Gino Kenny
Question:70. Deputy Gino Kenny asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the Government’s recent discussions with the Women of Honour; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29556/23]
Ceisteanna Eile - Other Questions
Defence Forces
This question is pretty similar to the previous one. If the Tánaiste does not mind, rather than repeating the question, I will just follow on the train thought of the discussion he has just had with Deputies Nash and Cronin. I ask him to repeat what he said about the groups he met. He said it very quickly. He said he met various groups in the Defence Forces, retired members of the Defence Forces, some other group and the Women of Honour. Was I right in picking that up or that he was in touch with them or had a meeting with them?
I met them all.
Could the Tánaiste just run through it again, please? Before he answers, what is the purpose of meeting them all if the point of this was to address the concerns of the Women of Honour?
The purpose of this is to inquire into the entire culture in the Defence Forces in the context of sexual assault in particular and abuse, and to examine all the recommendations that came from the IRG. The latter recommended a statutory inquiry covering a range of issues, especially the degree to which the complaints system in the Defence Forces was effective or not in respect of complaints of abuse and a range of other matters, including reprisals and so on. That is the purpose of the statutory inquiry. Everybody in the Defence Forces has a stake in this.
Could the Tanaiste-----
Everybody serving in the Defence Forces has an interest in this. People who have retired have asked to make an input. We have heard people. It does not mean we accept every case that is made. I will give the Deputy the list, which I gave earlier. I did not go fast either. In fairness, I do not have an issue-----
The Tánaiste gave the list. He is only obliged to answer the question listed on the Order Paper.
I met the Women of Honour group twice, including with the Taoiseach. I have met the group three times. I met PDFORRA and RACO, which represent serving members of the Defence Forces. I met the Irish Defence Forces Veterans Association. The Men and Women of Honour group also made representations. There is a different approach and so forth, but their views are legitimate too. The Secretary General met the Civil Service and civilian unions.
On the question, we agreed to the IRG's 13 recommendations. We are establishing the statutory inquiry to investigate whether there have been serious, systemic failures in dealing with individual complaints on interpersonal issues, including but not limited to sexual misconduct, which is one of the recommendations that has been implemented. I consulted the Attorney General about the establishment of the inquiry. His office has assisted in the preparation of the draft terms of reference. I just referred to meeting key stakeholders. There has been much interaction about the terms of reference to date. There will be further interactions. The Women of Honour group, through its legal representatives, forwarded substantive correspondence again today. There will be further engagement on those terms of reference.
I might flesh out the question a bit more. On the terms of reference, the Women of Honour group presented the Tánaiste with what it recommended as terms of reference, which should be broader and would make an inquiry more transparent and open. It wants it to be more public. Does meeting the group to deal with its terms of reference, choices, queries and preferences mean that if the Tánaiste meets other organisations that represent serving members or veterans' associations, which I am not picking out particularly but which were on the list the Tánaiste read, there could be a conflict of interests about the terms of reference and how they are structured? Is the purpose not to delve down into what the Women of Honour exposed, which is a culture of misogyny, discrimination and sometimes violence and secrecy in the Defence Forces? I get what the Tánaiste is saying, namely, that everybody will be involved in the inquiry, but in establishing the terms of reference, was it wrong to include everybody and not just to look at their suggestions?
The terms of reference were predominantly drafted in line with the IRG's recommendations. That group was led by Mr. Justice O'Hanlon. We drafted the terms of reference. That is my responsibility. We shared them with all the groups, including Women of Honour and Men and Women of Honour. They came back with suggested amendments. We met to discuss those. There will be further engagement in respect of the terms of reference, which are very broad. I do not believe they are too narrow.
The issue with transparency is whether there is a commission of inquiry where the disposition is to be more in camera and the judge can opt to go public in certain situations or if there is a full tribunal of inquiry, which is disposed to be more public, although the judge can opt to go in camera to hear evidence from people. I have shared the pros and cons of both approaches with Women of Honour in particular and with other groups. My concern is to facilitate the maximum participation in the inquiry. We have to weigh up which model is optimal for people coming forward. I want the maximum number of people coming forward. There can be conflicts or different perspectives, but I am very alive to those. On the other hand, it would not have been acceptable to completely ignore the representative organisations of the Defence Forces, for example. I found the perspective of the women currently serving in the Defence Forces very insightful.
I thank the Tánaiste. I am afraid we are over time.
I do not want to draw this out. I am trying to work it out in my head as well. The Tánaiste shared the draft terms of reference with everybody. The Women of Honour came back with their suggestions on them, which included 15 grounds that an inquiry should investigate, and asked for openness and full transparency.
We know, very publicly, that Women of Honour came back with its suggestions on the draft terms of reference, which included approximately 15 grounds that an inquiry should investigate, and asked for open and full transparency. Did other groups the Government shared this with also come back with suggested changes, different types of terms of reference, or additional terms of reference to those of the Government? I am trying to find out how expansive the Government's structures are, when the origins of the inquiry into the culture of the Defence Forces stems from the exposé Women of Honour did on that culture. How far-reaching has the Government's structure been in setting up the terms of reference?
