Barry Cowen
Question:52. Deputy Barry Cowen asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the strength of the permanent Defence Force as of 1 January 2024; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2724/24]
Ceisteanna Eile - Other Questions
Defence Forces
Pádraig O'Sullivan
Question:65. Deputy Pádraig O'Sullivan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence what action he will be taking to stabilise the numbers within the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2600/24]
Can the Tánaiste give me an update on the strengths of the Permanent Defence Forces as of 1 January 2024 and will he make a statement on the matter? This question No. 65 is grouped with question No. 52.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 52 and 65 together.
I thank the Deputy for raising the question. As I outlined earlier to Deputies, 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 were discharged in 2023 and 415 personnel were inducted. The Commission on the Defence Forces stated in its report that it was satisfied that, in broad terms, levels of average turnover are not out of line with other military organisations internationally.
In an effort to stabilise numbers, I have instructed that additional enlisted personnel and cadets be recruited in 2024 beyond the projected induction figure, and for military management to respond with their plan to implement this action. An allocation of €1.23 billion for the defence sector in budget 2024, which includes a provision for the recruitment and training of at least a net additional 400 enlisted personnel in 2024, will assist in this regard.
Current strategies on recruitment in the Defence Forces will also support efforts to stabilise numbers. 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.
I discussed earlier the Be More with the Irish Defence Forces campaign which continues to talk about opportunities in the Defence Forces.
The establishment of the joint induction training centre in Gormanstown will also greatly assist with recruitment into the future. Military management advise that when fully operational, it will enable induction training to be provided to 900 recruits per annum. That is a significant investment.
We then have the recruitment of cadets and direct entry specialists which will continue in 2024 and is expected to expand as the terms and conditions of a new Air Corps cadetship stream and direct entry officer role are under consideration, as are further increases in age limits for entry. We have increased the limits by which people can join the Army and the Defence Forces.
We brought in specialist external expertise to look at the entire recruitment processes in the Defence Forces to validate them and to advise on recruitment processes. They made significant recommendations. Suffice it to say that change is needed in the recruitment processes and in how we can optimise our spending in the media and in recruitment more generally.
It is encouraging to note that the intake is progressing a bit more favourably this year. I acknowledge that additional funding which the Tánaiste mentioned in the previous budget where I think that €67 million specifically was allocated to address retention issues and that a further €1.5 billion will be allocated over the next five years. With regard to the optimum figure of 11,500 Defence Forces members as a standing service of overall numbers, I believe the Tánaiste said here previously that to achieve that would be very challenging.
On the projections the Minister is receiving from his officials, how quickly will the Department meet the target of 11,500 acting servicemen and women? He mentioned in his initial response that the Department is consulting external recruitment expertise. Will he elaborate on what that involves? Is it liaising with other defence ministries abroad? What is meant by external expertise?
The level of turnover in the Defence Forces was approximately 10% in 2023. That includes those in training. The military advice is that is not unusual across the globe.
On the specific point, we brought in a specialist company to examine recruitment processes within the Defence Forces, especially the Naval Service, which is critical. What is happening in the Naval Service is not satisfactory. The company has outlined and identified areas for significant improvement in how the Defence Forces recruit and how we can convert more. That has to do with the interval periods between applications and people being brought in for training. The pay rates have been substantially increased. For a starter, pay is now significantly ahead of other similar grades in the public service. We must look at the retirement ages to improve retention and I hope we will have announcements on that front soon. It is important. Then there is raising the age at which people can join. The age limits are historical and do not conform with modern lifespans or the abilities of people at different ages today and we must grasp that nettle.
On that specific point, the age limit has been increased in other sectors, including the Garda, recently and, therefore, I do not see why the Government would not envisage something like that in future for the Defence Forces.
Coming back to the Minister's point about stabilising figures, which I think he said was his immediate priority last autumn, I do not expect him to have a crystal ball but from dealing with his officials, is there enough capacity at the moment with respect to applications and recruitment that he thinks he has stabilised the numbers we are losing, namely, the 10% he spoke of? We have spoken previously about how challenging the labour market is at the moment and the demand for people who have come from the Defence Forces in other sectors. When will the Minister achieve that stabilisation? Does he have any comment on the working time directive, the kinds of conditions the armed forces are working under and progress on that?
The Deputy said it himself at the outset and I think we are seeing trends in the gap between inductions and people retiring narrowing. The first objective is to stabilise that and get to a net increase figure. It is going to take some time before we get back to establishment level, never mind the target of the Commission on the Defence Forces. The service limits for privates, corporals and sergeants have been extended on an interim basis to the end of this year, so we will need a decision shortly on creating a sustained picture and narrative for those currently in the Defence Forces.
We have made very good progress on the organisation of working time directive and a submission has come to me on it. I expect to make decisions to activate that, in the sense of beginning the process of including the Defence Forces under the directive, which has been an objective of mine. My officials have worked hard with the Defence Forces, military management and the representative associations and a considerable degree of agreement has been reached. There is not total agreement on every issue, but progress has certainly been made in this area.
Departmental Reports
Colm Burke
Question:53. Deputy Colm Burke asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence to advise what progress has been made to date in respect of the key recommendations set out in the independent review group into the Defence Forces' report of 2023; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2636/24]
Will the Tánaiste outline what progress has been made to date on the key recommendations set out in the independent review group, IRG, into the Defence Forces' report of 2023? Will he make statement on the matter?
I thank the Deputy for raising the issue. The report of the IRG established to examine dignity and equality issues in the Defence Forces was published following Government approval on 28 March 2023. The Government agreed to progress the recommendations contained in the report.
One of the first actions taken was the establishment of an external oversight body, initially on a non-statutory basis, which is a critical element to driving the necessary culture change throughout the Defence Forces and increasing transparency and accountability. Professor Brian MacCraith agreed to chair the body and last July, the Government approved its terms of reference. To date, the external oversight body had met on 17 occasions and last November I received its first written report in what is, from here on, a quarterly reporting cycle.
