Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence debate -
Tuesday, 11 Jul 2023

Engagement with the Reserve Defence Force Representative Association

I have received apologies from Senator Wilson. Our agenda item is a meeting with representatives of the Reserve Defence Force Representative Association, RDFRA. I formally welcome Mr. Eugene Gargan, president, Mr. Martin Cooney, public relations officer, Mr. Neil Richardson, general secretary and Mr. Mark Ecock, national executive member. I look forward to hearing from them on the issues facing the Reserve Defence Force and its members. The format of the meeting is we will hear opening statements followed by questions and answers with member of the committee. I ask members to be somewhat concise in their questions to allow all members the opportunity of participation.

I remind witnesses and members of the long-standing parliamentary practice that we should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make them identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, any statements that may be potentially defamatory with regard to any identifiable person or entity will result in a direction to discontinue the remarks. It is imperative that any such direction be complied with. I remind members that they are only allowed to participate in this meeting if they are physically located within the Leinster House complex. I remind witnesses that we are still operating a Covid-type hybrid. Some members may contribute from their offices as they can view proceedings and listen to the statements. They will be invited to participate in the usual manner.

With that, I am pleased to call on Mr. Neil Richardson to make his opening statement.

Mr. Neil Richardson

On behalf of the Reserve Defence Force Representative Association, RDFRA, I sincerely thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before it today. During this appearance, it is our intention to update the committee on the implementation of the Commission on the Defence Forces recommendations as they pertain to the Reserve Defence Force, RDF, to highlight areas of key concern and generally inform the committee of what is going on within the Reserve sphere of the Defence Forces.

The Commission on the Defence Forces report was published in February 2022 and made 11 RDF-specific recommendations. While the commission used the tiered level of ambition 1, 2 or 3 approach in all of its other recommendations, when it came to the Reserve, the commission recognised that this element of the Defence Forces was “in an extremely weakened state” and that a multiple-choice level of ambition approach would be inappropriate. Instead, the commission noted, “The RDF is at present in such a poor state that the commission believes the more relevant options are quite stark: regeneration or abolition.” The report went on to state that the commission firmly believed that the Reserve could and should be regenerated, in order to “allow it to play an active and effective role in support of the PDF in all its functions, including in challenging new domains.” The commission’s recommendations, including the 11 focused on the Reserve, were subsequently translated into a high-level action plan published in July 2022. Some of the commission’s recommendations were subdivided in the high-level action plan, so the 11 Reserve recommendations from the commission’s report became 15 recommendations in the high-level action plan. Out of the 130 total recommendations in the high-level action plan, 38 were then selected as early actions – the first recommendations that would be implemented. Two of the Reserve’s 15 recommendations were selected for inclusion on the list of early actions. The first was to establish a Reserve oversight body known as the Office of Reserve Affairs by August 2022 and the second was for this office to draft a Reserve regeneration plan by December 2022. In the Commission on the Defence Forces' report, the commission noted:

While Commission members were very impressed by the high quality and clear commitment of the RDF personnel that they met, it was also apparent that morale is at a very low ebb, with many dedicated members of the view that the RDF is being allowed to die on its feet. Many firmly believe that both the Defence Forces and the Department of Defence are not willing to take the necessary urgent and corrective action to prevent the decline of the RDF. This belief is strengthened by the fact that, of the 13 projects related to the RDF arising out of the White Paper on Defence 2015, not one had been commenced when the Commission began its work in December 2020. As part of its work, the Commission received submissions from both the Defence Forces and the Department of Defence which stressed the importance of the RDF, and an apparent commitment to its revitalisation. Nevertheless, the Commission believes that the RDF’s current status is quite unacceptable and is concerned about the extent of genuine commitment to supporting and developing the RDF.

The commission alighted on something that the Reserve has experienced for years - consistent low priority and a lack of proper resourcing assigned to the Reserve, despite publicly supportive comments and acknowledgements of the Reserve’s vital importance from those responsible for the force. As the association feared, this once again played out following the publication of the high-level action plan in July last year and the inclusion of the two Reserve recommendations on the early actions list. By December 2022, at which point the Office of Reserve Affairs was supposed to have been established and the Reserve regeneration plan was supposed to have been drafted, the office had still not been set up. By early 2023, the Office of Reserve Affairs was finally established, but while its initial operating capacity was supposed to be six members of the Permanent Defence Force and four reservists, it was formed with only one PDF colonel and one RDF lieutenant-colonel - two senior officers with no staff who had the not-inconsiderable task of fixing everything wrong with the Reserve. Now, in July 2023, the initial PDF component of the Office of Reserve Affairs is nearly in place, but Reserve appointments within the office have still not been formalised. The all-important drafting of the Reserve regeneration plan is likely still six months away, meaning that this so-called "early action" will be delivered a year late. It must be stressed that this delay has nothing to do with the commitment and dedication of the staff within the Office of Reserve Affairs, but has everything to do with the resources provided to this office.

Another priority and resourcing issue is Reserve recruitment. This is conducted in short, infrequent windows, while Permanent Defence Force recruitment remains open essentially year-round. In fact, since 1 January 2019, while Permanent Defence Force recruitment has been open nearly continuously, it has only been possible for a member of the public to apply to join the Reserve for approximately ten months out of a four-and-a-half-year period. Reserve recruitment was open for only three months in 2019, two in 2020 and one in 2021, solely for persons seeking to join in Tralee, where a new recruitment pilot programme was taking place. It was open for four months in 2022. Since the conclusion of this last recruitment drive in July 2022, Reserve recruitment has remained closed.

Recruitment windows aside, medical resources for the screening of new Reserve recruits are woefully insufficient. Certain items of clothing and equipment are regularly unavailable to new reservists. The root cause is financial, but part of the problem is cultural - we are the part-time volunteers, and therefore perceived as not as important as members of the Permanent Defence Force. All members of the Reserve and RDFRA take no issue with this point. We accept that the Permanent Defence Force must have primacy as they are the full-time career professionals. However, there is a better balance to be struck when it comes to assigning priority and resources to Reserve matters. For years, the Reserve has been asked to just accept that the resources are not available at this time to remedy X issue, or that priority cannot be assigned to Y issue until another matter is dealt with first. The Reserve has borne these setbacks professionally and stoically, but we are now under the real threat of being low-prioritised and low-resourced out of existence. To give a stark example, in October 2021, when we last appeared before this committee, we stated that the Reserve Defence Force could cease to exist within five years. This projection was based on the consistent decline in Reserve numbers observed in recent years, coupled with the lack of resources and general low priority assigned to Reserve recruitment. In 2021, the effective strength of the Reserve was 1,513 personnel all ranks, or only 37% of what the Reserve should have, with this figure representing the lowest strength in the Reserve’s history at that time. As of 31 May this year, the official effective strength of the Reserve is 1,430 personnel all ranks – 83 personnel less than in October 2021. Two years on from our last appearance before this committee, our projections have not changed, unfortunately. It must be stressed that this projection has nothing to do with the interest levels of applicants seeking to join the Reserve, since in every Reserve recruitment competition in the last decade, applicant figures have ranged into the thousands. During the last Reserve recruitment window in 2022, the Reserve received more than 1,000 applications in a four-month period.

This issue of resourcing and prioritisation plays out over and over across a number of critical areas. In June 2022, a new Defence Forces Regulation R5, the regulation that governs most aspects of how the Reserve operates, was authorised by the then-Minister for Defence. The last iteration of Defence Forces Regulation R5 was in 2005, when the Fórsa Cosanta Áitiúil, FCÁ, was disbanded and replaced with the modern RDF. Following the Defence Forces reorganisation of 2012-2013, there was a need for another new R5. However, despite years of campaigning by RDFRA and other key stakeholders, the document was only updated last June - nine years late. While this latest version of the regulation brought much-needed updates in several key areas, the contemporary publication of the Commission on the Defence Forces' report resulted in a need for further amendments. RDFRA was informed that this would not be an issue, as the regulation was now perceived by the Department of Defence as a living document subject to change and amendment in a fluid manner as and when required. The reality, however, is that despite regular engagement with stakeholders on vital, additional required amendments to Defence Forces Regulation R5 since last June, the document remains unchanged from the version implemented a year ago. Some of the required updates amount to remedying minor textual errors within the document, but even these have not been changed. The requirement to regularly update Defence Forces Regulation R5 is so great that in May of this year, the president of RDFRA wrote directly to the Secretary General of the Department of Defence to raise concerns over the total lack of progress in introducing further amendments to this document. To date, the association has received no acknowledgement or reply to this letter.

To sum up the problem, the Reserve and RDFRA accept that resources are finite and that certain defence matters must necessarily take precedence over others, but we cannot survive on the proverbial scraps from the table.