It has been very far-reaching. It was very much based on the independent review group, to be frank, which probably exceeded people's expectations in the clarity of its language. Although it is not a finding of fact, and the judge was clear on that, the conclusions are nonetheless very stark and shocking, as I said in the House. The objective of the exercise is to have findings of fact in respect of those issues raised by Women of Honour and the IRG through a statutory inquiry with due rigour. The terms of reference are broad, in line with the IRG recommendations but we have to have a focus, and this is part of the discussion I have had with Women of Honour, on a timely, effective and efficient inquiry. Terms of reference are a factor in that.
As regards transparency, the issue is around the public versus the commission approach. They are the two essential models for statutory inquiries in legislation at present. We have heard what Women of Honour and others have to say about that. There will be further discussions and we will come back with a final position on that and on the terms of reference.
Defence Forces
Bernard Durkan
Question:72. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the extent to which ongoing changes identified in the review of the Defence Forces, including pay, gender respect and bullying and-or other sensitive issues, are likely to be addressed in total; the progress to date in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29513/23]
Colm Burke
Question:107. Deputy Colm Burke asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the actions his Department has taken since the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces was published in February 2022; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29522/23]
Seán Haughey
Question:109. Deputy Seán Haughey asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence for a report on the implementation of the recommendations of the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28292/23]
This is a similar question to the previous one. I am seeking to ascertain the extent of the progress in dealing with the issues raised in the review of the Defence Forces then, beforehand and afterwards and whether a timeline can be set for the conclusion of those issues.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 72, 107 and 109 together.
The Commission on the Defence Forces was established on foot of a commitment in the programme for Government and its report was published on 9 February 2022. There were 69 main recommendations and, including sub-recommendations, 130 recommendations in total. The commission undertook a significant body of work encompassing wide-ranging terms of reference. It recommended significant changes to the Defence Forces and defence provision in Ireland. It covered high-level Defence Forces structures, defence capabilities, organisation, culture and human resources, the Reserve Defence Force, RDF, and funding.
Given the significant recommendations contained in the report, detailed consideration of these recommendations was undertaken over a period of five months by the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces. Following this engagement, a high-level action plan and a memo for Government were brought to the Government and approved on 12 July 2022. The high-level action plan set out the response of the Government to each of the 130 individual recommendations: accept, accept in principle, further evaluation or revert. A total of 103 of its recommendations were accepted by the Government for implementation, or accepted in principle, with 17 requiring further evaluation and a further ten to revert to Government.
This involved the approval of a move to level of ambition, LOA, 2, as set out in the capability framework devised by the commission. This will result in the defence budget rising from €1.1 billion to €1.5 billion, in 2022 prices, by 2028, which is the largest increase in defence funding in the history of the State. This will allow for the required substantial transformation and investment in recruitment and equipment that were identified by the commission. The budget for 2023 included an increase of €67 million over the 2022 budget for defence. This demonstrates the Government’s strong commitment to support the transformation of the Defence Forces into a modern, agile military force, capable of responding to increasingly complex security threats.
The high-level action plan set out a total of 38 early actions to be completed within six months of the Government decision. A comprehensive written update on all 38 early actions was published on 23 March this year, and includes the status of each of the 38 early actions in tabular form. At that time, more than 80% of the early actions had been achieved. Progress continues on the remaining early actions. Approximately 90% have been achieved to date, with the remainder at an advanced stage and due to be completed shortly.
The Government noted that, in light of the commission’s report, there is an urgent need for HR and cultural transformation in the Defence Forces and this will be prioritised. The high-level action plan identified the recruitment, through an open process, to the new senior-level civilian positions of head of transformation and head of strategic HR for the Defence Forces, as early actions required to progress this transformation. I welcome the recent appointment of Mr. Brian Molloy to the position of Defence Forces’ head of transformation. The competition to select the head of strategic HR has also been recently concluded and the process to appoint the successful candidate is nearing completion.
A key early action, and a key output from the opening phase of the transformation programme, the development of a detailed implementation plan, is at an advanced stage and is expected to be published in the coming weeks. When published, it will set out the approach to implementation for each of the 130 recommendations. Effective reporting mechanisms were put in place for the 38 early actions and, once the detailed implementation plan has been published, similar reporting mechanisms will track the progress of all the commission’s recommendations. More generally, the strategic framework we are putting in place to drive the commission's recommendations through will also be an important enabling mechanism for delivery of the independent review group’s, IRG, actions.
My priority now is to ensure that there is one strategic plan for the transformation of the Defence Forces, fully understood by everyone, which has the appropriate governance and reporting mechanisms, and is properly resourced. Furthermore, the Government has agreed to progress the 13 recommendations in the IRG report, including the establishment of a statutory inquiry to investigate whether there have been serious systemic failures in dealing with individual complaints relating to interpersonal issues, including but not limited to sexual misconduct.
As I indicated in answer to previous questions, I have had detailed discussions with the women and men of honour groups, and a variety of other representative organisations, in respect of the draft terms of reference and the optimum modality of the inquiry, including whether it will be a commission of investigation or an inquiry under a public tribunal of inquiry Act. Those consultations are continuing. As I said, it is hoped I will be in a position to conclude this before the summer recess.
