Vol. 1048 No. 3
49. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the timeframe in which he intends to bring forward proposals to remove the triple lock neutrality protection; when he expects the legislation to be enacted; and which missions he envisages the Defence Forces participating in from which they are currently preluded. [2988/24]
What is the timeframe in which the Tánaiste intends to bring forward his regrettable proposals to remove the triple lock neutrality protection? When does he expect the legislation to be enacted? Will he outline on this occasion the missions in which he envisages the Defence Forces will participate from which they are currently precluded?
I thank the Deputy for raising the question. Any modification to the triple lock will continue to require Government and Dáil approval for the dispatch of Defence Forces personnel to take part in peacekeeping and similar missions. Second, it will do nothing to change Ireland’s traditional position of military neutrality, which is characterised by Ireland's non-participation in any military alliance.
The Deputy will be aware that last year’s consultative forum on international security policy featured a well-informed discussion on the issue of UN peacekeeping and the triple lock, contributed to by a wide and varied perspective of views on this matter. It was a very good discussion, well informed and not partisan in any way, and it was subsequently reflected in the chair’s report. This debate provided ample evidence of ways in which to continue Ireland’s long-standing record on peacekeeping while ensuring adherence to the highest standards of international law.
Clearly, we need a new process to replace the current system, which effectively allows UN Security Council members to bind Ireland’s hands in its international engagement. While not being prescriptive about what changes will be made, I have instructed officials in my Department to prepare legislative proposals without delay that would govern the future overseas deployments of our Defence Forces. Work on the preparation of those legislative proposals is progressing, with a view to bringing them to the Government in due course. Any proposals agreed by the Government will then have to be presented to, and debated and approved, by the Dáil and Seanad, thus providing the Oireachtas with ample opportunity to scrutinise any such proposals. Any legislative proposals will remain fully consistent with the principles of the UN charter and international law.
The Government has no plans for the Defence Forces to participate in any further overseas missions at present. Indeed, and extremely regrettably, however, no new peacekeeping missions have been approved by the UN Security Council since 2014. Given the volatility in international security today, we need in the future to be able to deploy our Defence Forces to peacekeeping and crisis response missions speedily and with agility, irrespective of whether they are led by the UN, the EU or another regional organisation.
I still cannot get my head around how the Tánaiste can use the phrase "irrespective of whether" a mission is led by the UN or another body. We all know that under international law and the UN charter, it is UN-approved missions that have the status of peacekeeping missions. Otherwise, anybody could describe any military mission as a peacekeeping one.
That is not true.
In fact, some very aggressive military hostilities, including the Russian invasion of Ukraine, have been framed in the terms of peacemaking or peacekeeping, and there is a reason there is a UN framework in place to set that out.
The Tánaiste outlined that there will be Oireachtas approval. Will he assure us there will be no attempt at any stage to either guillotine or minimise any level of Oireachtas oversight? As I have said repeatedly and will reiterate, there is no democratic mandate for this. The Tánaiste's party's own manifesto set out clearly the protection of the triple lock as a core tenet of enshrining our neutrality, and the programme for Government did likewise. Will he give a commitment in respect of Dáil oversight that no guillotine will be applied and that there will be no attempt to subvert any stage of the legislation?
We were recently a member of the Security Council for two years. The Russian invasion of Ukraine, which the Deputy mentioned, is a catalyst for change because Russia, at the moment, has a veto on whether we would ever participate in a peacekeeping mission sanctioned by the UN Security Council. Surely the Deputy is not suggesting our hands should be tied, in terms of participation in peacekeeping, by Russia. I know that in 2014, his party had a different view and kind of acquiesced in Russia's invasion of Crimea, when it did not raise the issue anywhere, but it has opposed the current invasion. I do not understand how we could allow Russia to paralyse us.
To give an example, a possibility of a veto emerged in 2022 in respect of the renewal of UN authorisation for EUFOR, or Operation Althea, and Ireland was a member of the UN Security Council at the time. We were in a position to play a key role in securing the renewal of that UN mandate for that mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina, where five members of the Defence Forces were deployed. A similar case arose in 1999. There are a number of examples where the veto has been used to stop peacekeeping.
We should bear in mind that the UN has sanctioned the European Union as a peacekeeping entity, along with the African Union and regional bodies of that kind in the past.
I remind the Tánaiste the UN has sanctioned a peacekeeping mission in the Golan Heights for which our Defence Forces have quite rightly earned widespread praise for the way and the manner in which they have conducted themselves, and I would argue that peacekeeping mission is more important now than ever. We are withdrawing from that peacekeeping mission, not at the behest of Vladimir Putin but at the behest of Micheál Martin. He is the man who is withdrawing our troops from that peacekeeping mission.