Announced in 2015, the 13 Reserve projects in the White Paper on Defence were never implemented. The first Reserve early action from last year’s high-level action plan was implemented late and in a half-measure format, while the second early action will be delivered a year late at best. It took nine years to amend Defence Forces regulation R5, and a year after the last version of this regulation was published it remains unchanged, despite all parties acknowledging that it requires frequent updating. When it comes to the Reserve, it appears that published timelines in official reports are suggestive only.

To put it bluntly, the Reserve has the potential to be an invaluable element of the Defence Forces, but instead of providing upwards of 4,000 highly skilled reservists who can augment the Permanent Defence Force in specialist areas or share the burden in a wide range of taskings at times of peak activity, the next few years may see the last elements of the Reserve disappear completely, simply because no one cared enough to save it. This association does care, as do its members and every committed reservist throughout the State, and so the association wishes to make three recommendations of its own to the members of the committee, recommendations which, in RDFRA’s view, will significantly help to secure the Reserve’s future.

First, we should substantially resource the office of Reserve affairs and bring it up to its full operating capacity establishment as soon as possible. This office is the oversight body responsible for fixing the Reserve, and therefore it must be provided with the resources and the regulatory underpinning that it requires as soon as possible.

Second, the proper emphasis needs to be placed on the regular amending and updating of Defence Forces regulation R5. The failure to amend outdated procedures regularly essentially ties the Reserve’s hands behind its back in so many important areas. Recruitment is negatively impacted. Categories of reservists are forcibly retired younger than is necessary and promotion competitions cannot be run. Aside from the negative impact on Reserve operations, this also negatively impacts on Reserve morale, which further worsens the decline.

Third, we should substantially resource Reserve recruitment. Last year, as previously mentioned, more than 1,000 people applied to join the Reserve during a short four-month recruitment window. To date, only 47 of these have been facilitated with all stages of the recruitment process and been successfully enlisted in the Reserve. To reiterate, that is 47 out of more than 1,000 applicants, or less than 5% of those who applied. It is beyond frustrating for serving reservists to look on as large numbers apply to join their units during recruitment campaigns, only for so many applicants to lose interest and withdraw their applications because it takes the Defence Forces months, or over a year, to organise and deliver all stages of the recruitment process. Reserve recruitment requires proper marketing, medical resourcing, and a range of other supports to translate the huge number of interested persons out there into new reservists within the Defence Forces.

I thank the committee and I would like to invite questions from members.

That was one of the starkest and hardest hitting reports this committee has received. I thank Mr. Richardson for his bluntness and the direct nature of his message and I hope the committee can assist and help.

I have been given notice by Senator Joe O'Reilly that he has Seanad duties and he has to have an opportunity of an early contribution before he has to leave us.

I thank the Cathaoirleach for that. I am replacing a colleague in the Seanad and I want to go back there. There is a good reason he is not present today.

I join the Cathaoirleach in welcoming the RDFRA and he sums it up well with the word "stark". We have a proud tradition of the RDF, formerly the FCA, in County Cavan, where I am from. There is a big tradition there and a high level of participation, which the RDF's records will substantiate. The RDF is formative for young people who join it. It instils patriotism and civic spirit and there are a lot of excellent reasons it is a good thing, apart from any auxiliary role with the military, which I will reference.

I have not met him for a little while but I know him well and I am happy to congratulate the acting company commander in Cavan, Mark Kiernan. Cavan is Company 27. He is the acting commander there, which is a great personal achievement for him and I would like to put that on record. I will stay parochial before I make a few other broad points. Cavan needs a good training centre and there is excellent potential in what was the Army barracks, which was closed in a rationalisation a few years ago. That Dún Uí Néill barracks should provide a potential training centre and could be got on a long-term lease. The witnesses might comment on whether the RDF is trying to advance that in any way.

There have been recruitment delays in County Cavan, as elsewhere. I gathered, anecdotally, and I pick it up, that there have been recruitment delays there as much as anywhere else. The issue of the medicals is a huge part of the delay in the recruitment process. Could the RDF see any solution? Could the medicals be rationalised or streamlined a little? Could they be more efficiently organised? Given the shortage of doctors, could qualified nurses be involved in some way in the process? Could the RDF put forward a set of suggestions to make the medicals more efficient?

The Commission on Defence Forces report was published in February 2022. There were 11 specific recommendations to the RDF. It said the RDF was in a weakened state and that regeneration or abolition was needed. That was intended to be translated into high-level actions and then eventually make its way through. Only this year, in 2023, as the initial statement says, has the office of Reserve affairs been established. The regeneration plan that was promised is not written yet and that is a very poor performance. Mr. Richardson said it is a resource issue. I would have considered, given the short recruitment time, the medical issues and the lack of proper recruitment on a nationwide and continuous basis, that the 1,000 applicants last year was quite a high number. That is high in the context that there is no proper recruitment. That would suggest that the problem is not a lack of interest in people coming forward and it is important to emphasise that.

I ask the RDF to explain the resources. I am sure the Cathaoirleach, other colleagues and the officials want to know what kind of money the RDF is talking about. How much is the deficit or could the RDF attempt to put a figure on that? The deficit does not seem to be an interest in joining. That does not seem to be a problem, which is good news and I invite the RDF to reinforce that point. I see one member has gone to the UNIFIL mission. Surely more should have gone so I ask the RDF to talk about that. Has the RDF negotiated or is it able to establish where members of the RDF could get more involvement in UNIFIL missions and with the regular Army in various activities? Why not? There is no reason that should not be the case. What has the RDF done about that and is it succeeding in that area? Could more be done with employers to incentivise their reservists having the relevant and necessary time, particularly to go on a UNIFIL mission or engage in training or recruitment, including activities with the regular Army and its own activities, which are important?

I would like to ask about the promotional opportunities within the RDF. Is there an inadequacy of promotional opportunities and is that demotivating and disincentivising? I would like to hear about the promotions and the employers and how we could make it easier for employers to co-operate in the process. I would also like to ask about the UNIFIL missions and about the resources question that was mentioned earlier. We have a proud tradition in this and it is a wonderful opportunity for people to be part of this effort. It is a shame that barriers are there and they should be removed. I ask the RDF to make recommendations to us, in specific and narrow terms, on issues we can put to the Minister for Defence. Without going into detail, every briefing we receive from the Department contradicts what the RDF is saying, so it is important we go to the Department with the right information.

I welcome the RDF and I thank the Cathaoirleach for the opportunity to come in because my colleague cannot be in the Seanad.

I will take a number of contributions and then I will revert to our panel of experts.

I would like to be excused.

There has been a focus on all these issues as a result of the consultative forum on security. It appears that there is not a serious and credible defence force anywhere in the world that does not also have a serious and credible reserve defence force. In such circumstances, I would have thought that, prior to any discussions about what international military alliances we may potentially join, we would prioritise the establishment of a defence force that is fit for the primary purpose of providing defence at home. We cannot do that without the RDF being capable of acting as an ancillary support to the Permanent Defence Forces. If we take the evidence Mr. Richardson provided at face value and consider that everything he is telling us as factual, which I do, then the evidence we are being given is that rather than building Defence Forces that are fit for purpose, we are instead dealing with a Department of Defence that is overseeing the undermining of them.

I come from probably the last generation that recalls a period where in virtually every town and village across this State, on a particular evening of the week, one could see a group of people waiting for the FCA van, as it was called, to come and collect them. That was a unique group of individuals in every town and village. I recall it from my own town. Among that cohort would probably the most successful businessperson in the town, along with the young school leaver from the local council estate. Increasingly, towards the end, there was a good gender balance because young men and women were signing up to get what was invaluable experience for them with respect to training, capacity building and network building. It also provided an important services locally overseen by the Defence Forces. That was not perfect, as I am sure our guests will tell us, but in comparison, we now have the RDF, which offers the bare minimum. In many towns and villages, it is unheard of for somebody to be a member of the latter. I think of the popularity that was crystallised in a Saw Doctors song, which represented the rite of passage the FCA was for so many of our younger and older people for so long. That we have come to this point is a travesty.

I am sure somebody from the Department of Defence would challenge my assertion the Department is overseeing the systematic undermining of our RDF. The clearest argument the Department could present to us is the 1,000 applications in 2022 as evidence that it did everything in its power to recruit people. These are 1,000 people who, of their own volition, said they would like to become members of the RDF. Instead, at the outworking of that, fewer than 50 of these individuals were recruited as members of the RDF. The number given to us today of 1,430 current members of the Reserve is a travesty, a scandal and something that the committee should pursue vigorously with the Department.

I have a couple of questions. Mr. Richardson referred to Defence Forces regulation R5 and the need for it to be updated. He indicated that the RDFRA wrote to the Secretary General to raise concerns. If I am reading it right, the association has yet to receive an acknowledgement. That leads to the obvious question of what precisely is the relationship between the RDFRA and the Department of Defence. Are there gaps that need to be filled?