Will the Tánaiste indicate the extent to which he believes the issues, particularly the sensitive issues that have been raised by the Women and Men of Honour on the one hand, and the very involved and delicate business of upgrading the level of readiness of the Defence Forces to combat situations that may arise at very short notice on the other, are being dealt with? In the event of there being deficiencies in that area, will he address those in such a way as to reassure the Defence Forces and the public that they are well in hand?
I will follow on from that regarding the recommendations being put in place. Are there target dates for having all the recommendations fully in place? The Tánaiste referred to transformation. We also have challenges in retaining people in the Naval Service. Does he believe that in the next three to four years the current difficulty with retention will be resolved with the implementation of all these recommendations? Will the Government be over the hurdle of the challenges it currently faces within the next three to four years?
Deputy Durkan raised an important issue. We have to pursue, in parallel with the statutory inquiry and dealing comprehensively with the recommendations of the IRG, the issue of increasing capability within the Defence Forces.
That is why I mentioned the need for one overall plan to transform the Defence Forces. Culture has to change. What Women of Honour brought to light and what the independent review group has outlined is not to be separated from recruitment and retention issues. There is a need for culture change.
In answer to Deputy Burke, we are at 3.8% unemployment. We will have challenges for some time yet. We have outlined a range of measures to deal with recruitment and retention. I am concerned about the situation in the Naval Service and have had a series of meetings with the flag officer and Chief of Staff on optimising current resources to fulfil our obligations in fisheries protection, on the maritime front and more generally across the Defence Forces. We recently announced eligibility for secondary health services for all enlisted personnel in the Defence Forces, which is a significant progress point. Pay has gone up significantly for new recruits. For those coming out of leaving certificate, it is more than €37,000, and €46,000 for a graduate joining.
We need to continue to work on broader issues relating to recruitment and retention, particularly in terms of early retirement. I got responses already from Government and the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform on extending the retirement age for those heading to 2024 and am working with the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform to see if we can, with other Departments, extend the retirement age more significantly because that is one early route to retaining people longer in our Defence Forces.
In view of the necessity to bring the level, strength and equipment of the Defence Forces up to speed at an early date on issues such as pay, which has a bearing on recruitment, might it be possible to introduce emergency changes to pay and conditions, with a view to bringing the forces up to the greatest level of readiness for something happening which we can anticipate but cannot quantify? Could that be done at the earliest possible date?
The Tánaiste has already announced funding for accommodation for members of the Defence Forces. Are we likely to see the roll-out of a five-year plan dealing with accommodation? While there are certain restrictions on what changes can be made, substantial change can be made in the area of accommodation to make it attractive for people to come into the Defence Forces and stay in them. Can further progress be made in the offering of accommodation?
On pay, I said in reply to an earlier question, there has been significant progress on pay for new recruits. Current pay rates, including military service allowances for recruits on completion of their training, start at €37,147 in year 1, rising to €38,544 in year 2 and €39,832 in year 3 of service. A school-leaver cadet, on commissioning, is paid €41,123. After two years, they are promoted to lieutenant and their pay rises to €46,406. Where a graduate joins, the pay rate on commissioning begins at €46,406. They are significant improvements on what went before.
We have recently outlined free private care for all enlisted personnel, which is a significant additional boost to members of our Defence Forces. Under the next national pay round, we will raise issues pertaining to the Defence Forces.
We have invested significantly in accommodation. I have made it clear I want a significant programme of investment in accommodation, as well as a better design. What happened in Haulbowline was excellent. There was some very good work on Haulbowline Naval Service headquarters. I believe all existing facilities or accommodation that went into dereliction or disuse should be restored and refurbished and have given instructions in that respect to our Defence Forces. Much of the accommodation is for those in training, induction, courses and programmes but I am anxious that we would do high quality accommodation into the future. There is a programme there in all barracks. I visited more or less all barracks with a view to looking at existing facilities. It is all to improve the environment for those working in our Defence Forces. I have given instructions in respect of negotiations on the organisation of working time directive. Good progress has been made in the last month and I want to see that brought to a conclusion. That is important as well.
Telecommunications Infrastructure
Cormac Devlin
Question:71. Deputy Cormac Devlin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence his intentions with regard to international co-operation in the context of maritime security and protecting subsea cables; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28293/23]
What are the Tánaiste’s intentions with regard to international co-operation in the context of maritime security and protecting subsea cables?
I thank the Deputy for raising the question. It is fair to say we have witnessed a fundamental change in our security environment in the last year with a renewed focus on maritime security and the protection of subsea cables. Protecting them on an ongoing basis is not a task that Ireland can shoulder alone. It requires international co-operation, shared responsibilities and mutual trust. About 97% of all Internet traffic is now subsea.
Ireland is a strong proponent of the important role the European Union can play in support of international peace and security and of the United Nations. It is essential, therefore, that Ireland remains fully engaged in all common security and defence policy processes and contributes fully to the development of the policy in order that we can influence its evolution. It is in this context we have been enhancing our engagement with the Permanent Structured Cooperation, PESCO, which we joined in 2017. While our level of engagement is still modest by EU standards, we are participating in four PESCO projects and have observer status on 19. Two of the projects in which we are full participants are in the maritime space and we are observers on a further two maritime-related projects.