In a further important development, last month the Government approved the general scheme of the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2023, which includes provisions for the establishment of the external body on a statutory basis. The general scheme has since been published on my Department’s website. In July 2023, the Government also approved the text of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Human Trafficking) Bill 2023. Part 4 of the Bill amends sections 169 and 192 of the Defence Act 1954 in line with a recommendation in the IRG report. These amendments will ensure An Garda Síochána will have sole jurisdiction within the State to investigate alleged sexual offences committed by persons subject to military law. Any subsequent cases will be dealt with by the civil courts. The Bill is progressing through the Dáil and is currently on Report Stage.
On 16 January, the Government approved the terms of reference for a judge-led tribunal of inquiry to examine the effectiveness of the complaints processes in the Defence Forces concerning workplace issues relating to discrimination, bullying, harassment, sexual harassment and sexual misconduct. It will also have the power to investigate the response to complaints made regarding the use of hazardous chemicals within Air Corps’ headquarters at Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel. I am very pleased that Ms Justice Ann Power will chair the tribunal and I express my gratitude, and that of the Government, to her for agreeing to take on this very important task.
Over the coming week, I will move motions seeking the approval of both Houses to formally establish the tribunal and thereby allow its work to get under way as early as possible this year. In a further development last week, I announced the appointment of Mr. Kevin Duffy as the independent chair of the working group that is to be established to develop a complaints process for civilians and civil servants working with the Defence Forces. He brings a wealth of experience. Following discussions with officials in my Department, the Garda Commissioner has established a helpline for victims of sexual assault to report historical or current cases.
I thank the Minister for his reply and the work that has been done to date. However, the report states:
The reported practices appear to have created a lack of trust in leadership. This emerges strongly from the Perceptions and Experiences survey (2022) and the Benchmarking Report (2022) data which show that 50% of survey respondents are either ‘very dissatisfied’ or ‘somewhat dissatisfied’ with people senior to them.
There are 13 recommendations in chapter 4 of the report that was published and I am wondering how many of them have been carried out to date. The Minister referred to the legislation and some of the recommendations require legislative change. However, with respect to the ones that do not, how many of them have been put in place to ensure members the Defence Forces are satisfied with the job they are in?
A significant number of the recommendations have been followed through on and have been worked on. I did not list them all there. The whole consultation around the establishment of a tribunal has taken an especially lengthy time, and rightly so, because people wanted to consult and get it right and have suggestions made that we have taken on board. We moved very quickly on identifying that justice Bill for ensuring all sexual assault is investigated by An Garda Síochána. We have also taken steps in respect of the treatment of women in the Defence Forces and in respect of a whole range of the recommendations that were made to make the work environment one where dignity is the key principle that is followed.
I can get a list for the Deputy of all the areas we have followed through on. The external oversight body has been established, but now we are going to put it on a legislative footing. We have published that legislation. There is a lot of work going on. Then we produced the strategic overarching framework, which involves both recommendations of the IDG and also the CODF.
If a survey was done in the morning on the issue of the restoration of confidence, is the Minister satisfied we have made enough progress? I fully accept the action taken on this report goes back only to March 2023.
It is a very short timeframe but to get people into the Defence Forces, we need to make sure they are going into a job that they are not concerned about as regards how they will be treated, particularly female members who are joining. Is the Minister satisfied that we are restoring confidence and that by this time next year, for example, we will have made major progress in that whole area?
The Deputy summed it up himself when he said that cultural change takes time.
Absolutely.
I am not satisfied yet. I think we still have some distance to go but we are making progress on a whole range of fronts. On the pay front, the Government has made significant progress with things like the patrol duty allowance and medical care. While they are not specific to the independent review group, they are important in terms of the overall quality of the work environment within the Defence Forces. We have made a lot of progress on the working time directive, which is equally important in respect of quality of life for people working in the Defence Forces. There are fundamental issues in terms of training and command and control. These are complex issues that were part of the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces that we are now examining. The recommendations will take a lot of resourcing to implement but we are determined to do so. There is an overarching strategic framework, which encompasses the recommendations of both the independent review group and the Commission on the Defence Forces. They all dovetail, ultimately, in terms of having a better place and better prospects for people working in the Defence Forces.
Defence Forces
Seán Haughey
Question:54. Deputy Seán Haughey asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence for an update on progress in the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission on the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2760/24]
Cathal Crowe
Question:56. Deputy Cathal Crowe asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the progress he expects in 2024 towards realising level of ambition 2 for the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2698/24]
Pádraig O'Sullivan
Question:84. Deputy Pádraig O'Sullivan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the actions he is taking to drive forward the cultural transformation of the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2599/24]
I ask the Tánaiste for an update on progress in the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission on the Defence Forces.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 54, 56 and 84 together.
I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. As Minister, I am deeply committed to the transformation of the Defence Forces into a modern, fit-for-purpose organisation to defend the State and meet the challenges of today and the future. Following the publication of the report of the independent review group on dignity and equality issues in the Defence Forces in March 2023, I set out my priority to develop one strategic framework for the transformation of the Defence Forces in order that it would be fully understandable to everyone.
The strategic framework, which I published in September 2023, brings together into one overarching document the immediate actions to be taken to support the transformation of the Defence Forces. My priority within this transformation is cultural change above all else. The end goal of this cultural change is to ensure that the Defence Forces is an equal opportunities employer, reflective of contemporary Irish society and is providing a safe workplace where self-worth is actively promoted, mutual respect becomes a dominant feature, and all members are treated with dignity in an organisation that continuously evolves to deliver positive change.
The detailed implementation plan for the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces, which was published on 21 November last, forms a core element of the overarching strategic framework and achieving this end goal. The publication of the detailed implementation plan is a further important step on this journey and builds on the publication of the commission report itself in February 2022, the high level action plan in July 2022 and the early actions update published in March 2023. This plan sets out an ambitious programme of work to move to level of ambition 2 by 2028 and the significant and fundamental change for the Defence Forces that will be delivered across the commission’s recommendations, which span strategic human resources and cultural change; the establishment of new command and control and joint structures; reform and restructuring of services; a revitalisation of the Reserve Defence Force; and the implementation of joint capability development.
Do I not have more time because there is a number of questions?
You will get time to respond but you do not get more than two minutes now as there is only one Deputy here.
Okay, I have to do what I am told.
