the committed members of our forces that, just as they are tasked to mind us, the State is prepared to mind them and their families, because theirs is such a tough job, physically and emotionally.

We live in an unprecedented time of change and the world is facing a crisis in human existence due to climate change. We already know how wonderful our Defence Forces are in times of crisis. I know many of them personally because they live in my constituency of north Kildare. Our primary focus should be on investing in, recruiting and retaining personnel and the people in our Defence Forces. I welcome that the Minister, the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces, the Secretary General of the Department of Defence, and members of representative associations are due to appear at the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence in the time ahead. That will be a very important meeting. I welcome the report but most important, I look forward to action on it.

Deputy Paul Murphy

This report is an attempt to soften public opinion for a massive increase in military spending and, linked to that, further integration and co-operation with NATO. That is the truth. The logic of the report makes no sense in its own terms. If you believe the line from all these people, who half the time are in favour of further integration with NATO, that really this is about protecting neutrality, the logic does not make sense. The reason given in the report for why we need to massively expand the amount of money we spend on the military is that if we do not, we will not have "a credible military capability to protect Ireland, its people and its resources for any sustained period." On that basis, the proposal is to triple the spending on the military, to €3 billion a year. No amount of money that a country like Ireland could spend would provide the basis for a sustained military encounter with any sort of major state.

The British spend 20 times that amount every year. Russia spends 20 times that amount every year. The US spends 200 times that amount every year.

Deputy Simon Coveney

Has the Deputy read the report?

Deputy Paul Murphy

I have read the report.

Deputy Simon Coveney

It does not sound like it.

Deputy Paul Murphy

I have read the report. I will get to the point. That logic makes no sense. How can the Minister explain it? How the Minister explains it, if anyone who reads the report will see, is in the 44 references to NATO. I will quote just one. They are all like this. It states, the need "for the Defence Forces to be trained and equipped to NATO standards". It is because they can have further operations in line with NATO. That is what this is about.

If you listened to the remarks of Deputy Cathal Crowe from Fianna Fáil, criticising the Government for not being hard enough on the Russian military operations in the exclusive economic zone, EEZ, think of how that was spun by the media and by the Government. We are against all military operations. We are against the military training exercises by the Russians in the EEZ and out of the EEZ, but we are also against the operations of NATO warships that happen in the EEZ all the time. I asked the Minister for a list of all those exercises other than Irish exercises within EEZ waters over the past 20 years and he would not give me an answer. The Minister stated that data have been collated but stated, "It is not unusual for naval ships or vessels of other States to carry out training exercises within the Irish EEZ or to passage through this area." It is not unusual. As to which countries, they are NATO countries. They use Shannon Airport day in, day out. Over 1 million US troops passed through Shannon Airport. Who knows how many people were brought back the other way in terms of rendition flights?

I will deal with one particular issue, which is the squadron of jet combat planes. A single one of these planes, for example, the Saab Gripen, which is mentioned in one of the submissions, costs €75 million apiece and we are talking about buying a squadron of 12 or 24 of those. One of these planes is the equivalent of a housing estate of 350 houses. Twelve aeroplanes will not scare off the Russians, the British, the Americans, the Chinese or whoever but 12 new housing estates would make a real impact for thousands of people. A full squadron of jets would cost €1.8 billion - more than the national children's hospital. At least the children's hospital will serve a real purpose. This is simply giving money to armaments companies - dealers of death - for no purpose other than some macho posturing.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I was just reading over the debate in January 2003 in the Oireachtas in advance of the Gulf War when then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Brian Cowen, got up and defended what we now know to be an absolute pack of lies told by the US Government, US military intelligence, the British Government and British military intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that did not exist. Brian Cowen and others said there was a real danger they existed and something had to be done and the consequences of this were absolutely devastating for Iraq. Weapons of mass destruction that did not exist except in dodgy dossiers and lies told, primarily by the United States and Britain, led to the massacre of hundreds of thousands of people and the devastation of Iraq. Here we have the Government today doing exactly the same in a completely one-sided assessment of military intelligence provided, primarily by the United States and Britain, about the threat of imminent war from Russia. There is no critical assessment.

As I have said to the Minister, Deputy Coveney, I think Putin is a thug. He is a militarist. He has done horrific things in Chechnya. The Minister is happy to talk about his threat, but not about the record of the United States, Britain and NATO and what their agenda is. There is not a word of criticism.

That is why I do not trust this report. I do not trust the agenda behind it. I do not trust Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael with our military neutrality because they have trashed it. They have allowed us to be complicit in the slaughter of innocent people in Iraq with devastating consequences for the Middle East. I do not trust this.

It is fairly ironic that we are talking about fighter jets, the need to defend ourselves and €500 million extra - or is it €2 billion - which is what NATO wants and which is what the militarists in the European Union want us to do. They want to go along with that but when it comes to paying the soldiers who might be sent out to die in these situations, the vast majority of them are on less than the average industrial wage. Moreover, the EU working time directive does not apply to them so that they have to work overtime for free, they do not get the housing they used to get any more and they are affected by the housing crisis and so on. Why does the Government not pay the soldiers? If it has so much respect for the Defence Forces, it should pay the soldiers decent money. It is a joke. They will have all these new ships and aeroplanes and the Government cannot even have the number of Defence Forces personnel that we need because the pay and conditions are so rubbish. The Government should pay the Defence Forces properly and let them be affiliated to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions but it should stop trashing Irish military neutrality and actually restore it, and stop signing up with warmongers. Whether it is NATO, the US or, for that matter, Russia, neutrality means neutrality.

Deputy Mick Barry

The report's level of ambition option 3 states, "As part of a national Air Defence Plan, the Air Corps would develop an air combat and intercept capability through the acquisition of a squadron of jet combat aircraft". This is total madness. A squadron is made up of between 12 and 24 aircraft. The average procurement cost of a single fighter aircraft in the NATO area is €99 million. The average cost to maintain and operate such an aircraft for a year is €8.8 million. What could you buy with that kind of money if you prioritised real priorities? You could build 8,000 houses for the price of a 16-strong squadron, if the houses cost €200,000 each to build. You could provide more than 4,000 hospital beds at a cost of €375,000 each. You could hire an extra 3,500 nurses. For the price of just three aircraft, you could abolish all third level fees. What is the price for our environment?

Deputy Simon Coveney

The report does not recommend that we do that.

Deputy Mick Barry

The report recommends that we consider it as an option, if the Minister would not mind stopping interrupting. Deputy Coveney is very jumpy in this discussion, if he does not mind me making the observation. It is the Minister's fifth intervention in the space of 15 minutes. I will continue.

Deputy Simon Coveney

This is a serious report that deserves a serious debate on the basis of its recommendations.

Deputy Mick Barry

The Minister will get a serious debate-----

Deputy Simon Coveney

Deputy Barry is spinning it into something that it is not.

Deputy Mick Barry

-----not the kind of soft points that he has got from his backbenchers. The Minister will get a real debate from these benches.

Deputy Simon Coveney

Deputy Barry is spinning it into something that it is not.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister should let the Deputy continue.

Deputy Mick Barry

What is the price for our environment? Just three missions from one F-35 fighter jet would result in more carbon emissions than that of the entire fleet of Bus Éireann for a year. I did not hear the Green Party raise any points about this in the debate. That is what I mean when I talked about soft points.

This is the price that the Minister, Deputy Coveney, would ask us to consider as he aims to beef up the military in preparation for increased co-operation with NATO. If €3 billion a year on the Defence Forces is a complete non-runner, then LOA 2's €1.5 billion a year is not a price I would be prepared to pay either for increased expenditure on armaments. What I favour is an increase in spending to end the scourge of low pay that afflicts the Defence Forces and makes it so difficult to recruit and to retain staff. All of the rest should go on social projects, not least health and housing in our society.

Deputy Neale Richmond

I wish to share time with Deputy McGuinness.

I have a well-prepared few remarks here but, much like myself and Deputy Paul Murphy 20 years ago in the debating chambers of University College Dublin, UCD, we might as well respond to one another because that is why we are here.

I will not necessarily be giving the Minister "soft points", as Deputy Barry has being laying out, but I will be making some of the points to the Minister that I have made to him in person, at our party meetings and publicly.

