Vol. 1051 No. 4
6. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence further to Parliamentary Question No. 78 of 23 January 2024, the status of the tribunal of inquiry to examine the effectiveness of the complaints process in the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12835/24]
I ask for an update on the status of the tribunal of inquiry to examine the effectiveness of the complaints process in the Defence Forces. I ask for a specific update on this, given the background. In 1990, the Gleeson report was published, which outlined the inadequacies in the grievance procedures, the victimisation of people who applied for redress and the urgent need for an inquiry.
I have been Minister for Defence for over a year. I am determined to establish a tribunal of inquiry, on foot of the independent review group.
The Government recently approved the terms of reference for a tribunal of inquiry, pursuant to the provisions of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. The tribunal will examine the effectiveness of the complaints processes in the Defence Forces concerning workplace issues relating to discrimination, bullying, harassment, sexual harassment, sexual misconduct and the use of hazardous chemicals within Air Corps headquarters at Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel. The Government also approved the appointment of Ms Justice Ann Power to chair the tribunal. The motions to establish the tribunal of inquiry were subsequently approved by Dáil and Seanad Éireann. A premises in Smithfield in Dublin has been provided by the Office of Public Works for the purposes of the tribunal.
The chair is currently making arrangements to allow the tribunal to commence its work as soon as possible. Once all logistical and administrative arrangements have been put in place, I will sign a statutory instrument to give effect to the tribunal which will thereby allow it to commence its work as soon as possible.
I thank the Tánaiste for the update. Have all members, as well as the necessary administrative and backup staff, been appointed? I gather from the answer that work has not yet begun at the tribunal. The Tánaiste said that in due course he will sign a statutory instrument. When will the tribunal actually start its work?
The Tánaiste has confirmed verbally that if people have not made complaints formally, they will still be included. That is not set out in the terms of reference. Will he clarify that again for the record? It is not in the terms of reference, so it is important that we get clarification.
Trust is of the essence. We are going back to 1990. I have a list of publications, including the report of Senator Tom Clonan from 2000, the independent monitoring group report from 2002, a research paper from 2016 and the Women of Honour report from 11 September 2021. The terms of reference were negotiated, but the Women of Honour were not involved. The burden rested on their shoulders after the failures over the years.
I made it clear in the Dáil on numerous occasions that the terms of reference cover anybody who did not make a formal complaint to the complaints processes coming before the tribunal and that people can have their issues addressed. In terms of why they would not have, many people felt they were deterred by the complaints processes which existed. Within a week or two, I hope to be in a position to sign the statutory instrument to sort out all of the legal rates. The judge will appoint a backup team and so on. We have provided for a three-year timeframe from the time of establishment of the tribunal to the completion of its work. I expect work to get off the ground in the next number of weeks.
I thank the Tánaiste. I know he has confirmed some things, but they were not in the terms of reference.
They were. We can go back to that.
That is why we keep asking these important questions. I looked at the terms of reference. I and other colleagues have raised this issue and the Tánaiste verbally confirmed the terms of reference, which is good. I do not want to repeat what I have said, but this is important. The independent review group told us that neither men nor women were safe. That was a staggering statement. I do not want to repeat what I have said in the short time I have available. We have come to this point because the complaints procedure has failed utterly. There is ambiguity around whether those who did not make a formal complaint are covered by the terms of reference. I appreciate the bona fides of the Tánaiste in saying that they will, but he might appreciate where I am coming from on behalf of the people who had serious doubts about the process from day one.
Again, there is no ambiguity, nor should there be any, in respect of that issue. I made that abundantly clear at the time the relevant motions came before the House. The issues being covered by the tribunal are very serious, but we have already acted in respect of many of the recommendations of the independent review group, whose conclusions were quite shocking. Any incident of sexual assault or abuse is now immediately referred to An Garda Síochána. We took that decision very quickly in the aftermath of the independent review group report. There have been a range of other decisions in addition to that, apart from the establishment of the tribunal.
7. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence to list the military equipment, munitions and hardware purchased from Israeli-based or Israeli-owned defence companies in each of the past ten years; the current contracts that are awaiting delivery over the next five years; and the value of each. [13274/24]
9. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the engagements between his Department and-or the Defence Forces with the Israeli Defence Forces or other Israeli bodies since January 2023; and if proposals for further engagements are currently under consideration or review. [13158/24]
This question relates to the purchase by the Department of Defence of military equipment, munitions and hardware from Israeli-based or owned defence companies in the past ten years and whether those contracts are ongoing or any future contracts are pending.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 9 together.
I am advised that my Department has had no engagement with the Israel Defence Forces or other Israeli state bodies since January 2023. Similarly, the Defence Forces have had no engagements during this timeframe, save any arising as part of an overall deployment of the 12 Defence Forces officers serving with the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation, UNTSO, mission. Three officers are based in UNTSO headquarters in Jerusalem, with a further officer based in Tiberias in Israel. There are no proposals for further engagements under consideration at present.