I acknowledge what the Tánaiste has just said. He also referenced in his previous reply to Deputy Burke the importance of instigating cultural change and the whole issue of restructuring. Of course, that is required but I want to go back to the issue of retention. We were in the unenviable position last year of having to withdraw from a peacekeeping group. Part of the roadmap ahead in the context of this report and the action plan that came from it is that we will be able to honour our commitments to the EU battle group in 2024 and 2025. Is the Tánaiste confident that aim or target can be achieved?
In response to an earlier question I asked on retention, the Tánaiste said he spoke to Defence Forces personnel about improving the conversion rate of those applying to join the Defence Forces. He referenced the age limit increase but are there any other specific steps being taken to improve that conversion rate?
To conclude my initial response, much progress has been achieved since the commission’s report was published. The high level action plan identified the recruitment, through an open process, for the new senior-level civilian positions of head of transformation and head of strategic human resources for the Defence Forces as necessary early actions. Appointments have now been made to these positions. A number of the recommendations that have been implemented to date have had a significant impact. We recently announced new changes to the existing Naval Service allowances, as a means of simplifying current structures, by consolidating the daily allowance and the sea-going commitment scheme into one enhanced allowance. This is in line with the Commission on the Defence Forces recommendation to replace existing sea-going allowances with less complex measures. The sea-going commitment scheme was abolished from the end of 2023. Specifically, the current patrol duty allowance paid to Naval Service personnel will be doubled after ten days at sea. This measure has taken effect from 1 January 2024 and will result in the daily rate increasing from €64.67 to €129.24 for an officer, and from €64.27 to €128.54 for an enlisted person, after ten days at sea. In addition to this, healthcare afforded to officer ranks has been extended to enlisted ranks. Secondary healthcare is being provided to all enlisted personnel. Personnel of private 3 star-able seaman rank are now paid the full rate of military service allowance applicable to the rank and the requirement for that cohort to mark time for the first three years at that rank has been removed.
There is a lot more here that I can submit to the House.
To go back to the action plan again, I understand it is in its infancy in terms of the delivery of the goals that have been set out but I want to focus on one or two specific points. I will concentrate on the naval side of things, which the Tánaiste mentioned in his previous response. I understand that one of the aims of the action plan is to improve security around subsea cabling, for example, in the context of interference there. This will involve procuring submersibles to aid the Naval Service in the protection of undersea cables. Are we any way along in the journey of procuring that specific technology? I know it is early days yet but I ask the Tánaiste to comment on that. I am also interested in the procurement of sonar systems to strengthen our anti-submarine activity off our coast.
We have to beef up the capacity of the Defence Forces to develop a comprehensive radar system, to assess the requirements for Ireland in that respect and to procure one. On subsea cables, obviously aerial support is important. There are a number of dimensions to protecting subsea cables, the most critical one being collaboration with other EU member states, the US and other countries. The monitoring is done globally and different countries alert each other when they spot potential third-party actors who may be either monitoring our subsea cables or are in our specialised exclusive economic zones. It was explained to me by a senior military adviser - not in the Irish Army - that this will be a battle of maths in the future. A lot of this will involve the private sector providing far more information in respect of its cables. There are lots of complexities around international maritime law as it applies to data under the sea and a lot of expertise will be required. Therefore, we do need to collaborate with other countries in terms of protecting subsea cables, particularly the transatlantic ones, because of the enormity of the data that flows through them, which affects all of our lives. It is not just about ships alone.
Defence Forces
Matt Carthy
Question:55. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the current number of Defence Forces members posted to the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, UNDOF, peacekeeping mission in the Golan Heights; the current timeframe for the withdrawal of the Defence Forces' infantry group from this mission; the number of Defence Forces personnel who will remain posted to this mission thereafter; and if he will consider reviewing the decision to withdraw from this important mission. [2734/24]
I want to return to what is one of the more disappointing developments in the history of the Defence Forces, particularly its contemporary history.
This is the decision to withdraw members from the UNDOF peacekeeping mission in the Golan Heights. I would appreciate it if the Tánaiste would outline the current timeframe for the withdrawal of the infantry group from this mission and the number of Defence Forces personnel who will remain posted to the mission thereafter. I again ask whether there will be a reconsideration of the decision to withdraw.
No, there will not be. As of 11 January 2024, there are 134 Defence Forces personnel serving with the UNDOF. I got advice at the time I came into office to pull back and consolidate. We may consider additionality in UNIFIL or elsewhere but that depends on current events. We have a commitment to the EU battle group 2024-25. We have been part of the battle groups since 1999-2000. That is something we have committed to under the Common Security and Defence Policy, CSDP. It is important for interoperability. We are in UNIFIL with Poland at present. Interoperability is key so the battle groups are important.
Planning for the withdrawal of the current Defence Forces contingent, the 68th Infantry Group, and its replacement, is well advanced, involving the United Nations, the force headquarters, the current Irish contingent and the replacement troop contributing country to ensure a smooth handover that in no way compromises the mission. Notwithstanding the withdrawal of the infantry group, the Defence Forces intend to continue to occupy a small number of staff officer posts at the UNDOF mission headquarters. These numbers have not yet been determined and will depend on the take-up of these posts by those countries contributing troops to the mission.
As I said, there is no plan to review the decision to withdraw from the UNDOF this year. The replacement troop contributing country has been selected to take over the role of the force reserve company, following the scheduled Irish departure in April this year. That is the position. We must have the flexibility to contribute, pull back in certain areas if we wish, and then redeploy elsewhere. That is normal.
Whatever way the Tánaiste tries to justify this, he should not try to justify it as an example of flexibility. Far from it being a sign of flexibility, this goes to the core of the weakness of the Defence Forces as a result of the actions of successive Governments. I can see it is logical for a Minister to say that "circumstances must" and, in order to fulfil other commitments we have made, we have to withdraw from what is a crucially important UN peacekeeping mission. At the very minimum, however, I would expect an acknowledgement that we are in an incredibly regrettable position.
In response to an earlier question, the Tánaiste mentioned what would happen if there were a peacekeeping mission in the Middle East. There is a peacekeeping mission in the Middle East. There are actually two, but there is one-----
I am talking about Gaza. The Deputy knows that.