I will ask the Tánaiste one more time, because I am sure he is not suggesting we enter Ukraine, considering that no external forces are engaged in military or peacekeeping activity in that country at the moment. He has outlined on a number of occasions that he wants this legislative change to be made without delay. Where is it, therefore, that he wants to send members of the Defence Forces where they are currently precluded from going, given he has withdrawn them from the places where they were doing good work?
On military advice, I was asked to withdraw troops from the Golan Heights in the interests of consolidation, an issue we will deal with on a later question. We are participating in the EU battlegroup, as we have been doing for 20 years.
To give another example, a subsequent EU peacekeeping operation in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia did not have a Security Council mandate and Ireland was unable to participate in that mission. More recently, in 2015, the European Union established a security mission in the Mediterranean Sea known as Operation Sophia. That mission did not have a UN mandate until 2016 and Ireland could not consider contributing to it until that mandate was in place. In 2017, the Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre Narcotics, an international maritime intelligence centre supported by the EU, requested a Naval Service ship to assist with maritime drug interdiction operations. Although we are a strong supporter of the centre and were, in fact, one of the founding members, a ship could not be sent given there would be no UN mandate for such an operation.
Those are the kinds of examples we could be excluded from. There could very well be a mission if there were an effective Middle Eastern peace plan, such as through the Arab peace initiative-----
I thank the Tánaiste.
Everybody has spoken generally about the need for an international force to guarantee security in Gaza, for example. We want the war to stop in Gaza and we have asked for a ceasefire. If it did stop, there would be a need-----
I thank the Tánaiste.
We would argue that it would be far better to have an international security presence there to keep the peace than it would be to have Israeli security in Gaza suppressing people.
On that point, while I am a great believer in and advocate for peace in the Middle East, I would not advocate sending our troops there without a UN mandate. That is a debate for another day perhaps.
50. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the number of members that left the Army, Naval Service and Air Corps in 2023; the number of new members recruited to each; the current membership of the Defence Forces; and the projected numbers by year-end 2024. [2989/24]
I ask the Minister for Defence the number of members who left the Army, Naval Service and Air Corps last year; the number of new members who were recruited; and therefore the current membership of each branch of the Defence Forces.
The military authorities have advised that as of 31 December 2023, the strength of the Permanent Defence Force stood at 7,550 personnel. A total of 750 personnel discharged in 2023 and 415 personnel were inducted. A table containing the requested breakdown by branch of these figures will be provided to the Deputy.
Every effort is being made to increase the strength of our Defence Forces. The high turnover and challenge with recruitment are being experienced worldwide. The Government has introduced many changes to make the Defence Forces an attractive option as a career choice and will continue to work with the Defence Forces to enhance recruitment and retention.
The Defence Forces have engaged a marketing and media partner to assist with recruitment advertising to ensure engagement with the recruitment demographic across social media and other media platforms. Specific advertising for specialist recruitment is placed in industry-specific publications and websites. As part of the Naval Service-specific recruitment campaign, phase 3 of a Naval Service recruitment advertisement will launch in the last week of January 2024.
The current marketing strategy for Defence Forces recruitment, Be More with the Irish Defence Forces, which was launched in 2022, aligns the desire of the target demographic to continuously improve and learn new skills while ensuring long-term career advancement by ably demonstrating opportunities and skills a career in the Defence Forces offers.
The Defence Forces continue to broadcast this message through regular visits to schools and frequent attendance at recruitment and career fairs and events. Furthermore, transition year students can avail of placements within the organisation to undertake various programmes across a number of locations, demonstrating career opportunities. We have made significant progress in improving the terms and conditions of personnel in the Permanent Defence Force. Actions taken include significant progress on basic pay, the roll-out of private secondary medical care to all ranks and the recent doubling of the amount of the patrol duty allowance payable to Naval Service personnel at sea after the first ten days in a calendar year.
At a recruitment briefing to me in December 2023, management in the Defence Forces outlined that the total projected induction figure for 2024 was 540. Given the current situation, I do not believe that figure to be ambitious enough. I have therefore instructed that additional enlisted personnel and cadets be recruited in 2024 beyond this figure and for military management to present a plan on how this will be achieved.