My Department has purchased several lines of defensive equipment and hardware from Israeli owned and-or based companies in the last ten years. No munitions were purchased from Israeli owned and-or based companies during this time period. A tabular statement will be circulated setting out the detailed information requested by the Deputy.
In summary, the equipment purchased relates to micro unmanned aerial vehicle, UAV, systems, fire control or target sensor systems, optical sights and infantry bridging platforms, to a total value of €11.5 million. All equipment platforms contracted for have been delivered with no further deliveries pending. I am advised that current contractual arrangements extend to the support and maintenance of the existing Orbiter UAV equipment only, with an anticipated annual cost of €295,000.
The principle of competitive tendering for Government contracts is used by the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces for the acquisition of goods and services. This is a European Union law requirement and is in accordance with the defence and security directive. Central to those procedures is the requirement to allow fair competition between suppliers through the submission of tenders following advertising of the tender competition on the e-tenders site and on the Official Journal of the European Union, where appropriate. Such tender competitions are open to any company or country, subject to the terms of all United Nations, OSCE and EU arms embargoes or restrictions. No such restrictions or embargoes are in place on Israel or Israeli companies. EU procurement rules direct that defensive equipment contracts be awarded on a merit-based system, having regard to selection and award criteria published in the competition concerned.
I do not know where to start on this. I have been raising this issue for a long time in this Chamber. There is no ethical component to the purchasing of weapons from Israel or any other country that is at war. Given the slaughter that is happening in Gaza and the history of Israeli actions in respect of Palestine, there should never have been any purchasing of any equipment for the Defence Forces. That we purchase unmanned aerial vehicles, drones, from Israel and that it is still involved in their maintenance and, therefore, can gather information on their use and put that information to use in attacking civilians in Gaza is very suspect. All of this needs to end. Will the Tánaiste take on board the need to have ethical purchasing and procurement from Ireland's point of view, that is, not to be dependent on the UN or any country at this stage, given what we have seen in recent months?
Further to that, a related matter is the services provided by Ireland to the Israel Defense Forces. Since 2018, six members of the IDF have trained at the United Nations Training School Ireland or under NATO's Partnership for Peace. It is abhorrent that Ireland has facilitated the training of members of the IDF over the past 13 years, throughout which Palestinians were subjected to brutal oppression and onslaughts by the IDF. Almost as a sick joke, these courses included one on the international protection of civilians and another on international military relations. We have seen starkly over recent months what civilian relations mean to IDF personnel. We saw it previously during the Great March of Return years, which happened around the same time this training took place.
It is welcome that the Tánaiste has confirmed no such training will take place this year, but will he confirm to the Dáil that it is now Government policy that no such training with the IDF will take place in the future?
First, Deputy Carthy's point relates to a later question, if I am not mistaken.
It relates to Question No. 9.
I am referring to the point about training. It is a United Nations training programme, and we do not get to choose which members of the United Nations get to participate on a United Nations training programme. That was the situation there. The Deputies can colour these positions and put a sort of a spin on them, but my understanding is clear that members of-----
Would the Tánaiste do it with Russia? Would he have our troops training with Russian troops?
I am just making the point it is open to countries to apply if there are United Nations training programmes. We do not get to decide who is or is not a member of the United Nations, although we can have a say in it if there are votes and so on.
To respond to Deputy Ó Snodaigh, again, the trade law is there with respect to public procurement and tendering. I certainly have reservations in respect of Israel generally in terms of the arms industry and procurement but there is the broader context of the UN, the OSCE and the European Union, and it is European Union law that we be fully merit based in procurement. I think it is a stretch to suggest that somehow any knowledge of how we use the UAVs would be subsequently used in an attack on Gaza. I do not think that is credible, to be frank, but there is a broader question of procurement from a country that is engaging in what we are very clear is an illegal occupation.
It is good that the Tánaiste has reservations, but reservations do not lead to the suspension of all trade with Israel and, in particular, any trade from Ireland to Israel in the form of dual-use goods. In the case of this question, it is to do with trade between us and Israeli companies where defence companies, such as Aeronautics Defense Systems, the company we bought from which the UAVs, or Elbit Systems, from which the State has previously bought surveillance and target acquisition suites for armoured vehicles that are being used by the Defence Forces in Lebanon. That is a bit strange, given there is a maintenance component to that. In maintenance, equipment is serviced, meaning the electrical and computer components have to be interrogated, which is where the UAV information comes from. Ireland needs to suspend all such trade and we also need to campaign in the EU and the UN for all such trade to be suspended, whether that is the EU-MED agreement or otherwise, especially in the case of defence contracts.