-----that has a UN mandate and we are withdrawing from that. Does the Tánaiste acknowledge it is a regrettable position that we have to withdraw and that it would be better if we had the capacity, if we are to take his other rationale at face value, to continue operating in this mission? Does he accept that?
The Deputy is a great man for distorting what gets said. He knew damn well I was talking about Gaza, yet he just switched it. What I mentioned earlier is there may be a call for an international security force. There may not be but there may be. In all the talks about bringing peace to Gaza and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict it has been actively considered that an international security force would be better in Gaza than an Israeli security presence. I am sure the Deputy agrees with that. He asked the question in the context of the triple lock. I made the point that if the triple lock continues, we would need UN Security Council agreement for that. That was the context in which I suggested to the Deputy that if we were asked to contribute to a peacekeeping mission in Gaza, I would not like to depend on the Security Council if there were not unanimity there. I would like to participate, if we could. That was the context, but the Deputy switched around to this question of us wanting to go into the Middle East and then pulling out. I received military advice at the time I came into office to reconsolidate. Yes, we are joining the peace group but we have been doing that. We have withdrawn from a number of areas, although they involve smaller numbers, for different reasons.
I asked the Tánaiste whether he had considered the position we are in. Accepting the Tánaiste's rationale that we have to do this, I contend it would have been much better had that decision not been made. It is crucially important if for no other reason than just imagining a hypothetical scenario where a peacekeeping mission is going to Gaza. I am sure whichever body was organising it, it would look at the Irish and asking whether they could trust these lads not to pull out. That is what we are doing as regards the peacekeeping mission in the Golan Heights. To do that, and the reason it has taken quite an amount of time from the original decision being made, others need to step up to plate, just as we stood up to the plate when a previous state withdrew.
The point I am making is that this goes to the heart of dichotomies in the Government's position. On the one hand, it is saying we need to get rid of the triple lock in order to be able to participate in missions that do not have a UN mandate. The Tánaiste has yet to cite what precisely that is. He cited a hypothetical mission in Gaza-----
No, I gave you four cases-----
-----but there is an important mission in the Golan Heights. Does the Tánaiste accept it is important? Does he accept it would be better if Ireland were able to continue participating in it? Those are the questions I have asked.
Again, I gave the Deputy four examples in a recent question. I spoke about the ship and Operation Sophia and so on-----
From 1999. I am talking about today.
One voice, please.
No, it was 2015. I gave the Deputy examples in respect of that. He made a comment that was unacceptable when he said that these lads could not be trusted as they will pull out.
That is what we are doing in the Golan Heights.
The United Nations trusts Ireland. As a country, we are one of the most consistent, respected peacekeepers in the world.
And you are withdrawing from one of the more important missions.
Cheap comments of that kind should not be made by the Deputy. He is just in the job, but he should at least have some respect for the country and how we are perceived internationally.
That is why I am trying to protect our reputation while you are trying to do it down.
All peacekeeping participation is subject to review. We pulled out of MINUSMA, which concluded in September 2022. We withdrew three Defence Forces personnel from the MONUSCO stabilisation mission in the Congo. The original two-year commitment to that had ended. We withdrew from the UN training mission in Mali. We take decisions on an ongoing basis. We then decide to enter into other missions if we can, some of which were, in the past, EU led or otherwise led. I will not mix up the two jerseys of the triple lock question and this specific issue. There might be a role in the western Balkans.
There is a role in the Golan Heights.
I am repeating myself all night. Thank you, Deputy.
I thank the Chair for her indulgence.
Question No. 56 taken with Question No. 54.
Question No. 57 taken with Written Answers.
Defence Forces
Alan Dillon
Question:58. Deputy Alan Dillon asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if he will outline the opportunities for the EDA to deepen its supports for the Irish Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2791/24]
The Defence Forces deserve their fair share of EDA support. The EDA's co-operative projects and programmes with member states offer significant opportunities. By participating actively we can enhance our capability and ensure interoperability with our European partners. The EDA's mission is to support and improve EU member states' defence capabilities that align with our needs. I would appreciate an opportunity to explore current provisions within the Defence Forces.
I thank the Deputy for raising the issue. The EDA was established by a joint action of the Council of the European Union in 2004 "to support the Member States and the Council in their effort to improve ... [the Union’s] defence capabilities in the field of crisis management and to sustain the European Security and Defence Policy as it stands now and develops in the future”. On 6 July 2004, Government approved Ireland’s participation in the framework of the EDA. The primary reason for Ireland's participation in this member state-led and established body is to support the development of Defence Forces' capabilities for peacekeeping and international crisis management operations. Ireland’s participation in the agency provides access to research and information on developing and maintaining professional capabilities and research that we cannot self-generate.
Our participation in EDA projects and programmes is underpinned by legislation, namely, the Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009, which stipulates Government and Dáil approval is required for participation by Ireland in the ad hoc projects of the agency.
Importantly, it is completely voluntary as to what projects we wish to participate in. Ireland is currently involved in eight projects through the EDA: MARSUR III - maritime surveillance; the EU Satcom Market - joint procurement for satellite communications; ECMAN - a training project on manual neutralisation of IEDs; MSCB - military search capability building; joint procurement of ammunition; joint procurement of CBRN equipment; joint procurement of soldier equipment; and MICNET - the military computer emergency response team operational network.
The White Paper on Defence references that opportunities should continue to be identified to expand Ireland's participation in multinational capability development projects within the framework of the EDA, in support of the Defence Forces' operations capacity and capability. My Department and the Defence Forces are continually assessing the opportunities that exist in the EDA. Most recently, in July last year we joined four EDA projects, three of which were on joint procurement and one on cyber defence. Other projects that we have joined in the past cover capability areas such as counter improvised explosive devices, military search, and maritime surveillance.
I thank the Tánaiste for his comprehensive response. It is encouraging to hear that with the support of the EDA, the Defence Forces are enhancing their capability and improving their readiness. This will contribute more effectively to both regional and international security.
I am aware that the EDA chief executive visited Ireland last year and had discussions with the Defence Forces and Department of Defence senior officials on new opportunities. Certainly, cyber defence, maritime security and medical support are pressing issues in the context of the training and skills development in our Defence Forces. Will the Tánaiste elaborate on some of the projects that are currently live at the minute? Were applications submitted for calls within the European Defence Fund to support these projects and programmes?