Moving to the association's recommendations, the first one is the need to fully resource the office of Reserve affairs. What will that look like, by which I mean what is required now that is not in place? We must have something practical instead of what has been mentioned. Mr. Richardson has mentioned, as I have, the very poor recruitment rate relating to the 1,000-plus applicants. Where are the gaps there? Senator O’Reilly mentioned some, but what would need to be done to turn the 1,000 applications into hundreds of recruits in a short period. The Senator and I live in a constituency where all the Army barracks were closed by previous Governments. I can think of three for sure across Cavan and Monaghan. How big of a miss is that for the RDF, in that there are not local centres in the same way as there was before? Is there scope to have local or county structures in place beyond what the Permanent Defence Forces barracks? I have other questions, but I will let others in and they might ask them. I will come back in at the end if time allows.

Gentlemen, thank you very much for coming in and delivering what must be one of the most depressing presentations we had in this room for quite some time. I will start on a positive note. I was in Islandbridge at the weekend for the remembrance ceremony. The RDF provided the tents, food service, etc. I met five of the most enthusiastic young people I have ever encountered in my life. Two of them are two-star privates and the others are still working their way into the system, but it was fantastic to meet them and hear their enthusiasm. The RDFRA representatives must feel they are running the wrong way up an escalator and it is getting faster as they run, but all is not lost because there are people out there who want to be part of this wonderful organisation and we need to put that down at the start.

On the recruitment stream, we had the reorganisation in 2012 and did away with officers, the company quartermasters and drivers in the various villages around the country. Consequently, in Kilrush, for example, there is no longer a military presence in the town. If I live in Belmullet and want to join the RDF, do I travel to Finner Camp or to Galway? I do not think there is anywhere else I can join, but I am open to correction. We have no structure. There is no infrastructure for the RDF in the country. I might be the most enthusiastic young fellow in the country, but there is nowhere to go. Deputy Carthy spoke about the Tuesday nights. I remember fellows in uniform standing on every street corner in Galway. There were engineers, infantry, artillerymen and whatever; we were all in different units. We used to go in early on a Tuesday night because we would get a land rover out to Shrule and Headford to pick up guys 20 miles from town and it was a wonderful experience. This is important because the Permanent Defence Force is finding it difficult to recruit, but the recruiting stream came through the RDF. It did not matter whether someone went for the cadets to become a commissioned officer or wanted to join up an enlisted person. Those of us who served in the FCA, as it was in my time, excelled when we went into the Permanent Defence Forces and got promoted pretty quickly. I am referring to any of us who put a bit of effort into it. Do the RDFRA representatives agree the reorganisation of 2012 sounded the death knell for the RDF because it is now so difficult to find a place to join? A person can only join now if he or she lives in a city close to a barracks.

We had representatives of the Civil Defence before us some time ago. A person can walk into a Civil Defence unit and join tonight with no questions asked. The person is then a member of the unit and there are no age restrictions or anything. We put the RDF through hell and back. To think that over 1,000 people applied to be called up and only 5% got through. It must be soul-destroying for the association representatives. It is totally unacceptable the Secretary General of the Department has not replied to them. A Secretary General is obliged to make contact and respond to communications when he or she gets them. We must ask serious questions about that.

I mention paid training.

In my day, we got a fortnight away every year. Some people recalled sending their child away for his summer holidays. More people referred to it as training. Some of us were 18 for an awful long time, but that is neither here nor there now.

For a lot of guys who joined, the paid training was not just about the money. It was about getting away, being part of the unit and experiencing training. I put a Bailey bridge, for example, across the River Shannon in my time in the RDF. I did not do it myself, of course, but I oversaw it. We could do those things. One cannot do that now. A couple of hundred men are needed to put a bridge across the Shannon, so I assume those type of exercises are dead in the water. I would be interested to know the witnesses' opinions on that.

We appointed a high-powered deputy Secretary General in charge of personnel some years ago. I think it was 2017. I objected to that decision. I thought it was a waste of resources and that we should have put the resource into the Permanent Defence Force. Did that person in that role do anything for the RDF? Did the witnesses even meet that person with respect to recruitment? I am interested in finding that out.

To summarise, I am interested in the impact of the 2012 reorganisation and the closures of barracks. I am interested in the difficulties associated with recruitment, how they might be smoothed out and what assistance the Department is giving. Clearly, if it is not answering letters, that is a problem. I commend the witnesses because the RDF has just over 1,000 members but they continue to pound the streets, bang the table and try to reorganise. The witnesses should not have to be doing this. They are dragging people kicking and screaming to rebuild the organisation they love, which is not as it should be.

Deputy Carthy referred to other countries and the way they do it. It is no secret that I served in the British Army. Back in my day, the Territorial Army, TA, was as much a part of the army as the permanent army. TA members went overseas and even today, the British Army deploys overseas along with its reserve forces. The final issue is the position regarding protection of employment for those who are overseas. I will leave it at that.

I thank the Senator. I will go back to the panel now for replies to the questions asked and observations made by Deputy Carthy and Senators O'Reilly and Craughwell. We will then hear from Senator Ardagh.

Mr. Eugene Gargan

On behalf of the Reserve Defence Force Representative Association, I thank the Chair and members of the committee for the opportunity to appear before them again. I note some of the terminology used to describe Mr. Richardson's opening address. "Stark" and "blunt" were, I think, some of the words that were used. This engagement certainly has more than a touch of déjà vu about it because the last time we appeared before the committee we had very much the same type of message to bring to members, which is rather unfortunate.

If there is a key takeaway to bring to the committee, it is that-----

(Interruptions).

There is a problem with the online connection. Those joining us remotely should switch to mute.

Mr. Eugene Gargan

We will go through the questions. We will try not to miss out any of them and I will direct some to my colleagues so that we can answer them all. I will start with Senator O'Reilly. I thank him for his observations. I have to call out Captain Kiernan, who is a colleague and fellow officer of mine in 27th Battalion. He is now acting company commander in C Company. C Company has a number of challenges. They are not unique and are faced by other sub-units throughout the country, certainly with regard to challenges with recruitment and the utility. I acknowledge that C Company has a training centre. It could certainly do with a newer training centre and there is scope for improvements there. I take all of that on board.

The Senator asked about medicals and the recruitment delays. He asked about the regeneration plan and he had questions on the budget, UNIFIL deployment, employment law and promotion opportunities as well. To start with the recruitment delays and medicals, I will hand over to Mr. Richardson, who will give a better insight into the sorts of issues that arise.

Mr. Neil Richardson

I will group all of the recruitment delay questions together. It is probably best to put oneself into the mind of an applicant who applies and may only receive a first communication from the Defence Forces two, three or four months later. This is when the Defence Forces is now ready to begin the testing process. Straight away, a considerable number of applicants may have moved on because they have lost interest. If we cannot grab today's applicant as quickly as possible, there is that potential for a drop-off or interest loss.

Then the applicant is offered a fitness test. Until very recently, applicants had to go to their GP and pay for a medical certificate to medically clear them to undertake that fitness test. Straight away, there is a financial disincentive to actually turn up. We have been campaigning for a while for a waiver by which applicants could come along and allow themselves to undertake this fitness test without the requirement to first pay for a medical with their GP. This is coming on stream in the very near future. While that is to be welcomed, it has been an issue until now.

Then we move on to Defence Forces medical testing. The applicants have gone to their GP, paid to get a medical and then undertaken their fitness test. To give an example of those who have passed, they now go on to a Defence Forces medical, which involves two parts. Part one is a battery of tests conducted by a Defence Forces medic, and once those results come in, part two is an appearance before a Defence Forces medical officer. They read the results, and the applicants are essentially certified fit or unfit to progress further. At the moment, there are inordinate delays with organising these, primarily because there are either so few medics available or so few Defence Forces medical officers who can look at the results. This has resulted in the RDFRA campaigning for the complete outsourcing of medical testing for all recruits. At the moment, what is being tendered is the outsourcing of part two, that is, the element where an applicant appears before a Defence Forces medical officer or doctor.

There are still myriad issues with part one, which is getting in front of a medic in order to receive the initial battery of tests. At the moment, that is not being outsourced. While we received assurances that 600 medicals will be made available every year for the RDF going forward, this is something we have heard time and again over the last ten years. It is a case, unfortunately, that we will believe it when we see it.

With regard to fixing this, we could recommend that the full outsourcing of Defence Forces medicals and the streamlining and speeding up of the testing stages in quick succession would maintain recruits' interest and we would get people across the line faster and therefore keep more of them. The problem is that it is taking us nearly a year to get people into the RDF. We have had many examples of people being phoned after a year and asked if they are still interested in joining the RDF, and they and answer, "Sorry, I have actually gone on into the Permanent Defence Force, PDF, where I have completed my training and am getting ready for an overseas deployment." They have done all that in the time it took the RDF to call them to testing, which is a bit ridiculous.

Speeding up the testing stages is key. Our main logjam is medical resourcing. That is the one that seems to be taking a lot of recruits out of the system. We are getting a lot of statements rather than substance. It is accurate to say that 1,000 recruits have been processed or engaged with, but that is not the same as having brought them through all of the various testing stages. As mentioned in my opening statement, only 47 have been brought to completion in what is now coming up on a year.