I concur with Deputy Ó Snodaigh. There is an onus. It is not acceptable that we would hide behind either EU or UN rules and say that because these are the rules, we are just going to allow ourselves to become complicit in what is an elaborate and extensive Israeli war machine. It is imperative the Tánaiste give a commitment that he is doing everything he can to disentangle Ireland from any association with the IDF or Israel-based arms manufacturers, knowing, as we do, that those organisations are currently responsible for what has been described before the International Court of Justice as a genocide. It is important that we send out a clear statement that Ireland is doing everything in our power to disentangle ourselves from any association with these bodies.
Again, the principle of competitive tendering for Government contracts is used by the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces. Deputy Carthy knows that and Deputy Ó Snodaigh knows that. It is an EU law requirement and is in accordance with the defence and security directive. I do not know whether the Deputies are saying explicitly that we should simply break the law-----
In this case, yes.
They said we should campaign. I do not think we are not in a position to do that, although we have written to the EU with Spain. Ours are the two countries in the EU that have written to the EU in respect of the trade association agreement with Israel, and Ireland has said we want a review and examination of that in the context of our view on Israel's non-compliance with the human rights clauses within that trade association agreement. We are campaigning in respect of this issue. We are using every mechanism we have available to us to raise these issues and we will continue to do that. We have called repeatedly for the immediate humanitarian ceasefire and were one of the first EU member states to do so, with unimpeded access of aid into Gaza and also the release of all hostages held by Hamas. We have also intervened in respect of the International Court of Justice case regarding the occupation in the West Bank and the legality of that. The UN has sought an advisory opinion and, as the Deputies will know, the Attorney General spoke recently before the ICJ following a written submission we made in July 2023.
Ireland is pursuing all these issues relating to the occupation and the occupied territories in respect of UN resolutions.
We contest these issues forcefully and robustly at UN level and we raise them in all forums - political, diplomatic and legal. We will continue to do that. We do it, generally speaking, within the law. We operate within the law as a country. Once you start deviating from the law and breaking the law on any given issue, you lose credibility over time in respect of your international commitments.
8. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the annual cost of providing Army security at Portlaoise prison; the number of prisoners in the prison that this security relates to; whether the need for an Army presence there is under review; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13033/24]
My question relates to the cost of providing Army security at Portlaoise prison. This relates to the fact that when the Army was originally deployed to the prison, there was a large number of prisoners. I am interested in finding out the number of prisoners who are specifically secured by the Army presence and whether the need for that presence is under review. As the Tánaiste knows, things have changed dramatically at the prison.
I thank the Deputy for his question. I appreciate his ongoing commitment to issues at Portlaoise prison and the work he continues to do. The Deputy will be aware that the Department of Justice and An Garda Síochána have primary responsibility for the internal security of the State. Among the roles assigned to the Defence Forces in the White Paper on Defence is the provision of aid to the civil power, ATCP, which, in practice, means to assist An Garda Síochána when requested to do so. At the direction of the Government, the Defence Forces continues to provide 24-7 security at Portlaoise prison. The total cost associated with Defence Forces personnel performing ATCP roles at Portlaoise prison for 2023 was approximately €1.9 million. The total cost includes the costs of escorting prisoners to medical appointments and court hearings outside the prison.
The publication of the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces included a recommendation "That an immediate focus be given to standing down a number of current Defence Forces’ ATCP taskings, which no longer seem justified in the current security situation". Following this, I instructed my Department to formally engage with the Department of Justice to seek a new Government decision on the withdrawal of the Defence Forces from Portlaoise prison. In addition, I agreed with the advice of my officials and the military authorities that a phased reduction of Defence Forces personnel from Portlaoise prison should commence in line with the current threat levels from the remaining prisoner cohort falling under the aforementioned Government decisions. I can confirm that, following consultation with the Department of Justice, a reduced level of deployment is now in place commensurate with the assessed threat levels.
As the Minister for Justice has primary responsibility for assessing the security status of prisons and any review falling from same, I am not in a position to comment further in relation to such matters. It would also not be appropriate for me to comment on the number and classification of prisoners within the prison due to the nature of security and operational matters.
I met the Tánaiste in December 2020, at which time there were 29 prisoners in the E block in Portlaoise prison. There are now fewer than ten. By mid-summer, the figure could be half that again. Does the Tánaiste not agree that is a radically different situation from the situation that caused the Army to be deployed to the prison in the first place? I welcome what he had to say about reviews but is it not time we dealt with this issue and stopped wasting €1.9 million on a small number of prisoners who could easily be held securely under the normal prison regime?
I take the Deputy's point. That is why I have acted on this. A deployment of 50 personnel was traditionally in situ at any given time, with a resource commitment of 100 personnel in total accounting for those resting or on stand-by. The current resource commitment is 16 personnel. Any resources released by the step-down in commitment will be redeployed into regenerational capacities and capabilities across the Defence Forces. There are now expected to be substantial savings arising from the reduced deployment of personnel. We have reduced personnel significantly at Portlaoise prison and the matter is under constant review given, as the Deputy has outlined, that the security situation has changed.