On 23 May 2023, I attended the EU Foreign Affairs Council in defence Ministers configuration, where we adopted a fifth wave of collaborative projects within the PESCO framework. Of particular relevance is the new critical seabed infrastructure protection project, which aims at increasing the European Union's operational efficiency in the protection of critical maritime infrastructure by making best use of current, and the development of future, underwater assets. Together with the Defence Forces, my Department is actively examining this project with a view to moving to observer status. Under the programme for Government, full participation in PESCO projects requires Government and Dáil approval.
In terms of improving our interoperability across all three domains, namely, land, sea and air, our membership of NATO’s Partnership for Peace has been invaluable. We have been members since 1999. Ireland is in the process of renewing its partnership through the individually tailored partnership programme mechanism. This framework presents an opportunity to enhance our co-operation in relevant areas of choice, including such areas as improved maritime situational awareness.
The upcoming consultative forum on international security policy, which is being jointly hosted by the Department of Defence and the Department of Foreign Affairs, will provide an opportunity to have honest and open debate to examine whether our current policy approach remains fit for purpose. An important part of the forum's discussions will cover the current threat environment that Ireland faces, including in relation to threats to critical infrastructure, including subsea infrastructure.
I am registered for that first event in University College Cork on Thursday and am looking forward to taking part in that debate. Last month, the Tánaiste stated isolationism was no longer an option for Ireland and the country must co-operate with other European countries in areas such as cybersecurity, maritime security and protecting subsea cables, which the Tánaiste just mentioned. The statistic he cited of 97% of Internet cabling being subsea is particularly eye-opening.
The Tánaiste said on RTÉ's "Six One News" that we can never again be on our own. He said isolationism is not an option and that we must co-operate and co-ordinate on issues such as cybersecurity, maritime security and the protection of subsea cables that are vital to our economic wellbeing. Could he outline how he envisages such defence co-operation with other European countries developing further?
I was very much reflecting on this. The cybersecurity attack on the HSE in the middle of the Covid-19 pandemic was a very serious one that had a very severe impact on our health service and caused enormous strain and stress among senior personnel and those at the clinical front line who do scanning. It was interesting that the Polish Government contacted us immediately, as did the UK Government. Poland had a similar experience of the ransomware group Conti, which was deemed to be responsible for the attack, and the UK was available to assist us. The head of the National Cyber Security Centre in Ireland said when I met representatives of the group that no country deals with cybersecurity on its own. It is about the sharing of knowledge and expertise and collaborating on the experiences of those who were attacked before. It is by collaborating in putting together all the information that we stand the best chance of taking on state actors who may be doing cyberattacks, ransomware groups or hacktivists.
I have no doubt that the spirit of EU membership would further support what the Tánaiste is saying. However, there is also no doubt but that we cannot ignore the vulnerabilities posed to energy and communications infrastructure across Europe, most especially in the waters of the North Atlantic close to our own shores. What estimate does the Tánaiste have for the extent to which undersea fibre-optic cables now channel the world's global communications and financial transactions? Given the extent of the maritime domain alone and Ireland's exclusive economic zone, covering hundreds of thousands of square kilometres, is it legitimate to believe the way to address our vulnerabilities is to build autonomous capabilities without any mention of our current partnerships and their future potential?
We have to develop our own capabilities; however, with respect to subsea cables, it is not all about ships and assets. Much of this will involve mathematics, as a person recently said to me. Much expertise will be required. It also means working with semi-State bodies and private companies. I said 97% of all Internet traffic is subsea traffic. An enormous number of financial transactions use cables under the seabed. While having a sufficiency of physical assets is important, the idea that ships will be fortuitously hanging around when someone intends to go at a cable is a bit fanciful. They can be a deterrent but we have to build up sophisticated modelling and a knowledge base, working with the relevant companies. There is considerable expertise required in maritime law, which also applies. This is very complex stuff and we will not be able to deal with it on our own.
Defence Forces
Barry Cowen
Question:73. Deputy Barry Cowen asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence for an update on developments in the killing of a member of Ireland’s UNIFIL mission last December; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28298/23]
Ruairí Ó Murchú
Question:116. Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence his views on the progress being made in the investigation into the death in Lebanon of UNIFIL soldier Private Seán Rooney; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29526/23]
Could the Tánaiste update the House on developments regarding the killing of a member of Ireland's UNIFIL mission last December?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 73 and 116 together.
On 14 December 2022, eight personnel from the 121st Infantry Battalion were involved in an incident resulting in the death of Private Seán Rooney and injuries suffered by several others, including Trooper Shane Kearney, who suffered critical injuries. I have consistently expressed my determination to have all the facts and circumstances of the incident fully established. No stone will be left unturned to ensure those responsible are brought to justice.
Private Rooney's death is the subject of several parallel investigations, particularly the criminal investigation being carried out by the Lebanese authorities, the standard UNIFIL investigation that arises in such circumstances, and the investigation by An Garda Síochána, pursuant to the provisions of the Coroners Act 1962, as amended. The Garda is carrying out an investigation for the purpose of preparing a report for the Coroner.