This report is a welcome report. It is a tough read for many of us on this side of the House, including the Minister. I welcome the Minister's personal endeavours and efforts to rectify many of the wrongs that are cited in this report - pay being part of it - but I must ask the Deputies opposite, when they talk about pay, to explain what we are paying the members of the Defence Forces to do. Is it to implement social programmes or to defend the country? I heard earlier Deputy Paul Murphy talking about welfare over warfare. That is an extremely welcome comment. I agree with the Deputy but if he lived in Estonia and the welfare system was shut down for three days due to a cyberattack by the Russian Government, what is the use?

We need to have the systems, resources and attention to be able to keep people safe, to ensure that the housing that is going to be built and the social programmes are not going to be manipulated by state and non-state actors.

I am not relying on dodgy intelligence; I am relying on the intelligence and evidence of state and non-state actors who are clearly putting out their intention by massing troops. We must be fundamentally honest with ourselves. The days are gone when we could bury our heads in the sand and say we can be neutral and condemn Putin, and then turn around and condemn countries that are our natural partners and allies. We must remember the European Union. I did not interrupt Deputy Barry despite his direct comments to me and what he said to the Minister. We are members of the European Union and we do have allies. We do not spend time on this globe alone. We must be serious about our responsibilities. I accept that 12 fighter jets on their own will not work as a deterrent, but that is why we have to work in partnership. There are other militarily neutral countries in the European Union that can contribute far more than we do, such as Sweden, Austria and Finland.

There is a level of ambition in this report that is welcome, and it should be embraced. I believe it can be embraced by the vast majority of people in this House if we work together. We must ensure that we have proper systems of redress in the context of pay negotiations as well as proper redress to ensure that the culture and environment in which members of the Defence Forces work is appropriate but, equally, that we have a system whereby we can work with natural allies to ensure that Ireland and its people and interests are protected. At the moment, when we look at the threats on the very near horizons, be it our sea border or on the eastern flank of the European Union, there are growing state and non-state threats that we have to be fundamentally concerned about.

The cyberattack on the HSE last summer devastated families throughout this country. We are talking about upgrading computers and systems in the HSE. Deputy Boyd Barrett referred to it earlier when the Taoiseach answered parliamentary questions. I fundamentally agree with him. We must make sure that the systems and its computers are safe. That is not just about downloading antivirus software, it is about working with partners to ensure that we have the intelligence and resources to secure those systems in every way possible.

When we talk about this report, we are not just talking about individuals or systems; we are talking about the tools required and the manner of using them. Our Defence Forces have to be properly equipped. There are ambitions in this report that are far reaching. I fundamentally believe that they need to be embraced. I do not believe it is a case of either this or that; we must look at this in terms of the responsibilities of the Government to protect every member of society. We ensure that the members of An Garda Síochána are able to go out on the streets, properly protected and informed. We ensure that they have a relationship with the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Metropolitan Police Service and police services across the European Union in order that they can work to counter criminal activity. It is the same with the Defence Forces. We must work in partnerships that suit us, but we have to be able to bring something to the table. We have great resources in the State. We have great experience in terms of counterterrorism work and building technological systems across the public and private sectors. We have something to bring, but at the moment when we speak to European colleagues, we are not bringing enough in terms of collective responsibility. That is not talking about the myth of a European army or the over-militarisation of the war machine that is the EU; rather, it is the quite simple basic responsibility of every government in any functioning western democracy to ensure its people in the state and around the world are kept safe.

I welcome this report. The Minister can rely on my support not just on soft points. I urge him, as I have before and as I will continue to do, to embrace it and to work with partners across the political realm, in the public sector and in the private sector, but most importantly with the current and former serving members of the Defence Forces to ensure that those Defence Forces are fit for purpose, not just for today but for the next ten to 20 years. I look forward to having many more opportunities in this Chamber and beyond to bring about the full implementation of the recommendations in the report.

Deputy John McGuinness

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Defence Forces and this report. I come from Kilkenny city, where James Stephens Barracks is located and where the oldest unit in the Defence Forces, The Bloods, are stationed. I know the value of having the barracks in the constituency. I also know the loyalty and support that family members give to members of the Defence Forces in the context of carrying out their duties. I have heard many debates in this House on the Defence Forces and improving their lot, as it were. They ranged in time from leading objections to the closure of barracks, and ensuring that the barracks in Kilkenny remained open. Every so often, an attempt would be made to reconfigure the armed forces and to reconfigure the location of barracks, but Kilkenny always survived. During the course of those debates, the issue of pay arose. I would love to see any effort to improve the Defence Forces, starting with the personnel and their wages. A significant amount of work needs to be done to improve the human resource element of the Defence Forces and its management. I want to see the members of the Defence Forces being paid a lot more. I also want to see an end to the contracts. Any restructuring of the command in the Defence Forces must be structured in a way that acknowledges fully the role of the soldiers as they enlist and proceed in their career in a legitimate and transparent way through the ranks of the Army. To my mind, that does not happen at present. We need to make it happen.

I call for an investment in personnel and in the existing barracks around the country. A significant investment is needed in Kilkenny barracks. The waters are muddied in terms of investments in barracks when we hear about the barracks in Dublin being investigated for the provision of houses. We must get our facts right about that. That sends out messages to barracks in other locations and gives rise to the question of whether they are next. We must be clear about this. We have barracks such as the one in Kilkenny that are established and well run. They are part of the history and the delivery of services through the armed forces. They have been part of our missions abroad, which built up the reputation and respect Army personnel have both at home and abroad. We need to state clearly our intentions regarding the barracks and the investment that will happen in the coming years. We must also be clear about the improvements that we expect from the ground up and we must ensure that those that are recruited are paid and that they have a pathway to a very positive career ahead of them.

My experience of dealing with the soldiers who are based locally, who I come across in my constituency work, is that they love the job and they are proud of their uniform, yet they feel there is not the level of respect that should be there. That level of respect can come about in many ways. If you respect the personnel within your business unit, you will pay them. I would like to see the pay increase being the first change the Minister will implement. The career pathways in the Army must be open to all of the new aspects of defending a country such as cybersecurity. We must examine that and ensure that the Defence Forces are properly funded and that the personnel are properly paid for what they do.

I would also like to see better organisation for retired soldiers, the Organisation of National Ex-Service Personnel, ONE, and those who represented our country in the past. I believe they are badly treated. I meet them on occasion and I know of the fundraising they have to do to ensure that those who are retired and in need of housing or financial support are given that support. If we are to be proud of our Defence Forces generally, we should ensure they are looked after in their retirement. It is similar with those who are ex-Army and who are now participating in independent groups that are presenting the past to us in all of these celebrations, such as Kevin McCormack, who is an activist in this area. They put on great shows of support for the Army by way of the old uniforms, old vehicles and so on. There is a lot that can be done to improve morale within the forces. Those steps should be taken first before any other major investment is put in place.

I want to mention the women the Minister met. Issues like that have to be dealt with immediately, with no holding back - you take the issue, you deal with it and you act honourably. I am not saying the Minister did not do so. I am saying that he would act honourably in terms of dealing with the situation.

I spoke to Donal and Liz Jevens today. Cadet David Jevens died as a member of the Air Corps. His parents are seeking the truth in respect of that accident. I ask the Minister to respond to them, given that the Garda and the Commissioner are now involved. They would welcome a more open and transparent way of dealing with their case. As I said, the Commissioner is involved. I urge the Minister to take an interest in what the Commissioner is doing and respond accordingly to the family.

I support any initiative that will improve the Defence Forces and their conditions and that pathway to a greater career. I urge the Minister to start immediately in seeking the funds to ensure that all of this will happen sooner rather than later.

Deputy Patricia Ryan

I welcome the report despite it being further evidence of the failure of successive Governments to address our country's defence needs. The immediate priority for the Government must be to address the exodus of personnel which is challenging the capacity of the Defence Forces to carry out their current responsibilities.

I visited the Curragh Camp last week and witnessed at first-hand the absolute state of the place. It has been allowed to decay so much that the soldiers who have been in Lebanon must be very at home when they come back. I do not know how anyone works there. A once vibrant barracks and community have been left to rot. It is because of gross mismanagement by successive Governments that it is in this state. It is disgraceful.