I am sure the Tánaiste will accept that those figures are incredibly concerning. When this Government came into office, it inherited a crisis in terms of the numbers in the Defence Forces. The numbers at that point were 8,659. When the Tánaiste assumed the role of Minister, that number had reduced to 7,966. If I recall the figure he gave correctly, it now stands at 7,550. The trend has not changed at all. While recruitment is ongoing and we welcome the initiatives that have been taken and we wish that process well, there is an elephant in the room. As well as having a recruitment crisis, there is, above all, a retention crisis. It is clear from the figures given that more people are leaving in any given year than are being recruited. Does the Tánaiste acknowledge that? Does he have any retention-specific measures to propose?
We have established the Defence Forces joint induction training centre in Gormanston, which will ultimately enable induction training to be provided to 900 recruits per annum. That is a significant investment. We have also appointed a specialist internal expertise group to go in, validate and advise on recruitment processes in the Permanent Defence Force, with a particular focus on the Naval Service. A report with detailed recommendations has recently been submitted to me. That is an important piece of work that will inform significant changes in how we recruit in the future.
There is no lack of interest in joining the Defence Forces, as evidenced by the 9,479 applications received across all competitions in 2023. That does not mean everyone who applies will follow up. I have put it to the Defence Forces that the conversion rate of those applications does not seem to be sufficient or high enough and we have to do more on that front.
On the retention front, we have increased the age at which people can join and we expect decisions shortly in respect of retirement ages being increased.
The Tánaiste indicated that he does not think the Defence Forces are ambitious enough in their targets. I would make the same charge of the Government. In budget 2023, funding was provided to allow the recruitment of an additional 400 personnel, but that did not happen. In fact, as I said, the numbers actually went down further. This year, however, the funding provided in 2024 provides for the exact same target - an additional 400 people. I presume that is a net figure.
It is net.
Does the Tánaiste accept that an additional 400 members, which would not even bring numbers up to where they were at this time last year, is not sufficient either? We are talking about the need to be more ambitious in our hopes and aspirations for the Defence Forces. Yes, we need the Defence Forces but, in the first instance, we need to see leadership and vision from the Government, and they are lacking.
I do not agree with that at all.
The numbers speak for themselves.
This is a net increase. I have been in office for one year. I am determined to deal with this. There are a number of interlocking issues. This Government has dealt substantially with pay. On completion of training, recruits start at €38,000 in year one. That increases to €39,400 in year two and €40,700 in year three. School-leaver cadets, on commissioning, are paid €41,962, or essentially €42,000, and after two years, they are promoted to lieutenant and their pay rises to €47,000. For a graduate joining, the pay rate, on commissioning, is €47,000. On the pay front, significant work has been done, including on a whole range of allowances.
The retirement issue is important. We have had a series of meetings with my colleague, the Minister for public expenditure, and other Ministers specifically on the retention issue. This will be significant in reducing the number of those leaving the Defence Forces. It is a bit early to see the impact of the patrol duty allowance in the Naval Service, but we are hopeful it will have some impact.
51. Deputy Réada Cronin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence when negotiations with stakeholders regarding the terms of reference for the tribunal of inquiry into abuse allegations within the Defence Forces concluded; and if he secured full support and endorsement for his proposed terms of reference from stakeholder groups which brought the abuse allegations to light prior to bringing them to Cabinet. [2990/24]
I ask the Minister for Defence when the negotiations with stakeholders regarding the terms of reference for the tribunal of inquiry into abuse allegations within the Defence Forces concluded; and if he secured full support and endorsement for his proposed terms of reference from stakeholder groups which brought the abuse allegations to light prior to bringing them to Cabinet.
The report of the independent review group, which was established to examine dignity and equality issues in the Defence Forces, was published on 28 March 2023. The Government agreed to progress the recommendations contained in the report, which included the establishment of a statutory inquiry to identify systemic failures, if any, in the complaints system, in order to ensure accountability and transparency.
The draft terms of reference were prepared in consultation with the Attorney General and shared with a wide variety of interested parties. In July, I obtained the approval of the Government to establish a judge-led tribunal of inquiry, pursuant to the provisions of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, as amended.
I considered all views and observations received from a wide range of interested parties. There were a variety of views expressed at the stage of the formative tribunal. For instance, some people expressed the view that they would be reluctant to share their experiences in public. Other individuals and groups sought a statutory public inquiry and that is what we have done. While recognising and acknowledging publicly the very important role of the Women of Honour in bringing very serious allegations to public attention, I also had to consider the views of other interested parties, including my obligation to current serving members of the Defence Forces.
The draft terms of reference initially prepared and circulated last May were amended and expanded arising from the feedback received from the Women of Honour and other groups and following further discussions with the Attorney General.