As I said, when I met the Tánaiste there were 29 prisoners on the E block. I predicted at that time that if no new prisoners came in, the numbers would drop to approximately ten by the end of 2023. That happened. To my knowledge, there are no prisoners in the E wing on remand, so there is nobody awaiting trial. There is nobody, to my knowledge, in the E wing who was out in bail. It would therefore appear that the threat level is reduced. Some prisoners there are near the end of their sentences, with one prisoner due out next month. We are, therefore, talking about a small number of people. There are all sorts of other prisoners in the prisons who are high risk. It seems amazing that this small number of prisoners needs the Army to secure them when none of the other prisoners in the whole prison system, who are in for very significant crimes, needs this. We have to recognise there is a changed dynamic here. We need to build on that in a positive way to try to get everybody to move forward and to realise there is a political way and space for all political opinions, as long as they are followed peacefully in this country.
As I said to the Deputy, the traditional resource commitment of 100 personnel is now down to 16. I have instructed that there be a further phased reduction. There has been a substantial reduction in line with the security assessment and in consultation with the Department of Justice, following recommendations from the Commission on the Defence Forces. I am conscious, since I met the Deputy, of the issues and I have spoken with my officials about this issue. We intend that the prison authorities should ultimately be in a position to deal with it and the necessity for the aid to civil power would no longer exist. That would be the fervent hope of all of us in that regard, and that is the direction of travel.
11. Deputy James Lawless asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence for an overview on the implementation of the White Paper on Defence; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13023/24]
I ask the Tánaiste for an overview on the implementation of the defence White Paper and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The White Paper on Defence sets the defence policy framework out to 2025 and covers all aspects of defence within the broader security policy framework. Since publication of the White Paper in 2015, a total of 95 separate projects were identified for completion over a ten-year period. Project and programme management governance arrangements were put in place to monitor the ongoing status of projects and to review the scope of projects within the programme. Implementation of the White Paper programme has progressed in planned phases since 2015. This phased process was kept under review over the years and was subject to change or update as issues arose and other business dictated. Decisions about which projects to progress at any stage took into account the priorities set out in the programme for Government, available resources and initiatives that are already under way.
In the White Paper, the Government decided to establish a new fixed cycle of defence reviews. Such reviews are common practice internationally and give reassurance that policy remains up to date and relevant to changing future circumstances. The first of these reviews was the White Paper update, which was approved by the Government in December 2019. As part of this, the update included a comprehensive review of overall progress with White Paper implementation. Following on from the White Paper update 2019 and the Government’s high-level implementation plan to implement the report of the Public Service Pay Commission, the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces concluded a review in early 2021 of the projects, which resulted in reprioritisation of White Paper projects culminating in the approval of an updated White Paper programme implementation roadmap in February 2021.
The Commission on the Defence Forces was established on foot of a commitment in the programme for Government and the Government decision in December 2020, which also agreed its terms of reference. The commission undertook a significant body of work on the future of the Defence Forces, encompassing its wide-ranging terms of reference, having regard to immediate requirements, while also seeking to develop a longer term vision for beyond 2030. It was guided and informed by both the White Paper on Defence and the White Paper update of 2019. In February 2022, the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces was published. This was followed by the publication of the high-level action plan in July 2022.
Throughout 2023, the priority was the finalisation of ongoing White Paper projects and the evaluation of potential alignment of outstanding White Paper projects with recommendations or projects approved under the Government’s high-level action plan to implement the recommendations of the Commission on the Defence Forces report.
In September 2023, I published the strategic framework on the transformation of the Defence Forces, which brought together in one overarching document, from the multiplicity of plans developed, the immediate actions to be taken to support the transformation of the Defence Forces into a fit-for-purpose organisation to defend the State and meet the challenges of today and the future.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
My priority within this transformation is cultural change above all else.
A White Paper programme status report is currently being finalised and it is hoped to publish shortly. The report will reflect the current position for each of the 95 White Paper projects and identify the White Paper projects that will be now amalgamated for implementation under the Government approved detailed implementation plan, DIP, to operationalise the CODF transformation. Overall progress on the White Paper has encompassed different areas of business including, but not limited to, policy, capital acquisitions, HR, Civil Defence and infrastructure development.
Work is also ongoing on the strategic defence review, SDR, which is a further part of the fixed cycle of defence reviews introduced in the Defence White Paper of 2015 which I referenced earlier in my reply. The first stage in the strategic defence review was the completion of the security environment assessment undertaken by an interdepartmental and interagency working group. The implications of this security environment assessment were then evaluated for policy requirements, associated tasks, capability development and resourcing of defence provision in Ireland into the future.