Speaking of mismanagement, I must raise again the dumping at the hollow next to Donnelly’s Hollow in the Curragh. Somebody from the Department of Defence thought it would be a great idea to carry out large-scale dumping in such an important area for the biodiversity of our county. It seems we will never know who made this decision because the system closed ranks to protect the wrongdoer. Where have we heard this before? The secret deal done in mediation must be exposed. Have we not moved on from this carry-on that used to happen regularly decades ago?

The old Curragh post office is left to decay into rack and ruin. The last hope for the future, the Curragh post-primary school, instead of being expanded is being moved out of the area to Kildare town. There is plenty of capacity in both areas and I urge the Government to reconsider this decision.

The report recommends the granting of approval for affiliation to ICTU and the Government must do this without delay. This would send an important message to Defence Forces personnel that there is a willingness to take the necessary steps to address the haemorrhaging of staff. Many Defence Forces personnel have a proud tradition of service but the Minister and I both know that pride cannot pay their bills.

It must also be categorically stated that the principle of Irish neutrality is central to any discussion surrounding the role of the Defence Forces and we must question the direction which the Government appears to be leading the Defence Forces, which is towards full participation in PESCO and an EU army. Any discussions around Ireland's security needs must take place with a clear understanding that we are and intend to remain a neutral country, and investment in our Defence Forces must be to allow us to remain militarily neutral - in fact, not just in name.

The report advocates a €2 billion annual increase in defence spending. Instead of spending it on defence, we could make huge progress with housing. With an extra €2 billion, we could deliver 12,000 real social homes, 4,000 affordable rental homes and 4,000 affordable purchase homes, and still have enough money to reduce rents by introducing a refundable tax credit, put one month’s rent back into renters’ pockets and introduce a ban on rent increases for three years. The reason I say this is that soldiers are citizens too and they need housing. We could improve our health service. An extra €2 billion could deliver 932 additional beds, including 248 specialist community beds across mental health, addiction recovery and palliative care. We would still have money left over to recruit more than 6,250 additional staff, including consultants, nurses, psychologists, occupational therapists and physiotherapists. We could reduce the cost of healthcare by expanding GP card eligibility for carers and children, cutting the cost of prescriptions and phasing out hospital parking and inpatient charges, and we would still have money left over to phase in free GP care.

The reason I am stating all of this is that the Minister and I both know politics is about choices. Yes, our Defence Forces need investment but this should be around ensuring it is a good place to work, ensuring that working conditions are sufficient for a modern defence force and ensuring it is fit for purpose. It should not be about bringing us up to PESCO level or NATO level. The first step must be to improve the basic pay of Defence Forces personnel, 20% of whom are on wages so low that they are in receipt of working family payment. By all means increase military spending to ensure the working conditions and equipment are fit for purpose, but not to involve ourselves in military action to which we should not be a party.

Deputy Cathal Berry

I thank the Minister and the Minister of State for their detailed opening statements. I am very grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate and I very much welcome the publication of the report. I join with other Deputies in commending the 16 commissioners for their hard work over the past 13 or 14 months. They delivered the report pretty much on time, despite the Covid pandemic. I would also like to thank every single Deputy and every single party in this House. Long before I became a Member of this House, I used to track the debates and it was obvious there was a lot of common ground when it comes to the defensive perspective. Every single party here is very much in favour of our troops from a pay, housing and healthcare point of view, and that has not gone unnoticed.

The third group of people I would like to thank is the wider Defence Forces community for their support in recent years - everybody from those involved in the Respect and Loyalty parades to the wives and partners of the Defence Forces. Much of what they were advocating for is contained in this report. I hope they can recognise their fingerprints on this report when they read it over time, because a lot of what they asked for is already here.

We have a very good blueprint. It is a blueprint to restore the spirit of the Defence Forces to the once proud organisation it was, even just ten years ago, but it must be implemented. What the report has achieved, even already, is that it is now possible to have a normal civilised, courteous, rational debate and discussion on defence and security matters, just like other countries that exist around the world.

I have five points to make. The first relates to levels of ambition, LOAs. The report is quite clear in that it practically compares the Defence Forces to this country’s Swiss army knife, which is very important. There is massive utility in our armed forces. As they displayed quite effectively during the Covid pandemic, there is no end to the skills and talents on display. They can orientate themselves to any threat, whether it is a biological pandemic, a severe weather event or a security event. It identifies three levels of ambition, as the Minister outlined. A good comparison is an insurance policy. Defence forces are not just needed in times of conflict; they are also needed in times of peace in order to provide national resilience.

If Ireland was a car, LOA 1 would be the equivalent of third party-only insurance, LOA 2 would third-party fire and theft insurance and LOA 3 would be a comprehensive insurance policy. One of the key findings of the report is that we have not even reached LOA 1 yet; it is stating that Ireland does not have an insurance policy. If Ireland was a car, I would say that not only do we not have an insurance policy, we do not even have motor tax or the national car test, NCT. We have bald tyres and the single driver who is in charge of the vehicle is utterly demoralised and exhausted. Those are the key takeaway points for me.

The second issue I would like to raise is capability development. This report is all about capability development from a land, sea, air and cyber point of view. We will start with the maritime. Only in the past two or three years have we begun to realise that our maritime area of responsibility is about eight times larger than our jurisdiction. There has been an awakening to that, particularly from the point of view of offshore wind energy generation. We need an effective navy for a number of reasons. First, from a search and rescue point of view, our fishers, trawlers and commercial transport ships need to be rescued in times of great crisis. A search and rescue capability is imperative in that regard. Second, we need a deterrent from a smuggling point of view. We know that vulnerable people are being trafficked into this country, that fugitives can come and go as they please and that weapons and drugs are being brought in. In the past 12 months alone, two submarines full of drugs were found in Spain. Those vessels came across the Atlantic from the Amazon. We have no way of detecting whether there are submarines in our maritime area of responsibility. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I was not going to touch on the air perspective but it has been the subject of much public commentary and has been mentioned this evening. It is a peripheral part of the report but the main driver to increase our air policing capability is not the Defence Forces, although they are in favour of it. If one reads its submission, one will see that the Irish Aviation Authority was the main driver because it recognises that being able to have a recognised air picture is really important from a flight safety point of view. We do not have any primary military grade radar and we are the only one of 27 EU countries that does not have that capability. We need to be able to identify aircraft in our airspace that do not have transponders. We know that drugs are being flown in here late at night to small airstrips but we have no way of detecting the aeroplanes carrying them.

The air intercept capability is aspirational for 2040. It is only an option for consideration. The report is right to mention it. It is important to say that those involved are not looking to create this service but, rather, to re-establish it. We had this service in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, when the country was much poorer than it is now. The report looks at considering re-establishing it. Again, this is about flight safety. Only last week in a different country, a commercial airliner lost communications and immediately supersonic aircraft were scrambled and vectored to the location to eyeball the cockpit and confirm that the pilots were awake and could re-establish communications and that the aircraft had not been hijacked. That is important from a flight safety point of view.

I like what Deputy Brady mentioned earlier on about the access the Royal Air Force has been granted to Irish airspace in extreme situations. That was brought in 20 years ago in the aftermath of 9/11 in just such an emergency, and I can totally understand the context of that. I am not sure what the Minister’s thoughts on that would be but 20 years on it is probably time we had a debate on that matter. We have shown tonight that we can have a mature conversation about these things now. If we require an air policing service the logical question is whether we should provide it ourselves or if we should ask another country to do so. My preference is that we would provide it for ourselves because I am in favour of us becoming a neutral country and not relying on other people. That matter is worthy of debate, perhaps between now and the summer recess. Such a debate would be useful.

I refer to land capability development. This is about increasing our intelligence capability and again this is all about people. Deputy Boyd Barrett said it is important that we have independent analysis capability and that we are not relying on other countries. An intelligence capability would give us that early warning to prevent incidents happening. Special forces capability needs to be improved so we can intervene before an incident happens. Cybersecurity is essential. We have seen the effects of the HSE cyberattack last summer, which were devastating. It is important that we have a resilient, organised and hardened cybersecurity service to make sure the country is properly protected.