Mr. Eugene Gargan

Another question the Senator asked was about the regeneration plan. We welcomed the report from the Commission on the Defence Forces. It outlined, in very stark terms, what lay ahead of us and it was clear about what was required. We have not seen any great enthusiasm to take immediate action on doing that. We observed the difficulty in establishing the office of Reserve affairs, how long that took and the way in which it was established. I mean no disrespect to the fine officers who are assigned to that office. Without question, they are excellent in what they do and very enthusiastic, and they see the purpose of it. However, if this body is established without staff and a physical office, that presents a challenge straight away. It is also a year late and in the meantime our numbers are reducing. There is a glide path down to the ground with regard to our numbers.

We do our very best to arrest the decline and deal with recruitment as best we can; however, there is an uphill struggle, as Senator Craughwell has said himself. We feel that the urgency that was very clear in the report seems to have cooled somewhat in the intervening months. It is unfortunate but we can forecast a further cooling. An observer from another representative association said the report is dead and does not have any potency at this stage. This is most regrettable.

We were asked about our budget. Mr. Richardson has the exact figures for it. There was also question on UNIFIL. I will pass both of those questions to Mr. Richardson.

Mr. Neil Richardson

I will answer on the budgetary issue first and then on UNIFIL. Vote 36 in the Estimates for this year is worth approximately €890 million. The Reserve’s budget out of that is €2 million, which is less than a quarter of 1% of the Defence budget. The budget is ostensibly to provide a full-strength Reserve of 4,000 members, with seven paid days per year. If we had a full-strength reserve, we would all get seven paid days. Straightaway, you run into fairly basic maths problems in that most of our Reserve courses are 14, 21 or 28 days long. If we had a full-strength Reserve, we would each be getting paid for seven days and be expected to do the remaining 75% of a course for free, on top of all the other training. If trying to attract high-quality specialists with lengthy professional careers to the organisation, offering them seven paid days per year will not wash.

Let me talk about the UNIFIL mission. It is wonderful that the Defence (Amendment) Act 2021 gave us the ability to go overseas. That cannot be welcomed enough. One of the things we were campaigning for all along was a purpose for our utility. We did not have one. We could train ad infinitum but could not go operational, but now we can thanks to the Act. However, for a reason that is not quite clear to us, the number of days per annum for which a reservist could engage in operational service was immediately capped, in an edit to Defence Forces Regulation R5, at 100 days. Therefore, if you want to go overseas on a six-month tour, you need to do form-up training, as it is known, for three months. After the six months overseas, there is a month of post-overseas activities. This is easily 200-plus days. Defence Forces Regulation R5 caps the period at 100. No reservist will be useful to an overseas unit commander if, having done three months of overseas form-up training, which is 90 days out of the 100, he or she is then available for only ten days overseas.

Let me refer to the individual on the UNIFIL mission. It was a massive watershed moment for the Reserve. It was the first time officially that Reserve boots landed on the ground as part of a UN peacekeeping mission. It was a matter of one person for seven days, a person who was able to go because personal circumstances allowed it. It was not somebody supported by employment protection legislation because that is not in place. Going was made possible by personal circumstances. If employment protection legislation were in place, the myriad of specialists that the Reserve has could be utilised in greater ways, such as in the mission to UNIFIL. However, the current regulation caps our engagement in operational activities at 100 days per year. If a person has to spend 90 of those days forming up in Ireland before going overseas, it gives only ten days overseas. All these issues need to be resolved. Again, we have had statements rather than substance. It is correct that we have had people on peacekeeping missions overseas, but so far it has been a matter of one person who went for seven days because they took seven days annual leave from their job to do it. This is an unsustainable model if the Reserve is to be utilised in a very meaningful way.

Mr. Eugene Gargan

There were questions asked about employment protection and promotion opportunities. I will pass them over to Mr. Cooney.

Mr. Martin Cooney

Regarding employment protection, we recently conducted a survey to which 75% of respondents indicated they would not be able to serve overseas without employment protection. How can you leave your paid employment for the period in question and not have protection ensuring you can return to it afterwards? The Department took the view that it would go softly-softly on this, engage with employers’ representative bodies and have many nice talks about being nice to employees, and then come up with a policy to the effect that employers could let employees go to serve if they wanted but that they would not be compelled to let them go. This implies another policy that is a waste of time, as with many things we see produced regarding the Reserve.

We took the initiative about eight years ago and drafted a Bill. We believed it was a first sensible step to promote employment protection. In that Bill, we sought to achieve a few very simple things. Number one was the prevention of discrimination entering, during and exiting employment. The grounds were to be similar to those concerning disability, race, sex and religious orientation under employment equality legislation and so on. We said we would just add in “being a member of the Reserve” so that if a member's employer were compelled to release them for a period of training, it would not stand against them.

The second thing we did was introduce an entitlement to a period of unpaid leave from work. Looking at what has happened with parental leave and other trends regarding the kind of protection in question, we did not say to employers that we were going to compel them to pay the individuals for nine or ten months; we just added in additional leave for a number of weeks a year to allow reservists to train on the island, bearing in mind that eight years ago we were not allowed to officially leave the island to train or go north on this island to do so. The North was considered another jurisdiction, so we were not allowed to go over the Border to train with colleagues or professionals from the British military. Therefore, we had to get amending legislation in 2021 to allow us to go even over the Border or to Brussels in the EU. It was 2021 before we could participate in anything that meant crossing a border. I am referring to an organisation that in 2013 was reorganised supposedly to make it more professional, but I agree with Senator Craughwell that it was a death knell.

Moving on to opportunities for promotion, it is very frustrating for a volunteer. The way to get recognition for service is through gaining qualifications, peer recognition from Permanent Defence Force and Reserve colleagues, and promotion opportunities that give a chance to advance. It is extremely hard to advance when the structure is set up in such a way that does not encourage it in any way, shape or form. I will give the example of the lieutenant-to-captain promotion competition, which has been sanctioned on a once-off basis. Over two years ago, the Minister gave a commitment. We were at the meeting where he gave a direction that a promotion competition was to happen immediately. The last one before that was in 2014 or 2015. There were arguments that there was no legislative provision for the competition because Defence Forces Regulation R5 did not cover it, but in any event, funnily enough, a routine order was prepared. The competition is now going to be run but it is still facing difficulties. It will be run in circumstances in which we know there is not a sufficient number of captain vacancies for the number of eligible lieutenants in the country. How disgruntled will a person be when he or she goes for this competition that has not been run in many years and does not succeed because there are no positions? Despite this, we are supposedly going to run a captain-to-commandant competition, involving a move to the next rank up, later in the year. Would it not make sense to run the captain-to-commandant competition first and create vacancies for captains to fill with the lieutenants? I will leave that with the members. It makes sense to me. I do not understand why things are operating in the way they are.

Second, Defence Forces Regulation R5 was amended last year and implemented in June, four months after a Commission on Defence report stated we should establish a Reserve with colonels and possibly a brigadier general. Does Defence Forces Regulation R5 allow for the promotion to brigadier general or colonel in the Reserve? I believe members know the answer to that one. It was not even updated following the statement of the Commission on Defence.

Then we changed the promotion prospects, meaning that if you want to convene a competition, it has to be convened by the general officer commanding the relevant formation. That entails the 1 Brigade, the 2 Brigade or the Defence Forces training centre. Defence Forces headquarters is not a formation that has a general officer commanding, so we cannot convene a competition for captains in Defence Forces headquarters because we do not have a general officer commanding. Therefore, all the vacancies cannot be advertised in the current competition, which means we are losing out on those vacancies. People will get promoted elsewhere and can transfer into the positions and leave positions behind them that some disgruntled people have applied for and could not get. This is Kafkaesque; this makes no sense. That is the kind of obstacle you face when serving.

Mr. Eugene Gargan

Deputy Carthy asked several questions. We would not dispute anything at all in his starting narrative. He has a good handle on the issues that are, or certainly were, faced owing to the closure of military premises, barracks and posts.

He asked specifically about Defence Forces Regulation R5, which pertains to reservists specifically, and the relationship with the Department. I am in the best place to answer the question because it was me who wrote to the Secretary General.

First, I am not personally criticising the Secretary General by any means at all. She is a particularly busy woman and there is an awful lot on her plate. There are a couple of issues that concern us, one of which was in relation to keeping the R5 document live. When it was redrafted we were told - and we took this in good faith - that would be like any operational document in that it needed to be updated periodically. As the environment changes and as things move, the regulations need to be kept up to date. It has been incredibly challenging to try to make those changes that are required. When we engage with the Department, the engagement is always professional and positive. The people we deal with are second to none. I absolutely stand over that and I have no problem at all in saying that. They are all very professional individuals. However, they appear to face resourcing issues themselves. When the Department is seized with a crisis, whatever that may happen to be, we are dropped. We will not have any currency at that point in time because they will have to go and deal with something else. We are therefore put at the bottom of the list. As Mr. Richardson said in his opening address, we recognise that we are reservists. We are not the Permanent Defence Force. We are not right up at the front of the line, but we cannot remain at the back of the queue indefinitely because we will just wither away. Then, you will have lost a resource that was available to the State. You will have lost all the goodwill and all the capability. It is incredibly difficult to re-establish something like that.