On the UN investigation, the UNIFIL internal investigation reported in February, and in accordance with UN procedures a board of inquiry was subsequently convened. While this board has now completed its work, a finalised report has not as yet been provided to the Irish authorities. Each of the other investigations remains ongoing and the Defence Forces continue to support each of these to the greatest extent possible. It should be noted that the criminal investigation by the Lebanese authorities takes primacy at this time and is consistent with the obligations of the State of Lebanon under the status of forces agreement with the UN.
The Deputy will be aware of the recent reports from Lebanon that a number of individuals have been charged with the death of Private Seán Rooney. In recent days, we have been advised that the first hearing date for the criminal trial has been set for 14 July. Given that this matter is before the Lebanese judicial system, it would not be appropriate to comment further at this time other than to say my Department will continue to monitor developments very closely indeed.
I thank the Tánaiste for his response. He said at the end that he does not believe he can comment much further on the Lebanese authorities' investigation and the recent charging. It is alleged that the five formally charged are members of the Hezbollah armed group. Obviously, Hezbollah denies that. What is the Tánaiste's belief about the assertion? Does he believe and is he confident that there will be a fair trial, given that the record in such circumstances does not inspire the confidence of many of us?
I thank the Tánaiste for the answer he has given. Obviously, the loss of Private Seán Rooney was a huge loss to his family and the 27th Infantry Battalion in Dundalk. We all want justice done. Some of my questions are the same as those of Deputy Cowen. I accept that the Tánaiste might not be able to go into sufficient detail but we want to be sure that his interactions with the Lebanese authorities are up to the standard he would like, that he believes there is a free flow of information and that he is reasonably happy with how things are progressing.
I am aware that he has been talking to Seán's mam, Natasha. The big thing for the family is remembering Seán Rooney and the sacrifice he made. We must learn what needs to be learned regarding operations like the one in question. It is important that we do whatever we can to avoid what happened as much as possible.
In response to both Deputies, I will not speculate any further at this stage, given how imminent the trial is. In the course of my meetings with the Minister for National Defence and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Emigrants of Lebanon when I visited following the killing of Private Seán Rooney, I stressed the need for co-operation and the establishment of all the facts and circumstances of the incident. I stressed that no stone should be left unturned in ensuring those responsible will be brought to justice. I emphasised and underlined during our meetings that the investigation into Private Rooney's death would be as thorough and complete as possible. I am withholding judgment until I have received assurances from the Lebanese authorities but we are monitoring this the whole way. We also have the Garda inquiry, pursuant to the Coroners Act. It is helpful and effective.
I agree that lessons have to be learned in respect of our Defence Forces evaluating what happened. We must constantly seek to learn lessons from terrible atrocities such as this because it was a shocking event that resulted in the loss of a very fine Irish soldier. I have met Seán's mother, Natasha. This is a terrible loss for the entire Rooney family, a family with a very strong military tradition that has contributed immensely to our Defence Forces and Ireland as peacekeepers. It is in honour of the noble tradition that Seán Rooney personified that I want to see justice and a thorough outcome to this.
I appreciate the sensitivities of the matters involved when a trial is imminent. Insofar as he can be at this stage, and based on his initial interactions and investigations, the Minister is confident that the Lebanese authorities are insisting on a fair trial, as we would obviously expect.
I absolutely agree that we want to see justice. We also want to see a fair trial. Based on what the Tánaiste said, there will be plenty of interaction and eyes on this from our point of view. It was necessary that UNIFIL carried out its particular investigation. Obviously, our Defence Forces have their piece of work to do. This needs to be followed up with a Garda inquiry. All of this is about making sure we get justice for Seán Rooney, a young man who lost his life peacekeeping. He was from a family who have given much commitment to the Defence Forces over many years. We need to make sure we fulfil our part of that particular commitment. We also need to make sure that whatever needs to be learned is learned, and do what we can to avoid any more of these particular types of circumstances. We will be absolutely clear on who did it. It never should have happened and we all feel for the Rooney family.
I will first respond to Deputy Cowen's questions. As I said, I do not want to speculate further. I have met with the Lebanese authorities and stressed to them the importance of justice and full accountability in respect of the killing of Seán Rooney. There is a broader context to what happened in terms of the Defence Forces' overseas mission, DFOM, which is the denial of access. There is an increasing hostility by Hezbollah towards UN operations generally in south Lebanon. This has created, at the very minimum, an unfriendly environment for those operating under UNIFIL's jurisdiction endeavouring to secure peace in south Lebanon. That is also an issue we have raised with the Lebanese authorities. There has been an increase in DFOMs over the past while. We are there, along with our UNIFIL colleagues, to keep the peace. We have had a long-standing tradition in south Lebanon. That is a context to what happened here. There is no doubt of that.
The criminal trial has to take primacy. The work of An Garda Síochána is also important. The initial UNIFIL inquiry has been completed, but a board of inquiry follows that. That is not yet complete. Within our Defence Forces, we to take a lessons learned approach, as the Deputy said, and to make sure we constantly look at how we can improve our procedures, tactics, protocols and so forth.