People are essential and the report mentions this. A rifle is only as good as the soldier behind it and an aeroplane is only as good as its pilot. As a mariner, the Minister will be aware that a ship is only as good as its crew. We really have to address the personnel issue in our Defence Forces and there is virtual unanimity in the Chamber on that. The pay problem needs to be resolved. Removing the prohibition on Defence Forces representative associations to affiliate with ICTU is a good start. I was hoping that might be announced today but I appreciate that it is appropriate that the representative associations get the courtesy of consultation in advance of that. I understand that should be forthcoming in the next while. The reason the Defence Forces are the poorest-paid public servants is they have been locked out of the pay talks for the past 30 years because they have not been allowed to affiliate with ICTU. I accept that they get the general round increases like every other public servant, but they do not have access to the chairman’s notes or to the lucrative side deals that other sectors get. Over a 30-year period a significant gap has opened between military and normal pay in the country. With the pay talks coming up at the end of this year I would like to think that the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform would have an empathetic and sympathetic ear when it comes to redressing that injustice that has occurred over the last 30 years.

My constituency colleague, Deputy Patricia Ryan, mentioned housing and I agree entirely with what she said in her contribution. We can do more from a housing and accommodation perspective from a Defence Forces point of view. We have a housing crisis and it is appropriate that the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage is in the lead but other Departments can support and assist. We know that we can build houses on the Curragh or in Baldonnel without planning permission because it is military property for military families. I would be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts on that because one of the submissions from the commission was from the Wives & Partners of the Defence Forces and it proposed establishing an approved housing body, AHB, within the military. There are dozens of them already but an AHB could be established to take over military accommodation, manage it properly and even draw down funds from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage to build more housing and accommodation on the Curragh or in Baldonnel, where there is plenty of space.

I want to make a point about cost. It has been mentioned that the recommended LOA is to increase the budget by €500 million, which is a big sum. I would argue and contend that the cost of doing nothing would be far more. The cost of the HSE cyberattack, which was only a single attack, is €100 million and rising. One can imagine if we had multiple attacks like that over the course of a year. The key thing is to get ahead of these attacks and prevent them from happening in the first place. Following on from that, the report mentions that we should acquire two new helicopters. It is important that these helicopters would be dual purpose and not exclusively be used for a core military function. For instance, at the moment the Air Corps helicopters are providing an air ambulance service and are completely integrated into the health service. They are also providing an air fire brigade service because whenever there is a bush fire or forest fire they are deployed there. They are used for mountain rescue as well. There is dual technology in these helicopters so an investment is not just being made in the Defence Forces but in national resilience as well.

The report will prove worthless unless it is implemented. I would be grateful if the Minister could indicate if he has somebody in mind to be the independent chair of the implementation body. When are we likely to know who that person is? We discussed this matter at the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence yesterday and we agreed that the committee is at the Minister’s disposal if he wishes and if he thinks it could make a useful contribution on implementation. For instance we could bring in the implementation body every quarter or six months for an update to make sure we drive home implementation.

I welcome the report. It is a great vehicle for change and progress and I want to emphasise that there is an enthusiasm and willingness for change on behalf of the defence community. There is also an expectation for change and we can deliver that.

If we do not implement this report, the Defence Forces will collapse. That said, I agree with the phrase that every good builder uses, which is that rock bottom is the best foundation. We cannot get any lower than this and the only way from here is up.

Deputy Alan Farrell

I thank the authors of this report for their thoroughly comprehensive body of work and recommendations. The report sets out, in a very clear manner, the current state of our Defence Forces and points to various paths that lie ahead for the future of the military, depending on how we in this House and as a society react to the analysis and the warnings contained therein.

We must implement systemic changes within the Defence Forces and the kind of changes required will impact on every aspect of the work they do. Members of the Defence Forces are professionals and are dedicated to the cause of the protection of the nation. However, for too long they have been left without the resources they need to grow and develop into a modern military service. As a result, and as demonstrated in this report, we now have a force that is not fit for purpose.

It is clear that we must make continued investment in our Defence Forces across the Army, Naval Service and Air Corps. Crumbling barracks, ageing equipment and deteriorating vehicles limit the ability of our military to respond to an emergency at home or abroad and limit the potential of the professionals working within the service. As I have mentioned in this House many times, we must also be aware of the urgent need for primary radar to be in operation, something that is long overdue. This has been mentioned by several Deputies today.

We need real reforms from the Government and the Defence Forces themselves to tackle the issue of morale. This will require improvements to pay and conditions, long term investment and importantly, clear career development pathways. Without these reforms we will continue to see the loss of our best and brightest whose expertise will not be easily replaced. The Defence Forces must also change from within. Increasing diversity across the three arms of the service will benefit the entirety of the force. It is also vital that the masculine culture identified in the commission's report is changed utterly and that a culture of gender equality is rapidly developed. This is among the most pressing actions within the report, in my view, and one which the Defence Forces can begin in the short time ahead. As we have seen in recent weeks and as women have known since their early years, Ireland has a long road to travel with regard to gender equality and eliminating casual, everyday sexism from within our society. To tackle this issue we cannot accept that it can be done sector by sector. It must be done across the board in every home, business and organisation in Ireland and it must begin today. Just as our society has changed over time, so too must the arms of the State change and reflect the modern society we are continually striving to become.

As one part of the solution, a robust and effective complaints mechanism for personnel must be put in place. The current situation has given rise to fears of reprisals or of complaints negatively impacting on an individual's career progression. This is neither healthy nor sustainable. A gendered system is present within the military and it must change. This has been driven by a lack of appropriate equipment for female members, inappropriate fitness regimes and an overall patriarchal approach, as identified within the report. As a result, women make up just 7% of the Defence Forces and while I welcome the target of increasing this number to 35%, such an ambitious increase must be backed by clarity of mission and resourcing.

One of the most significant aspects of national security to which we must pay particular attention is the spectre of cyberwarfare. We live in a world that is no longer bound by conventional weapons or geographic borders. An adversary at home or abroad can strike at the heart of the nation's infrastructure from anywhere in the world and wreak havoc on the functions of the State. This is an increasingly common weapon used by criminal groups and rogue states that we cannot ignore. We simply have not invested enough resources or skills into building a comprehensive cybersecurity network. We have seen in our own country, in the aftermath of the HSE cyberattack, the damaging knock-on effects an attack can have. In the last few weeks we have seen significant cyberattacks on the Ukrainian military and Ukrainian banks, the Portuguese Vodafone service and the International Red Cross. The reality is that these attacks are happening all of the time, all over the world. The enhancement of our cybersecurity infrastructure is an essential investment in our future because cyberattacks have the ability to cripple the nation.

It is very clear that we do not want a Defence Forces that is neglected or under-resourced and that cannot adequately protect our citizens. We do not want a force of women and men who do not adequately reflect the diverse society we have now become. We must invest in our women and men in uniform and provide them with the tools to complete their mission, wherever and whatever that might be. I very much look forward to the comprehensive evaluation of this report being presented to these Houses in the autumn for further discussion.

Deputy Jennifer Murnane O'Connor

It is time for a massive programme of reform of the Defence Forces. When Fianna Fáil was in opposition, we called for the establishment of a commission on defence in a motion passed by the Dáil in 2019 and this was an election manifesto commitment for us in 2020 because we knew that there was no clear strategy on what we want for our Defence Forces or on how to fund them correctly.

We know there are massive issues with pay. The family of a Defence Forces employee came to my clinic seeking housing support recently. The family was in receipt of family income support because their income was so low. We also know there are workplace issues relating to discrimination, harassment and sexual misconduct in the Defence Forces. We acknowledge the Women of Honour and their bravery, courage and commitment in telling of their experiences in a public arena in order to bring about change. We must listen to them. There must be a safe working environment for members of the Defence Forces and that means change. Now that we have this report, we must act to bring about fundamental change.

There is a retention and recruitment crisis, a resource crisis and a pay crisis in the Defence Forces. We spend less than most other European countries on defence and we need to change that. I welcome the fact that the Minister is seeking the view of other key stakeholders on the change that is needed. I look forward to the high-level action plan which I understand will be published this summer. We need to see the establishment of a permanent pay review body. This is a really serious issue. I welcome this report because it gives us the space for a conversation about the defence that we need as a modern European country, including the training required for same. There is a disconnect between State policy and resources and we need to change that and to use common sense here. If we are to be ambitious then we must match that with resources. We must pay our Defence Forces properly and ensure the best working environment possible. Action is needed and it must be swift.