Regarding issues on which I wrote to the Secretary General, there has not been a response. I am sure something will materialise fairly soon and I am sure it is being dealt with.

When did Mr. Gargan write that letter?

Mr. Eugene Gargan

It was on 11 May. It is indicative, and there are other indications as well. For example, people refer to the size of the Defence Forces as approximately 9,500, but that is not the size of the Defence Forces. That is the size of the PDF. It is indicative of the fact that people completely forget about us. We are not in the minds of the people we deal with, the people who are superior within the Department or the general staff. If they are not thinking about us, how can we expect them to make positive decisions that will affect our welfare and future? That is why we raise it. It is not to have a shot at any individual at all. It is just indicative. If you were to ask for an example of how we know that we are not being prioritised, these are the examples.

We have been flagging issues such as R5 document and the working time directive for years. We have not had any meaningful or productive engagement with the Department. I have flagged it and I have said this is a difficult problem. The solution to it will likely require a lot of expertise, time and negotiation. While there is some engagement with our sister representative associations, there has not been any meaningful engagement with us. It will affect reservists in a completely different way because we might potentially have two employers. I will not suggest here how it will pan out, because it is a complex and difficult issue, but when this affects us, people will ask why we did not start working on this months or years beforehand. Yet, we have flagged that. I want to put it out there that this is another issue we are deeply concerned about.

Deputy Carthy has asked about the resources available to the Office of Reserve Affairs, as well as recruitment gaps and local centres. I will pass those three questions to Mr. Richardson, if I may, because he is the expert on those areas.

Mr. Neil Richardson

I will take Deputy Carthy's point on what proper resourcing of the Office of Reserve Affairs looks like. When this office was designed, it was designed with an initial operating capacity number of staff, as well as a full operating capacity. Our argument is simple, which is to bring it up to its full operating capacity of staff as quickly as is humanly possible. For the last ten years, since the last reorganisation, Reserve matters have been dealt with by PDF staff who also had PDF matters to deal with. Therefore, as Senator Craughwell rightly said, before the last reorganisation, we were essentially independent with our own Permanent Defence Force staff taking care of us. Then, the reorganisation happened and we were lumped in with the PDF, into what had previously been Permanent Defence Force-only units. So, one day in 2013, the PDF woke up and we were there and they had to take care of us as well. That caused cultural issues. It understandably caused workload issues for the Permanent Defence Force as well. However, the sole remit of the Office of Reserve Affairs is to work on Reserve issues. If it has its full operating capacity of personnel, that would be 20-plus individuals whose day job would be to take care of the Reserve. To allow that to happen, though, there needs to be a regulatory underpinning. Certain positions or ranks within that office can only exist if other regulations are changed to allow that to happen. They need to be underpinned by regulations as much as by resources and personnel.

In terms of the recruitment gaps, as has been mentioned earlier, speed is key to this, as is medical resourcing. The various testing stages, such as fitness testing or interviews, do not really create problems. The logjam is always in the area of medicals. We get a lot of anecdotal information from our members where medicals are arranged, busloads of Reserve applicants are sent to them, and they are sometimes in transit when they find out that the medical testing has to be cancelled for whatever reason. Then, another date will be arranged, and that will come with low morale. Therefore, it is a matter of speed and medical resourcing.

Finally, there is the issue of local training centres. Yes, it is true that in the last reorganisation quite a number of training centres were closed down, but 20-odd training centres still exist around the country, although small numbers of reservists are active there. The problem with these is that there is no military equipment in these training centres. They do not even have access to the Defence Forces intranet system. Therefore, individuals cannot access manuals, training instruments, or whatever it might be that is provided on this Defence Forces intranet system. Therefore, they are completely and utterly cut off from the rest of the Defence Forces. Similarly, the units that went into these training centres are exclusively infantry, or foot soldiers, whereas many of these training centres are colocated with third level institutions, such as Dundalk IT, DkIT, and the Atlantic Technological University, ATU, in Sligo. All these places have RDF training centres nearby. Instead of recruiting medical students or engineering students into the medical corps, the engineering corps, or whatever it might be, the infantry units that are placed there are probably the least attractive for third level graduates or third level students. It is about pairing the right units with the right location.

Senator Craughwell also made a valid point about the old FCA vans. Much of Defence Forces transport does not get used after normal working hours, but it could potentially be used by RDF drivers to drive around those locations, pick people up and bring them into the main training centres. Again, that is an underutilised resource. It is something I am sure the Office of Reserve Affairs will look at, but the attitude to all these training centres has been unintelligent to date. They are completely cut off from their parent barracks in many ways.

Mr. Eugene Gargan

On the questions Senator Craughwell asked, he made reference to a two star. For those who have not served in the military, two star is a grade of private just above a recruit. They embark on their basic training and some initial training, but they are not fully qualified at that stage. The Senator asked a number of questions. To start with, he asked questions in relation to the reorganisation and the structure of the RDF. He also asked questions about recruitment. He queried the response, or lack thereof, of the Secretary General, and I think I have addressed that already. He also asked about the personnel function within the Department of Defence and the closure of barracks.

Before we get into that, there has been talk about recruitment and I might hand over to Mr. Ecock to address the function of the medical corps in all of this. We are pointing out that one of the key blockages in recruitment is getting people through a number of stages. Security clearance, for example, is one of those. There are also the issues of medical testing and fitness testing.

Mr. Mark Ecock

As Mr. Richardson already pointed out, there are two phases of the medical, namely, the part one and the part two. The proposal from the Reserve Defence Force Representative Association, RDFRA, was to outsource the medical completely so that we would have the ability to send our applicants to complete the medical. We still have a solution there, but we have yet to see whether those 600 people who have been allocated for part two medicals will bear fruit. Also, we are still sending our members down to do part one. Again, we are not being given a complete solution by the Department of Defence. We are proposing that it will be completely outsourced and that both part one and part two will be outsourced. Then we can obviously speed things up and our applicants can be sent through this. It will be completely outsourced. We are awaiting the PDF personnel who are potentially doing medicals for overseas service, etc. They will constantly get priority for those medicals over us.

As the anecdotal evidence Mr. Richardson referenced indicates, we are en route to take part in Part 1 medicals and, for whatever reason, they are cancelled, potentially in favour of priorities that happen on the day. We just want a system in place that will allow us to get our applicants through the system as quickly as possible. The applicants we see are high quality. We are putting them into a system that potentially takes 12 months, which does not look professional from our perspective. Those applicants will not wait around for 12 months.

As part of my role in the RDF, I am one of those personnel who is front and centre as a recruitment liaison officer. I see the applicants who are coming through. They are high-quality individuals. They have third-level qualifications and many of them have specialist skills that are of distinct relevance, including skills in cybersecurity, and medical and engineering skills. These people are high-quality individuals who are applying from different backgrounds. We are losing out on this resource of people who are not willing to wait 12 months for their applications to be processed. The people that get through are very resilient and stand with us in the sense that they are willing to wait around for 12 months to get through the whole system, which is not acceptable. We obviously want a proper solution in place for medicals.

Mr. Eugene Gargan

Senator Craughwell asked about the structure of the RDF and the effect the reorganisation in 2012 had. Much has been said about that particular exercise. We argue it was not done in a way that was particularly effective and certainly did not help us in the way it moved personnel around from one unit to another and, in fact, even between corps as well. However, that was in the past. We want to move forward. We particularly took on board what the commission report stated. That pointed out a way, in terms that were about as clear as could be, the RDF should be used and how it should be reconstituted.

Recruitment in respect of the 1,000 applications can be looked at in a number of different ways. We referenced the conversion rate, as poor as it is, for every 1,000 applications. In any other endeavour, for instance, an organisation recruiting personnel who are ordinary employees, if it were that difficult to get into that organisation or there was that much demand for it, it would have to ask itself questions about how it was conducting business, considering that the state of the organisation attempting to recruit is as poor as it is. We look at the outcomes. We are not looking at specific measures, although these are sometimes used and might be technically correct. The Department might make statements about where it is processing at various points in the actual process chain, but the way we look at it is how many people we can convert and actually get into the RDF.

I will pass the question on paid training and major exercises to Mr. Cooney.

Mr. Martin Cooney

As can probably be judged by my hairline, I was one of the guys in the FCA being picked up by that van. I will put Mr. Gargan in that bucket as well, although I cannot speak for the other two representatives.

(Interruptions).