I have outlined the eight projects that we are currently involved in, and I outlined that we joined four more. I met with the chief executive officer last year when he came to Dublin. We have established a capability development unit, which goes back to Deputy O'Sullivan's question, to deal with the expanded capability of the Defence Forces as per the Commission on Defence Forces. This unit gives us the capacity of structures to develop and expand within our Department. We can focus on what the EDA and other international institutions can offer to support our capability development. It is very much up to us about where we want to utilise the expertise within the European Defence Agency, to get the right equipment, the right weaponry, and to make sure that we have the optimal interoperability with others with whom we might serve on peacekeeping missions.
I have just one comment on participation in joint exercises. Over the past months we have seen a number of drug seizures off the coast, which have been valued at more than €100 million. With Ireland's vast coastline extending to more than 3,000 km, it is not practical for officers within the maritime unit to be able to cover all this area. The possible assistance of the EDA to strengthen our coastal security measures on the Irish coast, be it through EU co-operation and participation in both the joint military exercises facilitated by the agency, could improve our interoperability and also ensure that we do not become a back-door smuggling route into the EU given the vast waters we have. There is an issue of constraints around our own patrol ships at sea with just two Naval Service ships and this may be an opportunity that could be explored into the future.
The EDA is more a procurement agency to assist us in procuring equipment, weaponry and so forth. Perhaps the Deputy is referring to the PESCO projects, which is a separate initiative. We are currently participating in four PESCO projects: upgraded maritime surveillance; deployable military disaster relief capability packages; maritime autonomous systems for mine countermeasures; and a cyber threats and incident response information-sharing platform. We are observer status on a further 20 projects. I can supply the full list.
Drug interdiction is all about intelligence, collaboration and agencies working together nationally and internationally. There is success there. I visited in Colombia recently. We have a superintendent garda out there in our embassy working with Colombian police forces in sharing of intelligence around narcotics and drug trafficking. That type of exchange of information is key to tracking the shipments, being in a position to know where they are going, and intercepting when most appropriate.
Ukraine War
Catherine Connolly
Question:59. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence further to Parliamentary Question No. 65 of 21 November 2023, the total military aid given by the EU to Ukraine since February 2022, and the details of the contribution given by Ireland to date; the details of the contribution given by Ireland towards common costs of the EU military assistance mission in support of Ukraine; the details of any contributions or donations made by the Defence Forces to Ukraine to date since February 2022, and any contributions or donations planned; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2755/24]
I am just trying to keep up to date with the amount that we are giving to Ukraine one way or another. What is the total military aid given by the EU to Ukraine since February 2022? Will the Tánaiste give us the details of the contributions given by Ireland to date, the details of the contribution given by Ireland towards the common costs of the EU military assistance mission in support of the Ukraine, and the detail of any contributions or donations made by the Defence Forces here?
It is important to reiterate that Ireland and the European Union have been consistent in their support for Ukraine in the face of Russia's illegal and unjustified war of aggression. The response by the Union to Russia's invasion of Ukraine has been unprecedented in its unity, firmness and determination. It has encompassed political, financial, humanitarian, military and diplomatic support for Ukraine. Member states have agreed approximately €5.6 billion in military assistance to Ukraine under the European Peace Facility, EPF, to date, consisting of approximately €5.22 billion for lethal equipment and approximately €380 million for non-lethal equipment.
In line with the programme for Government, Ireland constructively abstains in all lethal equipment elements of the support packages. Our full share of funding - approximately €122 million to date - is therefore directed exclusively towards non-lethal support. This is the basis on which Ireland's involvement in the EPF was decided by the Government, and agreed with and understood by our European Union partners. In addition, Ireland's contribution towards the common costs of the EU military assistance mission in support of Ukraine, EUMAM Ukraine, totals €4.16 million to date. Further contributions by Ireland are likely this calendar year.
Through their participation in EUMAM Ukraine, the Defence Forces have provided: two modules of training to the Ukrainian armed forces in de-mining and clearance, which were conducted in Cyprus; three modules of tactical combat casualty care and combat lifesaver, which were conducted in Germany; and two modules of drill instructor training in Germany. The Defence Forces have a draft programme of training to be provided up to March of this year, which is subject to regular updating.
The Department of Defence has previously provided approximately 10 tonnes - or 5,000 units - of ready-to-eat meals and 200 units of body armour, which were shipped from Defence Forces stocks to Ukraine. I have also approved the donation by the Defence Forces of two DOK-ING mine clearance systems, mine flails, to the Ukrainian armed forces. Mining is a huge issue now in Ukraine and it is currently foreseen that this donation, as well as training on their use and maintenance, will take place in the near future.
I thank the Tánaiste for the reply. I am struck by the forceful nature of the language. I have condemned Russia out of hand for its illegal invasion. In the face of Russia's illegal and unjustified war of aggression, I have never heard the same terminology regarding Israel's attack on the Palestinian people. That is the first thing to note.
The second thing to note is that the Tánaiste is telling me the EPF has given €5.6 billion in military assistance. It is a misnomer to call this a peace facility. Can one imagine if we used even a fraction of that fund to bring peace in the world and to help the war to stop? That war should be stopped by now. That €5.6 billion is hard to place in context. When I look at the fact sheet of EU solidarity with Ukraine on the European Commission website, I am told that €67.7 billion has been given over. This €67.7 billion of course related to humanitarian emergency funding but also to military aid. The Tánaiste has given me the figure of €5.6 billion under the peace facility. What is the total figure out of that €67 billion?
There is a lot of bilateral aid which member states themselves provide jointly. Many EU member states, not us, see the Russian invasion as existential, particularly the Baltic states and Poland. Initially, even German people felt the war posed an existential threat to the security of Germany. This is the context. It is arguable that the support given by many member states has stymied Russia's ambition to take over Ukraine. It was touch and go. When we speak to people in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Moldova they feel they are next if Russia succeeds. It is very much seen in existential terms by many of these countries. Europe is vulnerable from a security perspective. We have made our contribution in line with Government policy.
I believe that war is an existential threat.
So do I.