I want to compliment the soldiers based in Kilkenny barracks who do an excellent job. They are proud to be working there and proud to be representing their country but we must support them and their families, whether that is with housing or in other areas. We need to support them. I know a lot of members of the Organisation of National Ex-Service Personnel, ONE, in Carlow and urge the Department to ensure that our retired soldiers get adequate support too. The Cathaoirleach of Carlow County Council sent a motion to the Minister about service medals for members of the 35th Infantry Battalion who bravely served during the siege of Jadotville. Former soldiers were denied their service medals. Carlow County Council sent a motion to the Minister but they have still been denied their medals. We must be mindful and respectful of our soldiers and our Defence Forces personnel. We must listen to them and work with them.

Deputy Emer Higgins

I thank the commission for such a comprehensive report. Casement Aerodrome in Baldonnel is in my constituency and from there women and men protect and defend our island nation and carry out life-saving missions. They provide assistance to An Garda Síochána and Civil Defence Ireland in search and rescue missions. They provide support to the HSE in providing urgent medical care. They assist our county councils in dealing with natural disasters like storms and gorse fires, including in Northern Ireland. During Covid, our Defence Forces were there when we needed their help, whether that was with vaccine administration or the delivery of personal protective equipment, PPE, and vaccines. What our servicemen and servicewomen do is incredible and they deserve our full gratitude and support.

That is why the Minister's mission to radically reform our Defence Forces is so welcome. It is clear how seriously that reform is being taken when we see the scope, breadth and detail of the report having considered more than 500 submissions and so many site visits carried out. Overall the report is very ambitious. It seeks significant increases in funding. That is a conversation that I welcome and one that we must have.

The report sets out three scenarios or ambition levels for consideration. A common thread is the desire to increase personnel and equipment so that we can bolster our forces. These need to be examined in the context of our overarching defence strategy and the constraints of our national budgets.

The public was quite concerned by headlines that said Ireland was inadequately equipped to defend itself should it need to. Without the report and this information we cannot do anything about that because knowledge is power. Therefore, I welcome the light the report sheds on the matter. People are our greatest key strategic resource. We need to ensure the Defence Forces is an attractive career as well as a safe, diverse and an inclusive workplace. Much has been said recently about the culture in the Defence Forces. That culture is threaded throughout the report. I know that it is something that the Minister is committed to modernising. One recommendation that I was particularly interested in was the target of 35% female participation. Prior to Covid I had the pleasure of attending an Air Corps women's network event where I had the opportunity to meet many of the service women, and indeed servicemen, who are based in Baldonnel who play a crucial role in supporting communities across the island. I heard first-hand their pitch for how we can make the Air Corps a more attractive career to young people and especially young women and what the Minister can do to support women who take on this career. Their gender should not be a barrier for them. I know the Minister agrees with me on that. At that event we also heard from Lieutenant General Seán Clancy, who was then brigadier general, who is now Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces. I wish him the very best in his role. I ask him to continue to bring his focus on diversity and inclusion within the force to the fore.

I thank all members of every arm of our Defence Forces for their service to our nation, including those who work in my constituency in Baldonnel. I understand it may be rebranded as the Irish air force. However uncomfortable or troubling some of the findings in the report may be, I welcome the knowledge and recommendations it gives us. They are recommendations which we can act on to further improve the Irish Defence Forces.

Deputy Sorca Clarke

I note that the Minister is not present in the Chamber for the remainder of this debate. That is an observation which no doubt serving members and veterans, and their spouses and children will note with some interest given that it is the second time in as many weeks that the Minister has not been here for a debate on the Defence Forces.

Commandant Conor King, the general secretary of RACO has said that without significant retention initiatives there will be no improvement in the staffing gaps. Like it or not, without people there is no capability. He said that it is destined to fail unless we see clearly defined milestones, independent oversight and accountability. I could not agree more because without action this will simply be another report on a shelf and another missed opportunity except this time it will be done in the full knowledge of the implications because this report lays out the stark reality facing our Defence Forces into the future.

What the report truly lays bare is that one reaps what one sows or, in this case, what one could not have bothered to sow. For years we have seen plans and reports put forward by successive Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour Party, Green Party and a dolly mixture of others who were in government at the time that were blatant in their lack of recognition of the vital role of the Defence Forces and of the threats and potential threats to the State. Whether it was equipment, built infrastructure, Air Corps, Army, Naval Service, Reserves and veterans, the entire spectrum of the Defence Forces was seen as low-hanging fruit. It was almost as if they were unworthy of meaningful resourcing and yet increasingly expected to do more with less as numbers diminished. I do not accept for one minute that when the nature of conflict began changing and the impact of climate change and its associated human cost was developing, no single person in the Government or the Department thought our Defence Forces would not have a role to play or did not appreciate the impact that a lack of investment would have. Nor do I believe that when representative bodies and others raised concerns about the haemorrhaging of talent and skills, not one person thought to take action. I believe, however, that there was a deliberate decision to ignore what was happening. This ostrich approach has created, facilitated and resulted in the situation which faces our Defence Forces today.

What truly galls me is that this was done with an attitude towards the greatest asset that the Defence Forces have - its people who serve the State often generation to generation - that meant their willingness to serve could almost be exploited to such a degree that low pay and poor conditions were acceptable. They are not acceptable nor will they ever be acceptable. One serving member on the working family payment is one too many. One family food parcel or homeless veteran is one too many.

The 2012 filleting of the Army was a mistake. It was an unmitigated disaster and tore the heart out of the Army, particularly in the midlands. I will be parochial here because today in my constituency of Longford-Westmeath there remain two closed barracks with no true defined purpose for over a decade. One remains operational in Athlone. The impact that reorganisation had on the Army was profound. It was a very public example of that lack of vision and appreciation of the impact it would have on the wider structure. I remember the closure of those barracks as do countless others in my constituency. I remember serving members of the Army sleeping in cars because they could not afford the price of fuel to go home. As for the barracks which remain, the height of vision for Custume Barracks in the infrastructure plan was a new dining hall. We should all be very grateful that a modern army no longer marches on it stomach because given the current level of food ration allowances they would be lucky to get past Coosan. At the very core, and something that is reflected in the report, is respect and loyalty. The respect and loyalty shown by those in the military life has never been recognised by the Government. Instead it is treated with a lack of interest and disdain. The evidence of that is the repeated, successive and systemic failures by those tasked with overseeing the Defence Forces, the deafness scandal, Lariam, the side effects of hazardous chemicals at Baldonnel, the Women of Honour and others with similar experiences, barracks crumbling, sleeping quarters with actual holes in the ceiling and an Air Corps that is not able to see into our sky or a Naval Service that is unable to see below sea level. The 123 recommendations are not going to be easily achieved and some require a much wider conversation and decisions. However, none will be achieved while respect and loyalty is not reciprocated. The two-way street is absolutely vital for the future of our Defence Forces.

Deputy Michael Collins

The Defence Forces have been under-resourced for decades. It is astonishing to know that Ireland’s Defence Forces could not adequately protect itself from the risk of an attack should one happen. The recent report was probably the most significant report on the Defence Forces in 50 years. It looks like the Minister has inherited a total mess from his predecessor which raises serious questions. Was he asleep at the wheel for a number of years leaving the current Minister and our State to clean up huge messes with the continuous under-resourcing of the Defence Forces?

Then there are the Women of Honour revelations. I may add that it is now alleged that previous Ministers knew of these allegations and brushed them under the carpet. An independent investigation has to be called for here to see who knows what and when they knew it, as it very much looks like someone sat on their hands on this hugely important issue for the women in the Defence Forces.

This and other things that have taken place in the Defence Forces show the height of incompetence by the previous Minister or Ministers. Even the Minister of State, Deputy Chambers, called it out on numerous occasions when in opposition.

We, the State, are now left with options. One is to maintain the Defence Forces in its current form but increasing spending by tens of millions of euro on the current budget of €1.1 billion.

The second option is to enable the Defence Forces to hire more people and to purchase the likes of radar equipment and military aircraft. This would cost about €500 million extra annually. The third option is to significantly increase the Defence Forces capabilities and this would involve the purchase of fighter jets, which looks like it would cost €3 billion each year to fund.