Mr. Martin Cooney

I have to revisit the past to explain what has happened in respect of paid training and major exercises. There have been many iterations of the RDF since World War Two, but pre-2005 we were the FCA, An Fórsa Cosanta Áitiúil, which was essentially a local defence force. Each unit stood on its own as a stand-alone unit and it was Reserve-centric. It was focused on training outputs related to the Reserve unit in a Reserve-friendly manner. In 2005, we became the Reserve Defence Force. On a similar basis, we changed the structure whereby we had units that mirrored a permanent unit. If there was a permanent infantry unit, there was a mirror Reserve unit. It was supposed to create greater interoperability, and greater relationships between the two and so on. There was still a Reserve-centric unit focused on Reserve training in a Reserve-friendly manner.

In 2013, without any meaningful consultation with anyone, we were shoehorned into what was called a single-force concept. The single-force concept got rid of all the Reserve units and imposed them on full-time units. All of a sudden, permanent Defence Forces units had all these reservists. Some of them had never served with reservists. The way the military was restructured they received no training or lectures on reservists. We might as well have been aliens coming down to them. One of the biggest issues we had is they did not understand our paperwork or processes because they were different. I feel sorry for members of the Defence Forces because they were there in full-time employment and were given this other job on top of all the other stuff they were fighting, with no help to do it.

How does that come into paid training and major exercises? If a reservist is put into a full-time, permanent, professional unit, the objectives of that unit are focused on full-time professionals who are paid to work predominantly during the week. Reservists train predominantly in the evenings and at weekends. If a unit commander has limited resources and wants to achieve outputs for a permanent unit, he or she will focus on permanent outputs because that is what he or she is really being judged by, and the RDF has just been imposed on that commander because someone thought it was a good idea. Therefore, training will be during the week during normal working hours and planning will not be engaged in.

In the past, a Reserve unit sat down at the beginning of the year to work out when it suits most people to go on an exercise, which is usually during the summer when students are on holidays and people can take holidays from work. Builders' holidays were from end of July to the beginning of August. A permanent unit does not work like that. Its members usually go out during the most miserable times of the year, October and November, to ensure they can work in the most miserable conditions. The old saying in the permanent Defence Forces is, "If it's not raining, you're not training". That does not suit the Reserve because we are working. Our busiest time of the year is the run-up to Christmas. We cannot get out to go on the paid training for major exercises. We do not have employment protection to do it. We then have Reserve units offering little cells within the permanent unit to try to do their own training but they do not have the critical mass and the personnel. If they want supports, they have to do it on a full-time basis. That has meant the depletion of major exercises, where reservists can upskill, and the ability to go on paid training throughout the summer, which was a staple for many reservists. That is the issue. An organisation with one focus has been shoehorned into another that has a totally different focus.

This issue is very interesting. I have a few questions. The attrition rate of 5%, which everyone mentioned, is obviously jaw-dropping. Mr. Richardson mentioned the medical reports that had to be commissioned. There seems to be a lot of duplication for reports in that there is a pre- and post-fitness test report. Many GPs around the country are on GP contracts. Has there ever been some sort of agreement with GPs to do one-size-fits-all reports? Who dictated that there should be a two-step medical report? Is there any movement on that to iron out the logjam?

Is it fair to say the R5 agreement is now out of date and a full root-and-branch reform is needed? If the RDF is like a friend who is in a relationship with a fella - I am saying the fella is the Department of Defence and the RDF is the girl - I would say it looks like he is trying to dump her but does not really want to do it. The RDF is not getting any help here.

It is being strung along.

It is absolutely being strung along. The RDF needs to look for a commitment that this is happening, especially since that commission report was signed off in 2021.

The space we are in at the moment as regards defence in Ireland has changed dramatically. My colleagues referenced the consultative forum. This concerns the public. When I say "public" I mean politicians because we are the front of the public. I have been a Senator since 2016 but I was never that interested in defence because we were living in peacetime Europe. However, we are all more acutely aware of it and there is more of an interest in the RDF. It is clearly cultivating that interest or it would not get 1,000 applicants. If a political party got 1,000 applicants, we would ask them to come in to us immediately. We would meet them tomorrow. It would kill us to say to them they will have to wait a year to meet us.

The RDF is doing its part of the job. It is creating a huge amount of interest. Other organisations would be envious hearing about that, but the RDF is obviously being significantly held up.

It is very disappointing. It is lovely to hear all the stories. I have friends who were in the RDF, and many of them have had RDF marriages. There is, I am sure, a large community there and huge value. In addition, with significant inward migration in Ireland, there is a role the witnesses can play in integration and in creating the feeling of being part of Ireland. There is a huge piece that can be brought in there.

How do the witnesses feel about the Department? Is it the political will they are not feeling? I am interested in that because, obviously, we are all very supportive of the Reserve but we need a steer. The witnesses have been here before. They have heard us all say this is great before. What do they want? What can we do that will make an impact? Did one of the witnesses say there is an app or something that people can log into as regards divvying out work? Does the Reserve have its own IT system and budget? Is it good? Could the witnesses look for more investment in it?

I am sure the witnesses recognise that they are behind friendly lines. Everyone on the committee is totally motivated to try to make things as good as we practically can. I thank Mr. Richardson for his opening statement. It was very stark, as the Chair said. It was candid and very hard-hitting. Not only do I agree with everything in it; I fully endorse it. It is entirely my precise experience, having been in the RDF and the PDF. I think the witnesses are owed an apology for how their organisation was treated, or mistreated, to follow on from the good Senator's comments, over the past 20 years. We had a functioning organisation, and the State and its agents set about to utterly dismantle it over a 20-year period. It is shocking that that took place.

I will start with some positives. I will double down on some of the comments that have been made. Sending an RDF soldier overseas was brilliant, even if it was only for seven days. It is a proof of concept. We talk about the glass ceiling. That is the green ceiling that has been smashed and shattered, and it is an excellent step forward. The more the merrier, as far as I am concerned. That should be happening far more frequently. As it is such a historic watershed moment, if the witnesses want to put the name of the individual on the record for his benefit or his grandchildren's benefit, that is perfectly fine, if they think that is appropriate.

A second positive is that, although most people may not be aware of this, four boats for the Naval Reserve are being constructed here in Ireland, in a shipyard in Valentia. I will try to get down there over the summer to eyeball them myself. It just shows that there are some positives happening.

We are getting the hard stuff right; it seems to be the easy stuff that is letting us down. Most the problems the witnesses have mentioned - this is probably not a question but more of a comment - seem to be down to basic governance. We do not have a dedicated, stand-alone Minister for Defence. Whatever one's views on the Tánaiste are, whether good, bad or indifferent, he cannot do six jobs. He is doing six jobs - or attempting to do six jobs - at the moment. He is the senior defence Minister; he is the junior defence Minister because we have an appointed junior defence Minister, Deputy Peter Burke, but no powers have been devolved; he is the Tánaiste; he is the Minister for Foreign Affairs; he is a party leader; and he is a deputy party leader. He is therefore trying to do six jobs, and if that were not bad enough, we have no special adviser in the Department of Defence at all. Most Ministers have a special adviser or spad. There is none for the Minister for Defence. There are all these basic governance issues, and all the structures are horrendous. There is no entity I know of in the country that has a dual reporting process in the way there is the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces the whole way down. Normally, there is a board and an executive, and the board does not get involved in the day-to-day running of the entity. The executive is empowered just to get on with it and the board sets the policy. That is how it should be. I am therefore not surprised it took ten years to review an R5 document. Is that about 50 pages long? That could have been done in a week. One would not accept that from a college student or a leaving certificate student, yet we accept it from a State entity. As regards the 2015 White Paper, not a single RDF project was even commenced. Where is the accountability here? Was anyone sanctioned or sacked as a result? Nobody seems to care.

Recruitment was mentioned. There is a 5% return on recruitment. There are better odds on an Army Ranger Wing, ARW, selection course. It is appalling and it just seems to reek of this paralysis in that the witnesses know what they want to achieve. It was simple to join the Reserve Defence Force in the past. What has happened in the meantime? Why have we invented all these layers such as fitness testing and medicals? I can see why security clearance is required, but the Garda Reserve is in a similar situation. Its strength is generally about 1,500. It is down to about 300. I believe a major recruitment drive is taking place in the Garda Reserve for October; so the Minister, Deputy Harris, told me a couple of months ago, when he was Minister for Justice. Do the witnesses have any liaison with the Garda Reserve? Does it have the similar layers of fitness testing and medical testing? I presume it has security clearance, but it seems to me that it is much easier to get into the Garda Reserve than it is to get into the Reserve Defence Force.

I have a couple of other questions. I think ours is the only country in the EU without an air force reserve, which is bananas. To clarify, do the witnesses represent the First Line Reserve as well? They do not. Who represents the First Line Reserve? That might be an appropriate question. Furthermore, do the witnesses know of any member of the PDF who has retired from the PDF and joined the Reserve Defence Force in, say, the past 12 months? That would be useful information. That is a channel that should absolutely be used. It should be offered to almost every member of the PDF who is retiring just to populate the PDF.