Defence Forces
David Stanton
Question:74. Deputy David Stanton asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if he will report on the outcome of the current recruitment campaign in respect of all branches of the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29073/23]
Pádraig O'Sullivan
Question:83. Deputy Pádraig O'Sullivan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the initiatives he will undertake to improve recruitment and retention in the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29459/23]
According to the Defence Forces website there are currently 15 competitions open for vacancies in the Defence Forces. More than half of those are in the Naval Service. Will the Tánaiste tell the House the level of interest in these 15 competitions? How many people have applied, how many people does he expect to be recruited into the various areas, and when does he expect the Defence Forces Reserve to open up for recruitment?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 74 and 83 together.
The Defence Forces remain committed to optimising the number of personnel inducted and current recruitment initiatives include ongoing general service recruitment, targeted service specific recruitment, direct entry recruitment, and the re-entry schemes. The maximum age of entry was recently increased to 29 years old for general service recruits, cadets, Air Corps apprentices and certain specialists. As I mentioned earlier, sanction has recently been received for 100 extra positions to facilitate the implementation of the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces. This is in addition to the recent appointment of the civilian head of transformation and the pending appointment of a civilian head of strategic human resources within the Defence Forces.
The military authorities have advised that, as of 31 May, a total of 150 personnel had been inducted into the Defence Forces. Applications for general service recruits, ten direct entry specialists’ competitions and for the re-entry schemes are received and processed on an ongoing basis. A direct entry competition for Defence Forces school of music instrumentalists closed on Sunday. Additionally, the applications received for the recently closed 2023 cadetship competition are being processed and those placed highest in order of merit are due to be called for interview shortly. The Be More recruitment campaign highlights the career opportunities available in the Defence Forces, and also the wider benefits of membership. As part of a Naval Service specific recruitment campaign, a Naval Service recruitment advertisement launched last week and will be rolled out across all media platforms in coming weeks. A contract has recently been awarded to a marine specialist recruitment body to target individuals with the skills and expertise required by the Naval Service.
In addition to these recruitment initiatives, a range of financial and non-financial retention measures have also been introduced by Government to counter the previously acknowledged staffing difficulties. These include service commitment schemes, tax measures, and recent agreement to further extend the service of post-1994 privates, corporals and sergeants, allowing for their continuance in service to the end of 2024. As outlined already, there has also been significant progress on pay. Current pay rates, including military service allowances for recruits on completion of their training start at €37,147 in year 1, rising to €38,544 in year 2, and €39,832 in year 3 of service. A school leaver cadet is paid €41,123 on commissioning. After two years they are promoted to lieutenant and their pay rises to €46,406. Where a graduate joins, the pay rate on commissioning begins at €46,406.
My immediate focus is on stabilising the numbers of personnel in the Defence Forces and thereafter increasing strength to meet the agreed level of ambition arising from the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces.
I thank the Tánaiste for his response. He said that 150 were inducted. Will he provide a breakdown of how many are in the Army, Naval Service and Air Corps? Over what timescale was the recruitment campaign that led to the induction of those 150 taken place? Does he have any targets in respect of the various other competitions? He can send those to me if he does not have them now. I also asked about the Reserve. Are there any plans to start recruitment there as it is a branch of the Defence Forces? Finally, has the Tánaiste attempted any of the mandatory psychometric tests? Does he agree they could be a turn off? More than half of the people who attempt them and complete them fail. Those are the people who go all the way with those tests. Would he consider abandoning those tests if they are considered to be a turn off to people who may be interested in joining the Defence Forces?
In a recent interview the general secretary of the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers, RACO, said that he still thinks the military is undoubtedly an attractive job for many and the role still has many benefits. However, as was mentioned earlier, he also concluded that the Defence Forces cannot recruit itself out of a retention crisis, because no amount of water will fill a leaky bucket. He also conceded that work will need to be done to ensure the organisation is transformed into an employer of choice. To be fair, the Tánaiste referenced that earlier, and the competition is currently running in the labour market. I also heard him mention much of the progress that has been made in terms of attracting new recruits, improving pay and conditions and so on. He said that was being done, and I suppose his priority now is to sustain the numbers that are there. On that basis, how do we fix the aforementioned leaky bucket? My supplementary question was also mentioned by Deputy Stanton, which relates to a specific campaign in the Reserve.
I will take the question on the Reserve first. There was recruitment last year, but I do not think the procedures and processes were sufficient to accommodate those who had expressed an interest. An office has now been created in respect of recruitment to the Reserve force and its organisation.
There is huge potential there. In speaking with the Chief of Staff, the military leadership and the Secretary General, I have stressed that I want to see a rapid improvement in recruitment to the Reserve Defence Force.
In terms of the broader issues, the cumulative impact of all of the various measures we are taking can arrest the decline. That we have full employment and are at 3.8% unemployment is a huge factor, as is the fact the private sector is poaching and endeavouring to recruit.
Deputies Stanton and O'Sullivan raise an interesting issue regarding the psychometric tests.
The Minister should have a go and see what he thinks.