It is going to be hugely challenging for the Government to respond to this report due, as I said earlier, to the previous Minister of State with responsibility for defence's incompetence. We have fallen miles behind in what many would say is the real world. The recent report was a fine piece of work but was it the Russians making a move off our south-west coast that woke this Government up? It made our country look weak and sloppy. When a few fishermen from west Cork sat down with the Russians much of this worry off our coast receded.

Why have we not been proactive instead of reactive on our Defence Forces? When talking about defence, why do people like confrontational talk instead of doing as the west Cork fishermen did and sitting down and peacefully negotiating a solution suitable to all? It is obvious Ireland could not adequately protect itself from any risk of an attack should one happen. In a world that can at times be so volatile no one ever knows, but we could well face attack. I genuinely ask whether there is a political will in this country to make changes.

If we look at the last Government, the Minister of State with responsibility for defence, Deputy Kehoe, did nothing to make changes. How can this instil any confidence in the public that this Government will make the drastic changes that now need to be made? The paltry amount spent to date on defence by our Government has left Ireland wide open. What successive Governments have spent to date reflects poorly on the priority of defence in Ireland. I do not understand how some commentators are questioning us spending money and why we now have to make a political argument to spend potentially hundreds of million of euro on the Defence Forces to protect our own people when much of this should have been spent already, down through the years. In the recent report, our Defence Forces were looked at in the same way as those of eight other similar countries that have made significant investment in their defence forces down through the years and that are not falling behind like we have in this island.

The issue of pay in the Defence Forces is once again a historical and controversial issue that was left to drag on by the current Minister's predecessors. Many feel the way forward here could be a simple measure to allow the two military representative organisations to affiliate with ICTU on the issue of pay. It is wrong that military representatives had been locked out of national pay talks for decades. This has led to a widening gap between military pay and other pay. It would be wrong of any politician in here not to co-operate on spending the necessary funds to bring our Defence Forces up to some kind of recognisable standards and to allow this country stand proud and have the ability to protect itself if any danger arises.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I am also happy to speak on these matters. I welcome the report, although a report is not much good to struggling Army personnel. I am awfully disappointed. I come from south Tipperary. We had a very proud record with the Army in Clonmel. We had a wonderful barracks and battalion there. It served with dignity and looked after the townspeople whenever there were floods or any other kind of disasters. The soldiers were the first out to help. The Minister of State's Fine Gael Government robbed us of that. Phil Hogan moved them to Kilkenny. To hell or to Connacht. Some of them went to Limerick. Many of them left. We are now in a situation that is totally untenable for the Army. It is blindfolded with its hands behind its back. There is no capability in the Naval Service and very little in the Air Corps. While I welcome the recent Cabinet decision to reinstate the helicopter in the south east and the search and rescue, I am disappointed the Air Corps has no part in that, even on a supporting basis. What are we doing? Are we going to stand it down completely? We are giving out huge, lucrative contracts to private companies. Our Army could be used to supplement and complement that outcome.

I refer to the Women of Honour. My goodness, how much more do they have to endure? Why can they not be listened to and dealt with sensibly? Deputy Michael Collins mentioned Deputy Kehoe, who formerly had responsibility for this area. He did not care for the Army. He showed arrogance toward the personnel in Clonmel and different places. We were so embarrassed. In my own village there are Army personnel who served in Lebanon and other dangerous parts of the world. I salute all members of the Defence Forces who served in peacekeeping. We did not have an Army personnel carrier. They were booked to come home to their families, with christenings and everything planned, but they were waiting for more than two weeks in the heat of midsummer with no personnel to bring home our own soldiers. What are we at? They were out there serving our nation's flag proudly and we abandoned them. It was two or three weeks before they could get home, which was past the time they were supposed be home. Imagine the weight on and the angst among the families during that time. It was a very degrading thing to do to them.

Where do we go now? The report recommends a number of measures. All involve large sums of money but it is like a car in that if it is totally clapped-out you are going to get nothing for it. We should have been investing. We all appreciate there were cuts back in 2009 and 2010 but we have cut and cut. I salute the former Minister of State, Willie Penrose, of the Labour Party who stood with honour and resigned his position to defend the barracks and soldiers in the midlands. Others, like our own from Tipperary, just voted with the Government, Tá, Tá, Tá, to get rid of the barracks. It was a disaster for the town of Clonmel. It was as bad as losing any industry. I refer to the dignity and the pride and the Army women. The Army members could not lobby but the Army wives lobbied so hard. They literally begged the politicians. Their morale was so low as well because they were not listened to. They were crushed.

As I said, we have a proud record, going back a great length of time to the mission in Congo, of serving abroad and being recognised as an independent nation. Now we do not know what we are. We do not know whether we are independent, neutral or what we are. We are neither this nor that. We have debates here about PESCO and many other things. We are not really being honest with ourselves when we put our hand on our heart and say we are neutral. We are not. We are being laughed at and being used. We are depending on aircraft from other countries to defend our waters and our airspace. We conceded that after 9/11 and that was a temporary arrangement. The fact is we do not have the jets to defend our country. What kind of pride have we in our nation that we allow this to go on? I would say there is none.

The Minister of State's party has been in government for ten or 11 years and it cares little for the Army. Of course, soldiers would not mainly be Fine Gael voters. Pay and conditions are atrocious. Defence Forces' members are going to supplementary welfare officers begging for a pittance. The other big bugbear I have is around when dignitaries visit. We recently got news that Prince Charles will be visiting my constituency shortly. He will be asked about Bloody Sunday and those issues and they must not be swept under the carpet but he is paying a visit that will be respected by the people of Tipperary and he will be welcome. I am sure the Army will be there supporting An Garda Síochána. Army members are like third-class citizens with the treatment they get. They do not get any of the stipends, a proper place to sleep or proper food parcels. It is despicable the way they are treated. They are treated like fourth- or fifth-class citizens. We saw that when President Trump and different people came, such as when his Holiness the Pope came to Ireland. It is shocking we would treat the defenders of our nation, flag and sovereignty like that. The disrespect we have for Army personnel is shocking and must change. That report is useless if we do not show them the respect and dignity they deserve and have them be able to serve with pride and honour for the sake of their country, which is what they signed up to do. We have such a drain of pilots and others to private industry. I am appealing to the Government to show personnel respect and dignity and to look after the Women of Honour also.

Deputy Patrick Costello

Like many Deputies, I welcome the publication of this report. Our Defence Forces do an excellent job and need to be supported in that and recognised for the work they do for us. I spoke before in the House about the Defence Forces and said quite frequently we see them reported on in the media in negative terms, such as in the context of the crisis of recruitment, the poor pay and conditions, the poverty of Army families and the challenges we face. What we really have is a vast body of men and women whose role, job and vocation is to support the State and stand in the way of whatever dangers we may ask them to. It is positive the report of the commission talks a lot about the impact of climate change because as that bites and the floods, storms and adverse weather conditions get worse, it is only the Defence Forces we can rely on in that role of aid to the civil power. That means standing in the breach, providing the bridges we will need, the airlifts and the support to cut-off communities.

They have done that in excellent ways in the past. We have a proud tradition in this country of involvement in the United Nations and peacekeeping work. Many young men and women want to be part of that tradition. They do not see the Army, however, as an appealing place to work because of all these problems. The vocation for international duties and peacekeeping work has been tarnished by cosying up to things such as PESCO and various other multilateral arrangements.

We are at a turning point when it comes to our Defence Forces. The commission was an excellent exercise. It has done its work and we in this Chamber and Ministers at the Cabinet table have a lot of hard work to do. There are many things to welcome in this report, such as commitments to increase recruitment and to reorganise structures. There is talk of the creation of a new rank of lance corporal, which is very positive in acknowledging progression, in addition to providing leadership opportunities and career development opportunities. There is a recommendation around affiliation with ICTU, which is a very important thing for PDFORRA and on-the-ground members of the Defence Forces. These are essential things we need to do, if we are to hit these new targets and increase recruitment. Equally, we need to address the many things driving people to leave the Defence Forces. Pay and conditions were not considered as part of the terms of reference. The report is silent on those matters, but we need to address them if we are to have any hope of recruiting the extra personnel the commission talks about us needing.