A draft of the strategic defence review is to be submitted to me for my consideration in the coming weeks and following consideration, the strategic defence review will then be brought to Cabinet for agreement and will be published thereafter.
The Tánaiste probably answered the first supplementary I had, which was whether the White Paper has been overtaken by events, in particular, the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces and if it has, whether there will be a new White Paper or whether we will just work on the commission. Also, will the consultative forum on international security policy require formal change of direction in the form of a White Paper or revised White Paper?
The strategic framework on the transformation of the Defence Forces, that I published in September, is the overarching document and our focus is on implementing that in accordance with the timelines that have been set within that framework. We need one clear overarching document. That covers all aspects, both of the Commission on the Defence Forces and the independent review group recommendations pertaining to culture within the Defence Forces also. That said, a White Paper programme status report is currently being finalised and it is hoped to publish shortly.
As the Deputy can see from the reply, there has been lots of paper and lots of work. I am now very focused on actions and getting things done.
In respect of the consultative forum that we had last year, we are working on some aspects of that in terms of the forthcoming legislation. I hope to bring legislation to Government, in respect of the triple lock, for example, and those issues, in terms of the insights that were gleaned and perspectives that were heard at the forum in respect of how the application of the veto at the UN Security Council now means the opportunities to participate in peacekeeping could be few and far between into the future. That is one aspect that we are looking at. There are other aspects, in terms of a maritime security strategy, etc. We will just get on and do the strategies.
In 2015, the then Government took the view that there was scope during the currency of the White Paper to further develop supports to existing personnel and veterans and this was to include training of serving personnel in order that they would have civilian qualifications once they left the Army and would be able to transfer into civil society and be able to get employment. What progress has been made with training for personnel to ensure that when they exit, not only are they trained but that they have recognised qualifications and applicable vocational skills? Sooner or later, everybody who serves in the Army moves on. Virtually all of them are still of working age. What transitional arrangements are being made to ensure that there is a smooth transition from Army service into civilian life in terms of being trained, skilled and qualified to take up civilian employment?
There is extensive training within the Defence Forces. When they eventually leave, many people come out of the Defence Forces very well qualified and eagerly sought after. This is a problem in some respects because we are anxious that people would stay longer in the Defence Forces. That is why we have improved conditions and pay, as well as retirement ages more recently. Significantly, we have raised the retirement age to 60, and eventually to 62, which has been broadly welcomed across the Defence Forces. Our objective is that people stay longer within the Defence Forces and that if we can improve the overall quality of life for Defence Forces members, that would ensure retention of members for a far greater period than perhaps has been the case in the recent past.
There are extensive programmes. Certainly, the evidence seems to suggest that there are many opportunities for personnel in the private sector after they complete their time in the Defence Forces.
12. Deputy Cathal Berry asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if he will report on the proposed procurement of a multi-role vessel for the Naval Service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13281/24]
I would be grateful if the Tánaiste could update the House on the situation pertaining to the proposed procurement of a multi-role vessel for the Naval Service and if he could make a statement on that matter.
I thank the Deputy for raising the question. In fairness, the Deputy has an eagle eye on equipment and opportunities for the Defence Forces.
My priority as Minister for Defence is to ensure that the operational capability 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 Government. Equipment priorities for the Army, Air Corps and Naval Service are considered in the context of the established capability development and equipment development planning processes.
The detailed implementation plan for the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces was published in November 2023. It 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, known as LOA2, by 2028 and the significant and fundamental change for the Defence Forces that will be delivered across the commission's recommendations.
The commission's recommendations for the move to LOA2 include the recommendation for an accelerated programme of naval vessel replacement, to ensure a balanced fleet of nine modern ships is reached by early in the next decade.
In this regard, marine advisers have been appointed to support the procurement of a multi-role vessel, MRV, to replace the now decommissioned flagship, LÉ Eithne. This procurement is being conducted in line with the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform's new infrastructural guidelines, which have replaced the public spending code.
A prior information notice was published in the Official Journal of the European Union in January to advise the market of my Department's intention to run a tender competition to procure a MRV to replace the former flagship.
I remain committed to ensuring the Defence Forces, including the Naval Service, are equipped to carry out the roles assigned to them by Government.
I very much welcome this proposed project for sure. The LÉ Eithne needs to be replaced. That is an absolute certainty.
Perhaps touching on what Deputy Ó Snodaigh said earlier on this morning, the LÉ Eithne was built in the Tánaiste's home county of Cork. It is a pity we cannot build more equipment here in this country because, as Deputy Ó Snodaigh said, ethical procurement is important. If we want to be assured of the traceability of equipment, the so-called bench to trench, we should probably be looking at setting up some kind of companies that can make some of the equipment that we need for ourselves and we can be sure of their credentials. I would emphasise, of course, that there is a shipyard on this island, in Belfast, namely, Harland & Wolff, and I very much hope that it applies for this tender when it is published.