What is happening in the Middle East is very threatening but we do not use the same language. We are an independent republic. We are an independent sovereign state and we are neutral. We should use our voice to bring peace in the world. That is what we should be doing. I am desperately trying to see among this large figure of €67.7 billion what it is that Ireland is contributing while we dance on the top of a needle saying we are not providing military support and we are giving non-lethal aid. This is the difficulty for me. Then there is the contrast. Earlier, in the Tánaiste's speech on the motion, he spoke about €2 million or €3 million from us going to the International Court of Justice. That is what we have done for Gaza and the Palestinian people.
Maybe I am wrong-----
You are.
I will be the first to say sorry if I am. If the Tánaiste looks at the figures that I am looking at, he will see that €67.7 billion is the figure for EU solidarity with Ukraine.
Ireland is a force for peace in the world. In our motion today we condemned the continued Israeli bombardment of Gaza. I condemned the Hamas attack on 7 October. We are seeking peace and we have called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Ireland is consistent in its approach to these matters. We voted for the Arab resolution at the United Nations seeking an immediate cessation of all violence in Gaza. We have been very consistent. We were one of the first EU member states to come out on our own to state we want a ceasefire. We made it very clear when the Arab resolution came forward. Our commitment to the Palestinians is far greater than €3 million. That was unfair and Deputy Connolly knows it. I have said it, and the Deputy has been in the House on numerous occasions when I have detailed our support to UNRWA, which was approximately €18 million last year in terms of the occupied territories alone. There is also our support of OCHA with additional funding for its work in Palestine. The European Union is the biggest donor to the Palestinians but we need to do more.
Departmental Properties
Christopher O'Sullivan
Question:60. Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if the licence issued to the Bere Island Projects Group for access to the Lonehort Battery on Bere Island (details supplied) can be renewed immediately; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2764/24]
This issue is more local. It is to ask about a licence that was in place between the Bere Island Projects Group and the Department of Defence for access to the Lonehort Battery on Bere Island. Why was the licence not renewed? When can it be renewed?
I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. There is a long-standing policy of allowing third-party access to Defence Forces facilities and properties in order to support the local communities and to raise the profile of the Defence Forces. This policy extends to a wide number of groups and activities, including GAA clubs, soccer clubs and numerous community groups throughout the country.
As the Deputy correctly said, there is a long-standing association with the Bere Island Projects Group, stretching back to 2013. This has been an association the Department has been happy to support and, I am advised, remains committed to doing so. The Department entered into a formal licence agreement with the Bere Island Projects Group for the use of Lonehort Battery on Bere Island on two previous occasions. The licence allows the group access to the battery for the purpose of its preservation, associated works and its possible development as a visitor attraction.
An application for a licence renewal from the Bere Island Projects Group for access to Lonehort Battery is being actively processed by the Department. In advance of the legal indentures being finalised, I have instructed the officials to issue a letter of comfort to the organisation confirming that it is intended to renew the licence on the same terms as previously agreed.
Deputy O'Sullivan has been raising this issue with me for quite some time. It is a very good project and I pay tribute to the group for the work it does. I recommend people to pay a visit to Bere Island if the weather improves.
I thank the Tánaiste. That is a great answer and I do not know what to do now with my speaking time. It was such a positive response. It is good news and the sooner it progresses the better. I visited Bere Island recently. The Tánaiste might have seen the headlines about the electricity being cut off on the island for more than 30 hours. The subsea cable connecting the island to the mainland was cut by activity that should not have been happening in the inlet at the time. I went to visit the island because being without power for 30 hours is a dark thing for any island community to go through. We did not just talk about loss of electricity; we spoke about so much else.
The Bere Island Projects Group is a fantastic initiative on the island. It organises tours of the Lonehort Battery, which was built in 1899 and used during the First World War. It is an incredible attraction. It is good news that the licence will be renewed. It means the two tour guides who give full guided tours of the battery can continue to do so. The maintenance side is very important, with community employment and Tús workers and volunteers maintaining the battery. They do jobs such as cutting the grass. It is very important that this operation remain in place. Perhaps we can touch on funding to turn it into a world-class tourist attraction.
I thank Deputy O'Sullivan. West Cork people are very self-reliant, innovative and enterprising, particularly the people of the Beara Peninsula and Bere Island itself. The Department of Defence administers 91.05 ha of land on Bere Island on behalf of the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform in whom the land is vested. The Department of Defence administers 11-month land lettings on 129 acres on Ardagh Mountain and 12.5 acres at Camp Rerrin for the grazing of sheep, cattle and Dexter cattle. The Department of Defence has a fairly significant presence on Bere Island. I hear what Deputy O'Sullivan is saying. It is a strong community. If, through other Departments and agencies, we can support this initiative, I would be very interested in pursuing it with the Deputy.
I thank the Tánaiste. Since he mentioned other Departments and agencies, there is a great opportunity for the Bere Island community to transform the Lonehort Battery into a world-class visitor attraction to attract people to the island. I am not sure whether the Department of Defence is directly involved in this type of activity with regard to tourist attractions but perhaps something like a long-term lease with Cork County Council could be arranged that would allow access to funding to make it a world-class visitor attraction. I am thinking of places such as Spike Island and Charles Fort in Kinsale. There is potential.
I visited the island and although my next point is certainly not in the remit of the Minister, I will bring it up during my speaking time. Islanders depend on access by boat and having proper pier and slipway infrastructure. The piers and slipways on Bere Island badly need upgrading and improvement. It can only be accessed by ferry. This is a very important point to bring up in Cabinet discussions with relevant Ministers. I hope this is something that can be raised with them.
On the latter point, I am not sure whether the Brexit adjustment reserve funding applied. There was significant ramping up of investment in piers. I will speak to the Minister for agriculture in respect of this specific issue. My Department is open to seeing what we can do long term to facilitate certainty. Spike Island happened and I was involved in it at the time. The county manager asked me whether we could persuade the Department of Justice and the then Minister, Senator McDowell, to release Spike Island to the county council. The county council took it on board and the rest is history. I will examine this matter and discuss it with my colleagues and officials in the Department.
Question No. 61 taken with Written Answers.