I have told the military my view on it. I would not be rushing to be a candidate. The Deputies make a fair point. The military authorities are keeping it under review.
In respect of the Naval Service, the military authorities have advised me of the position. I have made the point that the first thing you get when you press a button is a psychometric test. I am not convinced that is the best way to attract people into the military. I have said this. In any event, the Naval Service has advised that in addition to the number of applicants who do not undertake the psychometric tests, an analysis of Naval Service general service recruitment application figures showed 56% of candidates who undertook the psychometric testing element of the selection process failed it. It was therefore decided to pause psychometric testing on a pilot basis for Naval Service general service recruitment for six months with effect from 9 June 2023 to investigate its effect on recruitment induction numbers. I am not an expert on this, nor will I pretend to be, but I think it is an issue for inquiry. They will do an analysis of this revised approach after six months and that will be interesting.
I thank the Tánaiste for his most recent response. I put it to him that a lot of people do not go ahead with the psychometric test. They do not even attempt it or go any further with the application process. As the Tánaiste has said himself, up to half of those who attempt it fail, which is very worrying.
Will the Tánaiste make any comment with respect to the recommissioning of officers and their re-enlistment in the PDF, which is another area of recruitment? Does he have any figures with respect to how that is going and what kind of energy and effort is being put behind it? There are people there who have served in the past and who have experience. I think the idea is to get them to re-enlist. My question is about the recommissioning of officers and the re-enlistment of the PDF. Will the Tánaiste give us a breakdown of the number of people involved in the Army, Navy and Air Corps? Of the 150 he said had been inducted, how many are in each of the services? Over what period of time did the recruitment campaign that gave rise to the 150 enlistments take place?
I will follow up in the same vein as Deputy Stanton. We attracted 17,000 applicants to the various facets of the Defence Forces last year. That said, the number of Naval Service personnel has dropped below 700, which is almost 400 off the Department's target. The Tánaiste acknowledged in an earlier contribution that current labour market factors are not helping. I think he said many capable recruits are being poached by other sectors. That is understandable as many of them are highly desirable candidates.
Regarding the working time directive, I believe the Tánaiste stated earlier that he has given an instruction to his Department on the implementation of the working time directive. Will he clarify what he means by the reference to that instruction? Is it to comply fully with the rules that are there or is it to perhaps come up another version, which would also be acceptable, because obviously there are exemptions under EU regulations in that regard? Does the instruction relate to the full implementation of the directive or is it another version of it?
I will reply first to Deputy Stanton. In terms of the breakdown for the first six months, 150 have been inducted, comprising 141 general service recruits, 125 in the Army, three in the Air Corps and 13 in the Naval Service, with one Naval Service engine room artificer. Of the eight re-enlisted personnel, seven are in the Army and one is in the Air Corps. A total of 435 personnel were inducted in 2022. As of 31 May, a total of 293 personnel were discharged, comprised of 34 officers and 259 enlisted personnel. A total of 891 personnel were discharged in 2022.
On the working time directive, the instruction is to bring the negotiations to a conclusion, so all parties really need to knuckle down to bring it to conclusion and get it implemented.
Re-enlistment is going well. I am just looking for figures. There are well over 100. The re-entry is working. There is probably more we can do there. Not only is it working, those who have come back in are expressing considerable satisfaction with their experience. That definitely is one that will continue.
The other key issue is the early retirement question. Historically, as a country we have been slow to accept the fact that lifespan has increased very significantly. People's capability and fitness levels are much higher at an older age now. There are complex issues in terms of pensions and fast accruals, but given the real seriousness of this issue, I am very concerned about the Naval Service and the numbers we have. We have to take meaningful and radical action to maintain and retain those who are in the services. These are discussions that the Government is engaging in at the moment.
Airport Policy
Alan Dillon
Question:75. Deputy Alan Dillon asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the extent to which his Department is involved in developing anti-drone technology; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29571/23]
It is widely accepted that anti-drone technology will play a crucial role for governments to ensure the safety and security of their citizens. Drones have become increasingly accessible and can pose significant threats such as unauthorised surveillance, smuggling and even acts of terrorism. Implementing effective anti-drone measures and robust policies helps the Government protect its airspace and critical infrastructure from potential risks. To what extent has the Department explored advanced technology that can mitigate the misuse of drones?
A key priority for me as Minister for Defence is to ensure the capabilities of the Defence Forces are maintained, developed and enhanced to ensure the Defence Forces can carry out all of the roles assigned to them by the Government as set out in the White Paper on Defence.
Capability priorities for the Army, Air Corps and Naval Service are considered as part of the capability development planning processes, which include both a five-year equipment development plan and a built infrastructure programme. The equipment development plan recognises the need to maintain and upgrade military capabilities having regard to emerging priorities, operational requirements and changes in technology. This is an ongoing iterative process.