It still looks as though we are talking about it being a good few years down the tracks before this ship comes into service. Is there an indicative date, or even year, of when we would expect this ship to come into naval service?
I agree with the Deputy. We are committed to ethical equipment procurement. It is the ideal. Also, in terms of an earlier question from Deputy Mick Barry, we need to procure ships, aircraft, equipment and weaponry. There is a need so there is a need for a defence industry. It seems there are mixed views about that in the House. There is almost a sense here that we should have no industry in Ireland at all but I take the Deputy's point. There was a time when we could, and did, construct and ship-build in this country. It was many decades ago. I take the Deputy's point in terms of Belfast and its capabilities. I generally agree with what the Deputy has just said there. In terms of the multi-role vessel, I cannot give the Deputy an exact timeline here. It is a major defence platform. One of the issues is we need to enhance our procurement capacity. I have said it, more generally, and we are doing that. We will only know the cost of the MRV once the tender competition is concluded and then, obviously, we will have to provide for it in terms of capital frameworks, etc. I do not have specific timelines yet but we have notified the EU.
I very much welcome this additional proposed hardware. We should always remember that is not a ship that makes the crew, it is the crew that makes the ship and crewing the ship is so important. As the Tánaiste knows, I always acknowledge progress. The doubling of the patrol duty allowance at the start of year is a help. The increase in the recruitment and retirement age is also a big help. According to a post on Twitter, I see that 33 new recruits started in Gormanston yesterday. I wish them well in their training. There is a maximum of 11 months left in this Dáil term. Does the Tánaiste see a turning around of Naval Service recruitment and retention in the next 11 months? Does he see an increase in numbers before the Thirty-third Dáil comes to a close?
My hope is that by the time this Dáil comes to a conclusion, the gap between induction and retirement will have been closed in the first instance and then hopefully there will be a net increase after that. I am concerned about the recruitment system within the Naval Service and Defence Forces and it needs to change. We brought in consultants from the private sector to examine recruitment processes and approaches. It is clear from the report that what we have is not optimal, to put it that way. We need to improve in this regard. The retirement initiative we recently introduced will help in terms of bridging the gap. The Deputy is correct regarding the 33 recruits who started yesterday. We are seeing progress. A specialist recruitment agency has been appointed with a view to recruiting specialists globally for certain key roles which are required within the Naval Service. Every effort is being made by the Naval Service, the Department and me to see what we can do to make sure that we increase the number of inductions and improve retention. The extension of the retirement age and the doubling of the patrol duty allowance will both play a significant role in this regard. We have moved on many fronts, as requested. Hopefully, that will result in an increase.
13. Deputy Thomas Gould asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the number of sailings the Naval Service cancelled in the past 12 months due to staffing shortages. [13241/24]
Will the Tánaiste update the House on the number of sailings the Naval Service had to cancel the last 12 months due to staffing shortages?
The Naval Service is the State's principal sea-going agency and is tasked with a variety of defence and other roles. The primary day-to-day tasking of the Naval Service is to provide a fishery protection service in accordance with the State's obligations as a member of the European Union. These patrols are carried out on a regular and frequent basis and are directed to all areas of Irish waters, as necessary.
The Naval Service has recently adopted a three-ship operational posture with two ships operational and another ship on stand-by. The decision to reduce the number of operational ships was made as a result of the previously acknowledged recruitment and retention difficulties in the Naval Service, in particular for specialist positions. This strategic decision has been taken to streamline operations, bolster existing capabilities and ensure optimal resource allocation in the Naval Service.
A total of 31 scheduled Naval Service patrol days have been cancelled in the last 12 months due to staffing issues. There have been no patrol days cancelled since the change in operational posture in August 2023.
There is no easy fix to the current retention and recruitment challenges facing the Naval Service and the wider organisation, which are well documented, but the commitment, courage and excellence of our serving members is clear. This is part of our ongoing investment in our Defence Forces; in its people, infrastructure, capabilities and culture.
I was delighted to announce that the patrol duty allowance paid to Naval Service personnel will be doubled after ten days at sea. This measure took effect from 1 January 2024. I very much welcome this new measure, which provides greater clarity on the overall package available to our Naval Service personnel and potential recruits.
In addition to the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission on the Defence Forces, there are a number of initiatives currently under way to counter ongoing staffing challenges. As part of the Naval Service-specific recruitment campaign, there has been a Naval Service-specific advertising campaign. Ongoing general service recruitment, including for the Naval Service, remains open throughout the year. In 2023 a total of 68 personnel were inducted into the service. This comprised 57 general service recruits, five cadets, one re-enlisted personnel, one re-commissioned operations officer, one direct entry electrical engineering officer, one direct entry electrical artificer and two direct entry engine room artificers. In addition, proposals for direct entry competitions within the Naval Service have been progressed and implemented. In 2023 the Department engaged CPL Recruitment to provide external specialist recruitment expertise to validate and assess the Defence Forces current recruitment methods.