National Security
Aindrias Moynihan
Question:62. Deputy Aindrias Moynihan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence what measures are being taken to protect any threat of damage to high-speed cables that traverse the north Atlantic, with Ireland being a major international junction for such cables; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2743/24]
Bernard Durkan
Question:71. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the action or actions proposed to augment the ability of the Defence Forces here to protect vital subterranean and submarine infrastructure in light of any recent global threats in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2756/24]
An estimated three quarters of the northern hemisphere's undersea cables pass through Irish waters. We are very much at the crossroads between the EU and North America, with significant traffic over and back along those cables. Will the Tánaiste outline the measures being taken to ensure that they are not interfered with?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 62 and 71 together.
I thank the Deputy for raising this question. As he will be aware, Ireland, like many other countries in Europe, has witnessed a fundamental change in our security environment in the past year, with an increased focus on maritime security and the protection of subsea cables. The security of Ireland’s subsea infrastructure is a matter of utmost importance to the Government.
As I informed the House on 22 November during a debate on the consultative forum on international security, it is the Government's intention to develop a maritime security strategy, with the necessary resourcing, accompanying legislation and decision-making systems in place. This strategy will have a particular focus on subsea infrastructure.
Following the attacks on Nordstreams 1 and 2 in October 2022, my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, Deputy Eamon Ryan, sought support from my Department for additional measures that could be put in place to ensure that critical offshore infrastructure, including data cables, was protected. As a result of this, enhanced patrolling of the Irish Sea in the vicinity of priority offshore infrastructure is taking place by a mixture of air and naval platforms.
For the Deputy’s awareness, the Naval Service, as the State's principal seagoing agency, is tasked with a variety of defence and other roles. While the main daily tasking of the Naval Service is to provide a fishery protection service in accordance with our obligations as a member state of the EU, it also carries out a number of non-fishery-related tasks in tandem with maritime surveillance. Aerial monitoring and surveillance of the Irish exclusive economic zone is carried out by the Air Corps maritime patrol squadron. Two new C-295 maritime patrol aircraft, equipped with state-of-the-art surveillance and communication equipment, were delivered to the Air Corps in 2023 to replace the existing CASA CN-235 aircraft. Following an intensive period of training and verification, the new aircraft have recently been certified to commence operations.
My priority as Minister for Defence is to ensure that the operational capacity of the Army, Air Corps and Naval Service is maintained and developed. This is to enable the Defence Forces to carry out the roles assigned by the Government. A great deal of work is under way to ensure that we have the required capabilities, with equipment projects under way. We will make further capital acquisitions shortly in terms of strategic airlift and so forth.
The efforts to get the two new naval vessels and the aircraft and to have them deployed have been helpful, positive and a constructive step. Another step would be to identify what underwater capabilities are needed. I understand that the development of advanced capabilities in that respect is a big job, as it involves getting people trained and acquiring hardware. What measures are being taken to advance our subsea capabilities as a supplement to our other work?
What engagement has the Department had with other organisations, be they the cables’ owners or other state bodies, on sharing capabilities and information? Is there such engagement and, if so, will the Tánaiste outline it?
A civil-military working group has been established to progress a project for the enhancement of subsea awareness capabilities, as recommended by the Commission on the Defence Forces and referenced in the detailed implementation plan, which was published last November. That project is under way.
One of the projects under NATO’s Partnership for Peace is on maritime security and relates specifically to subsea cables. We have to collaborate with other countries and share information and expertise. It is a complex and high-tech area. The Deputy is correct that private sector companies will have to provide more information. There is maritime law on the ownership of data, data traffic and so on. Additionally, in the EU PESCO projects that we are participating in, we highlight the subsea area, including subsea cables, when it comes to maritime security.
Typically, these cables are privately held by various organisations. Those organisations will obviously have an interest in ensuring the security of the cables. I imagine that they will also have capabilities and be monitoring their cables. Is there a sharing of resources and information in that regard and, if so, how helpful is it? Obviously, there is a State responsibility at play in any of this infrastructure, but I am trying to get an understanding of the link-up between private enterprises – the owners – and the State on ensuring that the cables are secure and not being interfered with.
There is a bit more work to be done on engagement with the private sector on the subsea cable issue. Internationally, there is engagement at EU level. The resilience and protection of critical infrastructure has become a higher priority issue for the EU since the pandemic and Russia’s war of aggression on Ukraine. Regarding the new individual tailored programme between NATO and Ireland, that is, the Partnership for Peace, it has been agreed that the Department of Defence will lead cross-government work on managing the new resilience partnership areas. This will complement the Department’s cross-government work on the EU’s critical entities resilience directive on protecting critical infrastructure and utilities. A number of EU initiatives are focused on the protection of critical offshore infrastructure, including a new critical seabed infrastructure protection project within PESCO, which I referenced earlier.
There is collaboration, but the Deputy is correct, in that collaboration with companies needs to be developed more.
Question No. 63 taken with Written Answers.
Tribunals of Inquiry
Réada Cronin
Question:64. Deputy Réada Cronin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if his Department will revisit the terms of reference of the tribunal investigating abuse in the Defence Forces, given the dismay of Women of Honour at the limits of what is proposed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2741/24]
Matt Carthy
Question:74. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if he will report on his engagements with stakeholders regarding the establishment of a tribunal of inquiry arising from abuses allegations brought to public attention by Women of Honour group; the timeframe within which he expects the tribunal to commence its work and complete its final report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2732/24]
Violet-Anne Wynne
Question:76. Deputy Violet-Anne Wynne asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if he will comment on the terms of reference of the statutory inquiry into the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2794/24]
Catherine Connolly
Question:78. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence further to Parliamentary Question No. 78 of 21 November 2023, the status of the tribunal of inquiry to examine the effectiveness of the complaints process in the Defence Forces; the timeline for same; to clarify if the tribunal will examine allegations of abuse in respect of which formal complaints were not made; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2754/24]
Peadar Tóibín
Question:85. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if he met with the Women of Honour group before the terms of reference for the tribunal of inquiry into the Defence Forces handling of bullying, harassment and sexual assault allegations were agreed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2780/24]
Niamh Smyth
Question:93. Deputy Niamh Smyth asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence his response to concerns expressed that the proposed tribunal of inquiry into abuse in the Defence Forces “comes across as a paper exercise”; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2766/24]
Will the Department of Defence revisit the terms of reference of the tribunal investigating abuse in the Defence Forces, given the dismay of Women of Honour at the limits of what is proposed, and will the Tánaiste make a statement on the matter?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 64, 74, 76, 78, 85 and 93 together. I believe we addressed this matter in an earlier question.