The terms of reference provide that the tribunal of inquiry will examine the effectiveness of the complaints processes in the Defence Forces concerning workplace issues relating to discrimination, bullying, harassment, sexual harassment and sexual misconduct and to investigate the response to complaints made regarding the use of hazardous chemicals within Air Corps headquarters at Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel.
The Government approved on Tuesday last the terms of reference for the tribunal. The Government also approved the appointment of Ms Justice Ann Power to chair the tribunal. I will be bringing a motion for resolution to establish the tribunal of inquiry before this House tomorrow.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Tánaiste for his reply on this extremely sensitive issue. The Women of Honour were clear when I spoke to them that when they, in turn, spoke to the Tánaiste around the terms of reference on 14 December, he said he would reflect on the matters they raised with him. It seems there is a clear breakdown in communication between his Department and the Women of Honour because they were certainly under the impression that he would be returning to them after a period of reflection and they fully expected to hear back from him. There is such a critical difference with regard to the Tánaiste's Department and the Women of Honour and it is not a good sign of things to come. It worries me that this shows a lack of respect and the old cultural view and the "we know better" way of doing things over people's heads. The Women of Honour were especially concerned around the proposed use of the wording "complaints of abuse" as opposed to what they saw as being "instances of abuse". They were certainly under the impression that negotiations with the Tánaiste had not concluded, so I will ask again whether he felt that negotiations had concluded.
I am surprised with what the Deputy said and I do not think it is fair. There has been full respect on my side and there has been ongoing engagement. We actually met in January but the Deputy seems to suggest the last meeting was in December. We met again, we reflected, we changed and we made further inclusions, particularly in respect of the hazardous chemicals issue in Baldonnel. We changed on the instances issue. We dealt with that. People will be able to come forward and discuss what happened to them within the context of how the complaints system worked. We also included the issue of whether people were deterred or intimidated from making complaints. There was the question of reprisals, if they happened. All that is in the terms of reference.
The only outstanding issue when we concluded was that the Women of Honour's view on the random selection was that the judge had the authority, if she wished to exercise it. It is clear to me that the judge will hear all cases, but, for instance, if there are thousands of cases coming in, one has to make a provision for the judge to take a selection and to say that she can make conclusions in respect of what she has heard. The judge is very clear that she wants to hear all the people who come forward. That was the only issue. The idea of a random selection came from the legal representative of the Women of Honour in the first instance and we thought it was a good idea because it was trying to broaden out some aspects of the terms of reference.
Speaking of the Women of Honour and all the other stakeholders in this, we depend on our Defence Forces. The Tánaiste is so proud of them, as we all are, and we all want this tribunal of inquiry to work. It must work because it is an important tribunal and it has been long-awaited. The Tánaiste knows as well as anybody that if one makes a complaint in the Defence Forces, and this was reiterated earlier this afternoon in the audiovisual room, that it essentially puts an end to one's career, removes any kind of peace of mind in the workplace, and puts a target on one's back. It is all well and good saying that it is up to the judge to decide on complaints and on instances of abuse but the Woman of Honour were very specific with the Tánaiste when they met him before Christmas that they very much wanted to have instances of abuse rather than complaints of abuse in the terms of reference. I know that we will be discussing this tomorrow also and we have amendments which will be brought forward but I very much think the Tánaiste should look very favourably at our amendments tomorrow.
The Women of Honour made very significant submissions in respect of this and during the various meetings we had. I believe we have had eight or nine meetings. In December we agreed to include "psychological harm" in the definition of abuse and that the tribunal may permit evidence of abuse and the consequences of abuse to be heard. We reflected that in the terms of reference and these have now been included in the finalised terms of reference.
In determining the format, we agreed there would be a statutory public inquiry, which was a request of the Women of Honour. I can give the Deputy a list: the statutory inquiry will be by way of tribunal of inquiry with the addition of "physical torture, physical assault, [and] psychological harm" in the definition of abuse; the inclusion of the Protected Disclosures Acts 2014 and 2022 in the definition of complaint processes; the investigation of whether complaints were actively deterred; whether there was a culture which discouraged the making of complaints; provision for safeguards for serving members who gave evidence to the tribunal; provision for the waiver of non-disclosure agreements; the tribunal may permit evidence of abuse and the consequences of abuse to be heard; provision for investigation of the response to complaints regarding the use of hazardous chemicals within the Air Corps headquarters in Baldonnel; and consider the adequacy of the complaints processes in light of what responses were received. These are all the provisions the Women of Honour sought and amendments which are in the terms of reference and were agreed. There are other areas on the suicide issue and the medical board, which will be decided by separate approaches.