The members of the Women of Honour group mentioned by other Deputies need all the supports they are looking for in order that we can ensure the Defence Forces, as everywhere else, is a safe place to work and will be an appealing place for women to work. There is a vocation to serving in the Defence Forces that is not just for men. If they are provided with a safe place, women will happily sign up to that vocation of international service and aid to civilian power.

We talk about purchasing new ships for the Naval Service but we struggle to crew the ships we have at present. I do not understand how we will expand our Naval Service. We can talk about whether we should or why, and all the reasons that are in the report, but we struggle at present to crew the naval vessels we have. I do not understand how we will address this.

I have talked about pay and safety for members in the Defence Forces but there are wider conditions. Are we providing proper housing on barracks? Are we providing reasonable standards of accommodation for members of the Defence Forces? Are we providing reasonable opportunities for growth, development and leadership? There are many choices members of the Defence Forces have to make if they choose to take on overseas service, which is part of our proud tradition of peacekeeping. They are deeply aware that while they are serving overseas their role is not being backfilled in their barracks at home. That is causing stress for the other men and women in their unit, who now have to do two, three or four jobs because their colleagues have the honour of going off to serve with the UN. That kind of stress makes people question their role in the services.

If we do not address the fundamental pay, conditions and quality of life issues for the average soldier, we will not achieve the higher ambitions we have set ourselves. We need to achieve those higher ambitions. As I said at the start, the aid to civilian power piece is a very important role the Defence Forces play. We have seen it with the Covid pandemic, during which we called on the Defence Forces when we needed to ramp up our testing facilities very quickly. When we needed to provide mandatory quarantine for people arriving at airports, we called on the Defence Forces. When there is an emergency we call on it, and its members willingly step into the breach because that is the vocation they have chosen. We will not get other people to choose that vocation and we will not get people to do what we need to do to keep the rest of us safe unless we address those fundamental issues of pay and conditions.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Sean Sherlock)

As I do not see Deputy Durkan, I will move on to Deputy Connolly who has five minutes.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

I welcome the opportunity to take part in this discussion. I note the report highlights a "paucity of real debate on defence and security matters in [the] country" and that the commission "hopes...a more informed and grounded debate on these matters" will arise from it. I echo that but I will take it further in that there is a complete absence of a debate on grounding any talk about defence and increasing our military spending within the values we treasure and the articles of the Constitution that commit us to being a country that works for peace, not a country that puts its hand up to be the best in the warmongering class. I would prefer our debate to take place on how we become the best country in the peacekeeping class as a neutral country.

The Minister has left the Chamber. I understand he cannot be here all the time, but he posed the question - had we read the report? I can tell him I have read the entire report of approximately 250 pages. It raises many things - I have only four minutes and will not go into them - and there are 11 chapters. There are four sections in chapter 8 that deal with people, such is their value as the Defence Force's "key strategic resource". The one thing any government at any stage has not done is to treasure our people in the Defence Forces as the key strategic resource. As has been mentioned, terms and conditions were not under the commission's terms of reference. I will leave that at present.

Among many things the report highlighted were a serious "sense of crisis", a serious sense by those on the ground of not being heard, "a serious desire for change at all levels", "a disconnect between stated policy, resources and capabilities", an "inadequacy of...grievance processes", fears of reprisal, disempowerment and evidence across the Defence Forces of a culture that is masculine and has "a limited appreciation of diversity". The Women of Honour group gets a very small reference in the report, on page 100, which is interesting. I pay tribute to the amount of work done by the commission's 16 members and the speed of it, given the amount of time. The report is laid out very clearly.

I come from Galway city, where there was a little celebration last week, as the Minister of State well knows, to mark the handing over of the Dún Uí Mhaoilíosa barracks 100 years ago. Ireland joined the League of Nations the following year. That was a doomed organisation but it had very good ambitions, including disarmament, preventing war, settling disputes by peaceful means and improving global welfare. In today's terms, we talk about getting rid of inequality as the major way to stop war. That was approximately 100 years ago. That organisation was doomed but we moved forward and joined the UN in 1955. As has been said, since 1958 we have an unbroken record of service in UN peacekeeping forces. As Clare Daly put it in her submission to the commission, we have served in more than 20 peacekeeping operations. It has been a lot more than that but we have been somewhere every single day of the year since 1958. I will highlight the submissions to the commission from the Quakers, Clare Daly, the World Beyond War organisation and the Peace and Neutrality Alliance. They are worth looking at because they lift the debate out of the definite necessities of tackling the retention crisis in the Army to consider the sole purpose of our Army. What is it for? How do we achieve that?

Before I give any endorsement to the billions that have been mentioned, I would like a frank and honest discussion of the role of our Defence Forces. To consider the United Nations, Denis Halliday has been quoted in one of the submissions as saying that our "reputation for integrity and decency and doing a good job" is second to none. Dr. Michael Ryan from the World Health Organization, a man we quoted ad nauseam when it suited us in respect of Covid, in his address at the Trócaire Oscar Romero awards ceremony, "warned against the enormous waste of global defence investment urging nations to radically change the mindset ... on [the] imagined threats from other nations".

The real threat is climate change. It barely gets a mention in the report and only in terms of the consequences of environmental degradation. On page 5, the report states that the risk of attack is very low yet we are talking about putting billions of euro into an army in order that we can be the best boys and girls, put our hands up and say we are top of the warmongering class, as opposed to the peacekeeping class.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this report, which is wide-ranging in its recommendations and makes for an interesting read. I agree that overall we must continue to resource our Defence Forces to ensure they are properly equipped and trained for the roles that we require them to undertake but ultimately, what should be at the heart of this report is ensuring that we protect our neutrality.

With regard to the recommendations contained within the report, I support the cultural change processes outlined, particularly in regard to female participation and diversity. The development of expanded recruitment channels for the recruitment and participation of underrepresented groups is welcome. I agree that we should enable easier access to Irish citizenship for those who serve in the Defence Forces. We need to recognise barriers that those under-represented groups face when joining the Defence Forces, such as family-friendly hours, about which a lot has been already said. I welcome that the report recommends the extension and enhancement of family-friendly policies, howsoever they would work within the Defence Forces.

I also welcome that the report takes into account green defence. This is an area that needs to be highlighted further in the future. We should ensure that our military sets ambitious environmental targets and that analysis of green defence solutions and horizon scanning to identify emerging technologies is embedded in the capability development and planning process of our Defence Forces.

The final recommendation of the report calls on the Government and Oireachtas to urgently address the need to define a clear level of ambition for the major roles of the Defence Forces. I thought it was fairly clear that we are a neutral State and that is what we will continue to be. This includes defence of the State, its people and its resources and overseas missions. We must be very careful when we are considering this. The vision as stated in the executive summary is that the Defence Forces should remain poised to meet the challenges of an evolving and complex world. What does that mean? That is, I believe, the crux of the problem. I am very concerned about a concerted move away from neutrality, which I believe is the aim for some in government. We must ensure that this is discouraged by all means necessary. The executive summary statement could mean anything. There is a danger that in a couple of years time the Minister would be here talking about how we are meeting the needs as outlined in this document but we would actually be going to war on behalf of Europe, France, Germany or whoever.

I am particularly concerned about the ongoing militarisation of the EU. We need to ensure that in the resourcing of our Defence Forces, the aim is not to create or participate in any sort of European army, but to ensure that our neutrality is at the core of everything we do. Our armed forces have a great tradition of engaging in peacekeeping activities internationally, especially in the UN and the UN-supported peacekeeping missions, of which Ireland has been involved in 527. As of August 2021, more than 550 Irish personnel were deployed to civilian and military international crisis management and peace support operations around the world, many of whom trained close to where I live in Ballyshannon, where centenary commemorations of the handover of Finner Camp from British to Irish military forces will take place tomorrow.

Our international peacekeeping endeavours should be commended. I would like to see a continuation of this country’s focus on peacekeeping when we are setting a clear level of ambition for the major roles of the Defence Forces. That should be our aim, not the joining of NATO or an EU so-called defence organisation. This is where we should be setting our sights. I agree with the different options that are outlined in the report and option 2 seems to be the one that probably would be the best in terms of meeting those needs. We need to clearly set out our intention. I have my doubts as to whether the intention of everyone in government or of the Government is to ensure that we continue in our peacekeeping role and remain focused on being able to manage and do that properly. We need to ensure that in this we are not masking preparations for a role in terms of NATO or an EU defence programme. If that is what is intended, the Government should be clear and say it and let people have the debate on that. It should not be masking or hiding its intentions, as I believe is happening here.