Last month, the Irish Examiner reported that only one ship is currently available to patrol our 1 million sq. km exclusive economic zone. The newspaper also stated that a lack of expertise delayed the use of two smaller vessels, which arrived from New Zealand last May. These are unlikely to become operational until the winter, at the earliest. These two vessels cost €26 million. A decade ago, we had eight Naval Service ships patrolling a smaller area than we do today. We now have one, and as the Tánaiste said, possibly two, with a third on stand-by. To have 31 patrols cancelled last year is quite shocking. The Tánaiste has said that because of the reconfiguration there have been no cancellations this year. This reminds me of the housing targets. If the targets are so low, they will always be reached. Because of the reconfiguration, the Government is not cancelling patrols because it is not doing the patrols that should be done. In fairness, to have only two ships on the water sends a message to people who want to illegally fish and to drug barons who use Ireland as a place to land major supplies of drugs. Does the Tánaiste think they will be deterred by two ships? I do not think so.
They will be deterred by intelligence and proper co-ordination among various countries and agencies. This is what happened recently when a major intervention took place. The Defence Forces successfully landed on a ship and intervened to carry out the largest drugs seizure in the history of the State. Maritime surveillance is not solely carried out by Naval Service ships. We also have aircraft, namely, CN-235s and, now, C-295s. We are far greater aerial surveillance capability of our seas than we have ever had with these new C-295s that have been procured.
The issue of drug smuggling is an interagency matter. The operation I referred to earlier, which I commend everyone on, involved the Defence Forces, the Army Rangers, the navy and the Air Corps. It also involved working with An Garda Síochána, the Revenue Commissioners and other countries. This is how we catch the drug smugglers. The Revenue Commissioners are also involved in patrolling coastlines along with the navy and the Garda Síochána. That is the key way to deal with drug interdiction.
We have seen the Naval Service do some excellent work, considering the resources available to it. The service needs to be commended on the work it does. I was told recently by a person on the ground that a ship left port without the required manning levels and health and safety measures in place. I do not want to say who told me this but they firmly believed the ship should not have left port. Manning levels on ships are a critical issue now. This is coming from somebody on the ground. We have a crisis in the Naval Service. I acknowledge that some work has been done but we are nowhere near where we need to be. I welcome the €300 million being spent on the purchase of a new ship but we cannot man the ships we have at present. We are spending hundreds of millions of euro on new ships but do not have the naval personnel. This is a crisis and it needs to be dealt with as such.
There is no argument but that we have a recruitment crisis in the Naval Service. I am very clear on that. That is why we have taken a range of actions since I became Minister with responsibility for the Naval Service, including bringing in CPL to look at the recruitment processes.
Moreover, the navy has hired a specialist agency for the specialists required to man ships. We have doubled the patrol duty allowance. We have initiated other improvements, including starting pay, which is now much more comparable to other starting roles in the public service or even in the private sector. Cadets coming out of their leaving certificate who do 18 months are up to €41,000; if they come out of college and do 18 months, following commissioning they are earning €47,000. Therefore, the starting rates in the Defence Forces are very competitive now. That is not highlighted to the degree it should, perhaps. But overall we have an issue. That is why we enhanced the retirement ages in order that people can stay on until 60 years and eventually 62 years when the legislation is passed. That will all help retention. We have a major issue with recruitment. I am very focused on that issue and will continue to be.
14. Deputy Thomas Gould asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence whether he has engaged on the reported €10 million payouts on Defence Forces claims in the past three years. [13242/24]
Will the Tánaiste update the House on whether he has engaged on the report and the reported €10 million payout on Defence Forces claims in the past three years?
My Department's litigation branch manages and co-ordinates litigation claims and, in so doing, works closely with both the State Claims Agency, SCA, and the Chief State Solicitor’s Office, CSSO.
The Deputy will be aware that all claims for personal injuries taken by current and former members of the Defence Forces have been delegated to the SCA. The SCA manages and provides legal representation in relation to personal injury cases taken against the Minister for Defence. External legal costs incurred by the State Claims Agency arising from the defence of any claims managed by the agency for my Department are refunded to the agency by the Department. Employment law matters taken against the Minister for Defence are managed on my behalf by the Chief State Solicitor’s Office. That office is responsible for the costs of the State's legal teams in the litigation cases that it manages on behalf of my Department. In the past three years, 2021 to 2023, inclusive, the total value of settlements arising from litigation in which I was a listed party to the proceedings was just over €7.5 million, rather than €10 million.