Following the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces in 2022, which included a wide range of recommendations relating to capabilities and funding, the Government approved a move to level of ambition, LOA, 2 as set out in the capability framework devised by the commission. Allied to this, one of the recommendations made by the commission provided for the development of anti-drone or counter unmanned aircraft systems, UAS, capabilities. This recommendation was accepted in principle in the subsequent high-level action plan published last July following the Government's consideration of the commission's report. As a result, a civil-military working group on UAS detection and counter-UAS technology has recently been established. The working group has commenced a study of national and international best practice and regulatory requirements to see how UAS detection and counter-UAS technology can best be deployed in the context of enhancing the capacity of the Defence Forces to carry out all of the roles assigned to it by Government. Building on current and previous staff studies in this area, the working group will make recommendations on the development of the Defence Forces capability and capacity in this area.
Anti-drone technology is a really hot topic right now. Unmanned warfare is taking centre stage, especially in the Ukraine war, where Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine has raised the profile of drone warfare with some 600 unmanned aerial vehicles from both sides estimated to take flight daily.
However, locally, the threat from drones is far broader. Commercial drones are typically sold with preset geofencing that prevents their flight near sensitive locations. However, these guardrails are easily hacked. We all witnessed the havoc and disruption recently at Dublin Airport with many hundreds of flights grounded. In March, the Minister, Deputy Ryan, spoke about the purchase of the necessary anti-drone equipment and the decision required on who would deploy the necessary technology. Will the Tánaiste provide some information on the types of equipment purchased that is in operation? Who is controlling this? Is it within the remit of the Defence Forces? Will he also refer to the future investment in this technology?
As always, we have to look at both the protection of the State but also civil protection issues.
In the context of Dublin Airport, this issue was the subject of considerable publicity recently. The Government decided to appoint the DAA to purchase and deploy a counter-drone technology solution at Dublin Airport. This is an interim response, initiated by my colleague, the Minister for Transport, to the risks posed by illegal drone use at Dublin Airport. I am advised that the DAA now has a drone detection system in place. It is being used to support enforcement activity, and I understand that a number of cases are before the courts. The deployment of counter-drone technology at Dublin Airport is a complex operation. The technology needs to be deployed and operated safely. The DAA is engaging extensively with the relevant safety regulators, the Irish Aviation Authority and the Commission for Communications Regulation. I am advised that testing of the procured equipment has been recently completed and that the process to ensure it can be safely operated at the airport is now well-advanced.
The question relates to the implementation of this anti-drone technology. From what the Tánaiste has said, it seems that it is currently not up to date or is not in operation. While I accept that the DAA has drone detection systems, that does little in terms of protecting our air spaces or implementing take-down measures through a number of provisions. I wish to ask about progress across Departments to strengthen our ability to deal with drone incidents. The Departments of Justice, Transport and Defence all have roles in establishing effective measures to ensure the safety and security of our air space. We all appreciate that a comprehensive approach is needed, and this must be developed to enhance our drone security. What future investment does the Tánaiste sees within the Defence Forces to ensure that this happens?
There is some capability within the Defence Forces regarding drone technology. It is not all about warfare either; it is about many practical applications, for example, where they can come to the aid of the civil power, assist State agencies and utilities and perform drug interdiction. There are many positive utilisations. We have observer status on an Italian-led permanent structured co-operation, PESCO, project on counter-unmanned aerial systems, CUAS, the objectives of which are to define the criteria for the development of advanced and efficient CUAS systems, both for fixed sites as well as with on-the-move capability. Member states with observer status on PESCO projects have no voting rights and cannot influence the direction of projects but it allows member states to gain knowledge on what the project expects to achieve and what is required from the member states. That is another useful example of the value of being in PESCO - to see how others use drone technology, for example. We can get a first-hand view of that. The working group will give due attention to this; it must be planned properly. Suffice it to say, the Deputy is correct - drone technology is here to stay.
Question No. 76 to 78, inclusive, taken with Written Answers.
There are literally 20 seconds left if Deputy Ó Cuív wants to ask the next question. There is hardly even time for an answer.
I was going to ask a question on behalf of Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan.
I know, but we are out of time. The Deputy has 20 seconds if he wants to ask the question.
I will move to Question Nos. 79 and 85 instead. They are in my name.
Naval Service
Éamon Ó Cuív
Question:79. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if it is intended to resume the practice of naming Irish Naval Service vessels after figures in Irish mythology, as was the practice up to 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29511/23]
Éamon Ó Cuív
Question:85. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence his policy in respect of the naming of new Naval Service vessels; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29510/23]
There was a practice of naming naval ships after people in Irish mythology and giving them Irish names. Does the Tánaiste intend to revert to that practice for the two new ships purchased by the Naval Service?
The reply will have to be read into the record. The Tánaiste may do so if he wishes.
I will read it into the record. To be frank, it is not an issue to which I have given consideration. Now that the Deputy has raised it, I certainly will and perhaps discuss it further with him. As he said, the tradition was to name them after Irish female mythological figures. In 2013, the then Minister instructed that a review of the naming policy should be undertaken. Following that review, the Minister came to the view that naming the ships after world-renowned Irish literary figures reflected a more modern and inclusive Ireland. The current position is that decisions relating to the naming of these vessels are under consideration and have yet to be taken. Perhaps we could marry the two.
Is féidir teacht ar Cheisteanna Scríofa ar
www.oireachtas.ie
.
Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.