We are getting to the stage where we are seeing the running down of the Defence Forces. The withdrawal of the capabilities of our Defence Forces will be used by some to make the point that if we want to update our Defence Forces, we have to do it this way, we have to go this far and we have to play our role in terms of defending the EU, NATO or whatever. We do not. We can have Defence Forces that function as a defence force, as something that we need, we want and all our citizens want. We can maintain that through the peacekeeping roles we already play. We can strengthen the Defence Forces to make sure that happens without going the full hog or the whole way in terms being a part of NATO and so on. We can do that if people discuss and agree it and believe that is the way it is going to be. That is important.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Sean Sherlock)

As we are within time, I propose to give Deputy Durkan five minutes.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I am grateful to have this opportunity. I had two meetings going on at the same time, which is pretty difficult at the best of times.

I fully endorse, support and accept the recommendations of the review. The Ceann Comhairle and I represent a county that has long-established traditions with the Defence Forces. I cannot understand why, over the past number of years we have become apologetic about our Defence Forces, as if they were unnecessary. There are people in this House who will tell us they are unnecessary and who question why, if we are a neutral country we need the Defence Forces. The answer to that question is simple. We may have to defend our neutrality as well. I refer to the western Balkans, where a few years ago there were appalling outrages. The issue was raised in this House several times at that time. We could complain as much as we liked, wring our hands and tear out our hair but we could do nothing about it. In that case, NATO was brought in to deal with the situation and it did. The UN was side-tracked at the time because it was ill-equipped to deal with the magnitude of the forces opposed to it.

It is high time we fully recognised the important role of the Defence Forces in this country. They play a pivotal role in defence and in supporting the services that we rely on in times of stress, bad weather, snowstorms and so on. Time and again, they have come out to support us. We should respond in kind, in a way that recognises their existence, the importance of the role they play and that we need them to stand up for us when we may not be able to stand up for ourselves. We should recognise also that for the past 50 years they have displayed their valour extremely well in various difficult situations all over the world. It would be a total injustice if we were to ignore that now.

I strongly support the Defence Forces for the reasons outlined. I believe those reasons will increase as time goes by. In light of the work they have done over the years and the defence the public had in them, we now need to respond and show them that we have confidence in them and they, in turn, can have confidence in us.

Minister of State at the Department of Transport (Deputy Hildegarde Naughton)

I thank everyone who spoke for their contributions on this very important subject. Providing for the defence of the state is a fundamental role of any government. Each country addresses its needs in the context of its geopolitical position, prevailing security environment and the level of funding available. As part of the defence planning process, the White Paper on Defence in 2015 and the White Paper update of 2019 were based on security environment assessments carried out by the interdepartmental working groups. These threat assessments indicated a low probability of a conventional military attack on the State and pointed to the fact that security challenges are such that no single country can deal with them alone.

The commission's report covers a number of distinct areas to be given careful consideration. The levels of ambition set out vary considerably. The recommended first step to LOA 2 from current capability requires a 50% increase to current defence spending. The personnel increase recommended under LOA 2 would require an increase of over 3,000 personnel above current strength. Even with an increased capacity to induct and train recruits and cadets, such an increase would require a number of years to implement.

Similarly, the recommended equipment capabilities would require lead-in times, following in-depth analysis of exactly what function these platforms and capabilities were to fulfil. The structural changes recommended would be the most significant in the defence sector since the foundation of the State and would be a major shift from delegating military command from the Minister to a number of senior military ranks to delegating it from the Minister to one individual, the chief of defence. This and other structural recommendations, due to their significance and impact, require detailed cross-departmental discussion and deliberation. They will also require the input of legal expertise, as any changes in this area would most likely require changes to legislation.

The report has a major focus on people issues. The people who serve in the Defence Forces, both the Permanent Defence Force and the Reserve Defence Force, are their greatest asset. They will be central to changes arising from this report. There are wide-ranging and significant recommendations in the report. While there are policies, systems and procedures currently in place for dealing with allegations and complaints of inappropriate behaviour in the workplace, it is clear from the strong views expressed at the meetings the Minister has had with stakeholders, including serving members, Women of Honour and the men and women of honour group, that the pervading culture in the Defence Forces and those policies, systems and procedures have not served, and are not serving, all Defence Forces personnel well. In response, the Minister established the independent review into dignity and equality issues in the Defence Forces to ensure the Defence Forces are a safe workplace for all current serving members, while also reviewing historical allegations.

The commission makes recommendations around strategic HR development and working arrangements to reflect the changes that have occurred in the wider employment area, to encourage retention and to facilitate more flexible working arrangements. The commission recommends a number of civilian appointments within the Defence Forces' structure, such as the head of transformation already mentioned but also possibly in the area of strategic HR and finance and possible greater civilianisation of certain posts which would free up military personnel for front-line duties.

The commission also makes recommendations around pay structures but it must be pointed out that their terms of reference did not include reviewing pay rates. Public sector pay policy is within the remit of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. Now that the commission has finished its work, and in keeping with the commitment in the programme for Government, the Minister for Defence will consult with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform on the establishment of a permanent pay review body. The Minister for Defence is keen to make the Defence Forces an employer of choice. The Defence Forces offer an interesting, exciting and varied career for people and it is important that the positive aspects of a life serving in the Defence Forces are made clear, together with the totality of the benefits of working in the Defence Forces.

The Reserve Defence Force has seen a reduction in numbers in recent years. The commission is clear in its ambition in this area and how the knowledge, skills and experience within the RDF ranks can be better captured and utilised. The Reserve is a key aspect of contingent capability and improvements are required in how we recruit and utilise the Reserve. This report gives an opportunity to revitalise the RDF and better employ the skills of its members.

The report's finding on the level of defence funding is clear and highlights the difference between defence funding in Ireland and other western and northern European countries of similar size. This reflects the differing priority given to defence spending in these countries and their own geopolitical considerations. The White Paper highlighted the importance of capability development and since 2015, over €806 million has been invested in the renewal, upgrade and acquisition of military equipment and infrastructure. Capital spending has increased from €89.4 million in 2015 to €129.5 million in 2021. This is an increase of €40.1 million or 45% on 2015 expenditure. In the future, multi-annual capital funding of €566 million has been allocated to defence out to 2025 under the national development plan, with €141 million provided in 2022. While this has been a positive development, the commission's report highlights the scale of the challenge that exists in bridging capability gaps.

There have been calls for quick movement on the recommendations within the report and the Minister is keen to do so, where possible, but there are significant recommendations that must be discussed and considered fully and their possible implications examined. The commission acknowledged in its report that some of the recommendations will impact significantly on current governance structures. Subject to Government decisions on the report, the future governance and oversight framework of the Minister and the Department of Defence may need to be redesigned to provide effective assurance and accountability. As this was outside its terms of reference, it was not developed in the commission's report and, therefore, will require significant work to explore and align the ramifications of certain recommendations and that, in turn, will determine how other recommendations progress.

Other aspects to be investigated will also include any possible legislative impacts and what changes this will require. A number of recommendations and commentary in the report concern other Departments and agencies, and these will require interdepartmental consultation and consideration to fully explore the best way forward on these issues. Significant work is currently ongoing, which the commission has referred to in its report, as was outlined at the beginning of this debate. This important work will continue. As the Minister said in his opening statement, he wants to ensure that he is committed to progressing the work carried out by the commission and seizing this opportunity to develop Defence Forces that are agile and modern, designed not just for today but for the future.

The Minister welcomes the debate on this important subject. There needs to be a wider debate on defence provision in Ireland beyond the normal actors. The Minister looks forward to expanding this debate and encouraging open discussion around the serious issues and recommendations in the commission report. The Minister intends to examine the use of seminars or other consultative structures to encourage and lead this debate. He may not agree with all that has been said today but the Minister welcomes the fact that we are having the discussion and thanks all Deputies for their contributions. Further discussion will be required as part of the deliberations on this significant report. I encourage all Deputies to be a part of that conversation.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 16 Feb 2022

Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces: Statements

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Feb 2022