In respect of the costs arising from the settlement of cases, my Department is in daily contact with both the State Claims Agency and Chief State Solicitor's Office regarding the active management of litigation cases, with a focus on achieving the most equitable outcomes and the minimisation of costs wherever possible.
Any costs incurred within the litigation process are closely monitored and are subject to rigorous review, oversight and regular reporting within my Department. Any expenditure incurred within the litigation process will continue to be monitored closely as the cases are proactively managed in consultation with both the State Claims Agency and the Chief State Solicitor's Office.
I stand corrected on the figure, which was just €7.5 million over the last three years. However, this is concrete proof that there are serious issues in the Defence Forces. It vindicates the Women of Honour in many ways and proves there is a need for an inquiry to deal with significant issues that cause serious harm to those in the Defence Forces. According to the Irish Examiner almost 500 claims are currently undergoing litigation. This is likely to be the tip of the iceberg. The majority of people will drop their complaints long before it goes to litigation and most likely without any real resolution.
The existing complaints procedures are not fit for purpose. Something must be done to stop driving people to the courts when their complaints need to be resolved through a better mechanism.
I do not disagree although some of these could be personal injury awards or occupational injuries that occurred during the course of people’s duties and people are entitled to seek redress. I would prefer mediation but under the law - the Oireachtas has provided for this - the State Claims Agency deals with claims on behalf of the State and that includes the Department of Defence in respect of claims on a whole range of issues. We have established a tribunal of inquiry following the independent review group's finding on the failure of the existing complaints processes to adequately and properly deal with complaints that members of the Defence Forces have made over the years. We have already taken steps to try to deal with the interim situation, while the tribunal of inquiry is on the way, and we will continue with that in terms of a more fact-based and statutory-based approach to issues that the Women of Honour and others have raised. Pending that we are undertaking a number of improvements and are reviewing the situation in terms of interim arrangements in order that Defence Force members can complain more effectively and feel more confidence in the complaints process than they do now.
Has the Tánaiste met the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces to discuss the current issues? What interim measures will be put in place pending the inquiry to improve existing complaints procedures?
It was really disappointing, and that is probably not a strong enough word, that the Women of Honour did not see the terms of reference before they were published. The Tánaiste met them in November and it was reported there were frank discussions. I know there is a process in place now but if the Tánaiste reflects on that meeting, does he feel that he is meeting all of the requests that the Women of Honour put to him as the Minister?
To be clear, the Women of Honour group did see the terms of reference before publication. As there was a series of drafts of the terms of reference that went to and fro between the Women of Honour, their legal representatives, the Department and me, what the Deputy said is not correct. I want to be very clear about that. It was a long enough process to finally conclude the terms of reference. The majority of what was asked for has been provided for within the terms of reference. It is also a public inquiry which the Women of Honour sought. It is a statutory tribunal of inquiry under the statutory tribunals of inquiry Act. I think it will be very comprehensive. We need to be reasonably timely too because victims who have survived abuse and so on need a timely response from the tribunal, as do serving members.
On litigation and so on, the Department received litigation on personal injury claims, that is, slips, trips, falls, lifting and carrying injuries, illness, PTSD, training accidents, bullying, harassment, sporting injuries and injuries relating to weapons, explosives and ammunition. Claims may also be received as civil bills, plenary summons or judicial reviews in respect of employment matters, promotions, enlistments, discharges, disciplinary matters and allowances. There is a very wide subject matter that can be the subject matter of litigation.
15. Deputy Cathal Berry asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the combined budget for the Defence group Vote each year from 2020 to 2024; the percentage uplift each year from the previous year, in tabular form; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13282/24]
I am conscious of the clock. The defence budget is a matter very close to my heart. I am looking for details. I understand about €2.25 billion of the national development fund has not been allocated yet. The budget in the Defence Forces is so small, I wonder if the Minister could consider giving it a boost with the national development plan funds.
There may be researchers looking at this transcript who will be putting manifestoes together for the next general election. If there was a commitment in the manifestoes to honour the recommendations of the Commission on the Defence Forces, that would go a long way. I am happy to wait for a written reply.
Over the period 2020 to 2024, the combined budget has increased from €1,040 million to €1,250 million, an increase of €210 million, amounting to an increase of over 20% in that period. The increases are available in tabular form, which the Deputy can get in the various aspects of the Revised Estimates Volume.
On using capital, there was a practice in the Department where revenue was used. We are looking to see if we can do that again this year. We are heading in an upward trajectory in terms of capital this year. We have also put additional directives to the Defence Forces that we want to increase recruitment over and above what might have been put forward. We are really stretching the targets on recruitment on the current side.
On the capital side, we will have a sufficiency of capital to not only deal with what we have already committed to but also newer projects and, critically, with increases in 2025 and 2026. However, a lot depends on capacity, procurement and getting projects to the stage where they are in a position to draw down.