Sort of, but not quite.
The draft terms of reference were prepared. There was a significant number of meetings between Women of Honour, me and the Attorney General. In the earlier question, I listed the amendments that we had taken on board as a result of those meetings with Women of Honour. I would make the point that we agreed on a range of issues. If the Deputy wishes, I will list them again.
That the statutory inquiry would be by way of public inquiry was Women of Honour’s first big request. We discussed the pros and cons and agreed to it. We accepted an amendment on the addition of physical torture, physical assault and psychological harm and the definition of “abuse”, and these are now in the terms of reference. Another amendment involved the inclusion of the Protected Disclosures Acts, 2014 and 2022, and the definition of “complaints processes”. The investigation of whether complaints were actively deterred was sought, and I believe that was fair. Whether there was a culture that discouraged the making of complaints is in the terms of reference. The provision of safeguards for serving members who give evidence to the tribunal is included, as is the provision of a waiver in respect of non-disclosure agreements. The tribunal may permit evidence of abuse and the consequences of abuse to be heard and there is provision for an investigation of the response to the use of hazardous chemicals within the Air Corps headquarters.
Also, the draft terms of reference were expanded following consultation with stakeholders, especially with the Women of Honour group, to include investigations of whether complaints of abuse were actively deterred or if there was a culture that discouraged the making of complaints. This will allow the tribunal, and this concerns the Deputy's earlier point about incidents, to investigate allegations where an individual claims they did not pursue their complaint through the process due to, for example, their fears of repercussions.
There was a fear that if a complaint had not been made that this would mean someone could not go before the tribunal. This has been dealt with and it is in the terms of reference. The chair, the judge, is absolutely clear that all cases that come before the tribunal will be heard. Obviously, though, the tribunal cannot make findings in relation to criminal matters that are before the courts.
We are all anxious that the tribunal does its work and it goes well for the Women of Honour and, indeed, the people we met this morning in the audiovisual room. There are, though, three things we must keep to the front of our minds here because if we do not, then we will be lost before we start. One is that there is a great power imbalance between the Defence Forces as an organisation and the individual personnel within it. It is also a hierarchical and patriarchal culture, in which the outlined sexual and other abuses were committed. The third point is the powerlessness of the people who were abused in a society within a society. It has its own rules, its own discipline, its own courts and its own police. Of course, regarding the people being dealt with, it is not just a question of a different rank. The people being dealt with are armed. They have their own courts. These are things we must keep to the front of mind in respect of the terms of reference and the business of the tribunal.
I thank the Deputy.
How does it go when questions are grouped?
It is Deputy Wynne who is next and then-----
Okay.
We are running out of time. I call Deputy Wynne.
Right. I was just not sure about the procedure when the questions are grouped like this.
Go raibh maith agat. As the Minister is aware, there was a briefing in the audiovisual room today and the information we heard was quite harrowing, not only from the Women of Honour but from the other groups as well. They mentioned respect, loyalty, selflessness, physical courage, moral courage and integrity. Those are the six values that the Defence Forces state are fundamental. They are the ethos of the Defence Forces. These values are the very reason many chose a career in the Defence Forces. Unfortunately, they were let down and failed and they are coping with that fact daily.
To choose the military is not an easy option. It is not for everyone and it is a choice that comes from a place of great pride in your country and a call to defend your people. The Minister needs to bear in mind that these are formidable individuals. They will not be deterred nor will they give up. They have been loud and unequivocally clear that the terms of reference do exclude victims of abuse. We know full well that the complaints process has been deficient, and we have known this from as far back as 1990. Perhaps the Minister can provide a bit of clarification because it is my understanding that those who did not engage with the complaints process will not be included in the inquiry.
No, they will be.
We are actually out of time. I will just let this item conclude. I will allow the Tánaiste in for a very brief comment.
People who did not make a complaint during their lives in the military for fear of suffering reprisal-----
-----or were deterred by intimation will be allowed to go before the tribunal and make their case because it is important that they will be able to go before the tribunal so that-----
Does that depend on the judge's opinion?
No, it does not depend on that. This is in the terms of reference.
This was not what was explained to us.
I know, please-----
It is in the terms of reference.
Right.
This was made clear to the members of the Women of Honour group as well. It is in the terms of reference.
That was not their interpretation of it.
Yes, there has been a breakdown in communication because-----
I have listed out three times today now that we specifically included and facilitated any people who felt they could not make a complaint because they were deterred from doing so or were afraid there would be reprisals. All those cases are not excluded. I do not know how that has emerged. The Attorney General met with the Women of Honour group with me and went through all of this. The only issue at the end that I could think of, because I listed out all the issues, and the Deputy probably heard me there listing the cases, was around the random selection issue in a context where we had, say, thousands of cases. This matter goes back 40 years, so there is a safeguard in there to ensure we can finish the process within a reasonable timeframe.
Go raibh maith agat.
Will that be-----
The judge, however, has made it clear that, and this relates to workplace incidents and everything, in terms of-----
I thank the Tánaiste. I have stretched the time as far as I can.
The idea of random selection had come from the legal representative of the Women of Honour group in the first instance.
I thank the Tánaiste.
Anybody who made a complaint and was unhappy with how that complaint was treated or anybody who did not make a complaint but who was abused can come before the tribunal.
We are out of time. We are four minutes over.
Maybe we will get the terms of reference.
Okay. Earlier, it was said there was a lack of communication or, certainly, that the communication was poor between the Minister's Department and the stakeholders.
Okay. I have given as much flexibility as I can. I am really sorry.
I know. We will be discussing it anyway, so I suppose we will get a bit more clarity in that context.
Yes, this matter is on tomorrow.
Go raibh maith agat. That concludes questions to the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence.
Is féidir teacht ar Cheisteanna Scríofa ar
www.oireachtas.ie
.
Is féidir teacht ar Cheisteanna Scríofa ar
www.oireachtas.ie
.
Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.