From the perspective of Ukraine, I feel like we are like the financial regulators of 2005, 2006 and 2007. They were clueless. They did not know what was happening. We have no excuse, however. We can see that the risks to Ireland now are not financial but geopolitical. I think history will judge the political establishment very poorly as to how poorly we have prepared for this country's defences. Risk management is an integral part of any organisation, but the way the country's risk management is being handled is absolutely shocking. I do not know of any other entity that would be so reckless with its future. We are playing Russian roulette with the country, and ours of all countries should realise how important it is to maintain one's sovereignty. Yes, the Ukrainian situation is a couple of thousand kilometres away - some people would say that - but we have no idea what trajectory we are on. While it might be a couple of thousand kilometres away from a land perspective, it is only 12 nautical miles away from a sea and an air perspective. There are Russian ships pushing up to our 12-nautical-mile limit and nobody seems to care. That is how close the conflict is.

Following on from what the good Senator Ardagh said, how can we help? The witnesses asked for an office of Reserve affairs to be properly populated. Can they confirm that there was the equivalent of an office of Reserve affairs ten years ago called the directorate of Reserve? There was, so we are reinventing the wheel. The structures that existed ten years ago were perfectly appropriate but we dismantled them and now we are trying to go back to the future.

To confirm, DFR R5 is Defence Force Reserve Regulation 5, I presume. It is inappropriately titled because it is not a Defence Forces regulation but a ministerial regulation drafted by the Department and imposed on the Defence Forces. It is not really the job of the Defence Forces to modify this. This is a ministerial direction, which goes back to our governance issue.

As regards Reserve recruitment, is there any possibility of doctors, that is, medical officers, in the Reserve doing medicals for the reserves? A number of doctors are serving in the Reserve at the moment. Some of them are even more skilled than the Permanent Defence Force medical officers. Can they not be utilised to do the medicals?

To my final point, I accept absolutely Mr. Gargan's views on the figure of 15,500. There should really be 15,500 people in the Defence Forces at the moment. The Government's plan is to have 11,500 in the PDF and slightly more than 4,000 in the Reserve Defence Force. People do not know this, but the Defence Forces are the Permanent Defence Force and the Reserve Defence Force. The Defence Forces are not a land, sea and air component.

Those are my only comments. Thank you for your indulgence, Chair. I welcome the fact that there are people from the Reserve Defence Force going overseas. I welcome the fact that four new boats are being constructed by an Irish company in an Irish shipyard. We should celebrate that. I asked questions about the Air Corps Reserve, the First Line Reserve, any PDF members joining the Reserve Defence Force recently, any liaison the witnesses have had with the Garda Reserve and whether it has its own representative association. I very much take Mr. Gargan's point about the figure of 15,500. That is the number I will highlight in future.

I welcome our guests to the meeting and thank them for their presentation. I also thank them for what they do in representing RDF members across the country. Many of the questions I was going to ask have been asked. That is the danger of following Deputy Berry, who is the resident expert on all things military.

I was going to ask about the First Line Reserve and heard the response that the RDFRA does not represent its members. They are a pool of trainers who are available on short notice to supplement units in times of emergency. I know there is no set establishment in that regard. I was talking to a senior officer at the weekend. The point was made that we should probably do more with the people who leave the PDF and, as has been said, encourage them to join the RDF at least. Some of those people have a lot of skills and want to do it but there does not seem to be a pathway there. I am not sure if that is a matter our guests have explored or can explore. It is a matter I am interested in.

I spent 20 years in the FCA, as it was, and wore the beret. I knew a young barman who was a serving member. One of the officers asked him what he was doing in civvy life. He said he was in college. He was asked what he was studying and the answer was that he was doing a PhD in astrophysics. That is the kind of level of skill that the RDF can bring to the PDF and to the State. That man was also serving cocktails and whatever else. The level of skill is amazing and can be amazing.

The FCA was stood down on 31 March 2005. At that stage, the First Line Reserve was made up of 404 members. There were 317 members of the Naval Service Reserve. The FCA, as it was then, comprised 11,520 members. The total number in the reserve at that time was 12,240. We have fallen a long way since then.

I take Mr. Cooney's point that the single force concept seemed to be the death knell of the reserve. He did not use those words but I will. It does not seem to have worked. Perhaps the number of reservists is smaller. Reservists nowadays are, in general, more skilled than they were then. The level of skill is far higher, which is a good thing. However, the overall numbers have dropped for the reasons that have been outlined and for other reasons.

There is a proposal to bring people back into the RDF at their former rank. Primary legislation would be needed. Has there been any movement in that regard? Have our guests any comment to make on that proposal? Is it still the case that members of the Civil Service can take special leave to serve in the RDF? Perhaps our guests could comment on that. I am not sure if that is still the case but it was in the past and was useful.

Promotion vacancies have been mentioned. We know that the establishment strength is low at the moment. What is the effective strength? Will our guests comment on that point? We know the establishment strength is 4,000. Is the effective strength 1,400? Our guests know what I mean by that. I mean the effective strength versus the non-effective strength.

Most of the other questions I wanted to ask have been asked already. I will not waste time on those.

I will call Deputy Cronin before I go back to our panellists. If they are concise and direct in their replies, we will have time for another round of questions.

Our guests are welcome. When I read the opening statement last night, I was struck by how sad it was. It is depressing and sad that our guests feel they are not getting the respect to which they are entitled. The commission seems to have hit on and recognised that. Sometimes I feel that is how we do things around here.

We have a great history of volunteerism in Ireland. I was a member of Maynooth Community First Responders. Every week, people came out to train for three hours. We had to train every week. At weekends, we ran fundraisers. No one was getting paid. We were delighted to be part of our community and to give something. We have a great history in that regard. When I was younger, many of the lads were members of the FCA. It was only the lads, and not the women, at the time. The barracks was closer. They used to go out to Gormanston but we also had a barracks nearby in Finglas. I live in Kildare and the closest military place is in The Curragh, outside Newbridge and Kildare town. It is not easy for people to join their local RDF. Has consideration been given to active, movable camps? I know there would be arms and ammunition involved, which would have to be protected. Every large town has a Garda station where those arms and ammunition could be protected and held safely.

The FCA was always associated with young people. Have our guests considered taking retired members of the Defence Forces or looking to recruit medics? We recently had four days of a consultative forum. We must rethink our defence and how we defend our country. We might need more teachers, doctors, nurses, people with cyber experience and that kind of thing. We need to recruit such people into the RDF. At that forum, we talked about interoperability around ammunition and so on. We might be able to join NATO if we took such a notion. It is mad to think there is no interoperability in respect of paperwork between the RDF and the Defence Forces when they are parts of the same group and report to the same Department.

There has been a lot of talk about fitness tests. We have to rethink how we defend the country. It is not all about who can carry the heaviest piece of metal up a hill or anything like that.

Our guests have told us what they want us to do. They have given us three things to do immediately. It is up to us now to run with those. Various talks at the consultative forum observed that defence must now become a whole-of-society thing. What do our guests see as their role in that regard? Perhaps they could talk a little about that.

Mr. Eugene Gargan

I thank Senator Ardagh for her questions and observations. She asked about medical fitness and GP reports, the two parts to that and how it operates, and how the local GPs are involved. I will allow Mr. Richardson to respond to those points.

The Senator also asked about an application for the Defence Forces. I will pass to Mr. Ecock on that point. I will give the Senator a commentary on R5. I will keep the tempo up, as the Cathaoirleach has requested.

Mr. Neil Richardson

To respond to the Senator's question, the Defence Forces' relationship with GPs over the past 20 or 30 years is as clear as mud. The following is still the case but will be done away with in the very near future: new recruits have to go to their GPs to get medical certification to confirm they are sufficiently fit to undertake the entrance fitness test. Should they successfully pass that entrance fitness test, the Defence Forces' medical system takes over. That is where the issues start to arise. There simply are not individuals within the Defence Forces to test them, or they are few and far between. As a result, delays start to kick in.

Why is the first GP report not accepted?

Mr. Neil Richardson

Thankfully, after many years of campaigning, that initial GP form is disappearing and being replaced with self-certification by the applicant.

They are essentially signing a waiver stating, "I am saying I am fit enough to take this test". We had this ten years ago and then it disappeared in the reorganisation. As Deputy Berry alluded to, the wheel has now been reinvented and it is coming back.

With regard to the relationship and engagement with GPs, about six or seven years ago, annual medicals for serving reservists were outsourced to our GPs. At that point, the Army medical corps identified that it did not have the resources to give serving reservists a medical every year, so they were outsourced to our GPs. The issue is that, due to an agreement with GPs that dated back to the 1990s, the maximum sum that could be reimbursed to a GP for delivering an annual medical for a reservist was €56.73. That is a specific figure because it was 50 Irish punts converted into euro. Many GPs are looking for more than €56.73 and, particularly for the older members of the reserve, they are looking for considerably more. Now, in order to obtain their annual medical, a reservist is paying either fully or partly out of their own pocket to get this every year, whereas pre-2016, the Defence Forces medical corps was still delivering these medicals to serving reservists and they were essentially free. It was a great incentive for service – people were getting an annual physical as part of their service within the Reserve. This is now something many reservists have to pay for, as I said, exclusively or partly themselves. Thankfully, the entrance GP medical is disappearing, but we still have the serving personnel’s GP medical to deal with.

Mr. Mark Ecock

Earlier this year, the Defence Forces started to roll out a Defence Forces app to permanent personnel. However, to date, that app is not available to reserve personnel. Obviously, we are all reservists and part time, and communication is a massive thing for us. The reason they cited is down to the governance and administration of the app. They cannot tell whether the member is still serving or not, and he or she has access to this myriad of potentially sensitive data on the app. That is the reason. I work in IT and there are 20 different ways that we could come up with a solution as to how we know when member is actually serving or not and help to revalidate and recertify so that members are provided access to the app. Again, it is the same kind of them; the Reserve has been overlooked when it comes to the roll-out of the Defence Forces app. Our members really need this communication in order to see, for example, what courses are going on, when medicals are available – all this information that we do not have access to. The only time we get access to it is when we go the barracks and have physical access to a Defence Forces terminal. We all strongly wish the app is rolled out and a proper IT solution and governance of the app is properly provided to reserve personnel.

Mr. Eugene Gargan

The Senator had a question on the R5 and the nature of the engagement and the relationship. I think the phrase “being strung along” was used. The fact that it has taken so long to deal with updates to the R5, which applies to almost everything to do with the Reserve – the Naval Service Reserve and the Army Reserve – I think is symptomatic of the overall relationship between the State and the Government through the Department to ourselves. We are the forgotten part of the Defence Forces in many ways; we are an afterthought. We do not get the priority that my colleagues in the association get and I believe we should rightly be pegged at. We have said time and again - we are on the record of saying it – we are not seeking anything that we are not entitled to. We can see the value of the Reserve Defence Forces. We can see the value in the context of a vehicle for an expression of patriotism.

On integration, I express my patriotism through my service to the State and I can see how that would be attractive to new Irish who want to integrate into communities - and there are communities. We are here a long time. Mr. Cooney mentioned wearing a beret and having that funny suntan, which I am sure Deputy Stanton had many years ago. We have all been there and you form lifelong relationships and friendships. Comradery is what it really is. It is recognising all that.

It is an almost daily struggle to try to get our interests brought to the fore – not ahead of everyone else, but just to get them dealt with in an appropriate way before the resource, which is the Reserve Defence Forces, finally extinguishes itself and dies away.

Some might say we are being strung along. I think that might be a little bit unfair on our colleagues in the Department of Defence who, for the most part, genuinely try to help and try to assist us in getting what they recognise are our valid arguments. However, for whatever reason, the resources are not there, the priority lies elsewhere and there is always some other emergency. It is a complex issue. I will not point out to any particular individuals by any means at all. That is not what we are about.

We look at the outputs. We are looking at the outcomes of all of this. If one looks at any of the statements that come from Newbridge, they generally speak in the future tense. They will say things like “We are doing something which will provide something in the future”. It is seldom they can point to a concrete and tangible example of something that has been achieved here and now. When it is and they point to something like that, it might only be in name only, for example, the establishment of the Office of Reserve Affairs, ORA. Though established - and it is very welcomed - it was a year late and it is barely able to function because the resources have not been allocated to it yet.

There was a question on integration. It was the final question and I will hand over to Mr. Richardson for that.

Mr. Neil Richardson

It is a brief one. On integration, the Reserve is an interesting case in point because quite a considerable percentage of our applicants always are what one could deem “new Irish”. We have many eastern Europeans, people from Baltic states, and people from all walks of life and all ethnic and religious backgrounds. Another interesting point is the Reserve has double the number of female members as the Permanent Defence Forces. Whether that is just that Reserve service is inherently more attractive to females than the Permanent Defence Forces is any area for further study. We generally tend to be quite an interesting melting pot of Irish society - albeit a couple of hundred of us left.

Mr. Eugene Gargan

Trying to keep the tempo up, Deputy Berry asked a couple of things. Starting with overseas service, we are quite happy and delighted to congratulate our colleague, Captain Chris Slattery from 2 CIS, who was the first reservist to serve overseas in his technical capacity as a specialist. We are all delighted to see him achieve that. It was a milestone. My congratulations to him. I am delighted to put his name on the record.

I wish to raise one point while it occurs to me. On the numbers, I thank the Deputy again for summing the establishment numbers together and not just picking out the figure for the Permanent Defence Forces and recognising that there are two components, which are the Permanent and the Reserve of the Defence Forces. Contemporary military doctrine would advocate having a reserve that is multiple times the size of the fixed or permanent defence forces. It is entirely inverter – it is back to front in Ireland. Whether that is a product of our past or our political system, there are probably several theories that can go towards that. However, we are not in step with contemporary military doctrine. That is worth observing.

When we made our submissions to the commission, we were asked informally after we had put our ideas to the commission why we did not advocate for expanding beyond the just over 4,200 that we have established. Our response had to be that we had to fix the problem first. If we were to ask for 30,000, which would be in line with reservists for comparable country elsewhere, we would be laughed out of town. If you do not have 700 or 1,000 out of what you should have, then where do you hope to go?

The Deputy asked about the four Naval Service vessels. I will ask Mr. Richardson to address that.

On the focus of the Minister for Defence, I will take that and start with it. Again, we are delighted to have positive engagement with the Tánaiste. We are delighted that he speaks to us, we have a place at the table, we can air the issues with him and he listen carefully. However, given the challenges within the Defence Forces overall, it might appropriate to have a dedicated Minister. However, that is something for elsewhere. That is not something we have a policy on but I recognise the Deputy’s point on that.

The Deputy asked about the White Paper and the fact that none of the projects was sanctioned or went ahead. At one infamous meeting, we were given a presentation on the White Paper and absolutely nothing was done. It was astonishing that people had rocked up to the meeting.

They were embarrassed but they had to say this is the process by which they had engaged, how it all works and the mechanism of it but the outcome was that there was absolutely nothing-----

I want to come in on this. This is my first Dáil term but to what extent is this committee culpable in that regard? We are supposed to be providing oversight to the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Defence. If a Department is not doing a job that it announced with great fanfare in 2015 and then utterly ignored it thereafter, surely there is some responsibility on us to wheel it in and get it to account for its lack of action.

To follow up on what Senator Ardagh said, it is very similar to a relationship type of "we love you guys but we will do everything in our power to undermine you, frustrate you and neglect you". This is what is being said. The Minister for Defence will say he loves the Defence Forces but two-and-a-half years ago we created a brand-new Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science and left the Defence Forces with a part-time Minister trying to do six jobs at once. Are we an oversight parliamentary committee that is meant to enforce standards and hold people to account or are we just a forum to air people's views?

I am conscious as Chair that we have not yet reached conclusions at this meeting. I detect among members' dissatisfaction not only in respect of today's submission but the fact this is not the first time that similar submissions have been made to the committee. I am open to proposals. I propose that immediately following this meeting we forward today's submission directly to the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence and the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces and that we seek a specific response to the issues raised in the submission, to be given to the committee on or before 1 September, and that we arrange in September a specific meeting with the Minister for Defence and the Chief of Staff in the context of the reply that we expect to receive.

I regard it as totally unsatisfactory for a communication to be sent from this organisation to the Secretary General of the Department of Defence on 11 May and two months later it has not even been acknowledged. I propose that we specifically contact the Secretary General of the Department tomorrow on this precise issue and seek an immediate response from her.

I would like to provide some statistical background to the destruction of the Reserve Defence Force. I would like to see statistics for the distribution throughout the country and membership numbers of the Reserve Defence Force prior to 2013, for example, in 2012, and to look at it in 2022, ten years later, to see whether we can put a face to the destruction of the force. Mr. Gargan quite rightly pointed out that if we go to any other country its reserve defence force might be 100,000 people whereas its permanent structure might be 10,000 people. It makes absolutely no sense how we have allowed this to go on.

I agree with my colleague Deputy Berry. I have a big issue with regard to oversight of Departments and how much notice they take of these committees. I am delighted the Cathaoirleach will initiate a letter immediately to the Secretary General. Waiting for two months for a reply to a letter is outrageous. It is totally disrespectful.

Several other members wish to contribute so I ask Mr. Gargan to complete the replies to the questions that have already been asked by Deputies and Senators.

Mr. Eugene Gargan

I will hand over to Mr. Richardson later to reply to the questions on statistics and numbers. A question was asked as to whether we have any engagement with the Garda Reserve. We do not. Part of the reason for this is that we are all reservists. We all have day jobs, we all have families and we are also all serving acting members of the Reserve and we are representatives. We do not have available bandwidth to engage with the Garda Reserve. We wish its members well and we can probably empathise with some of the challenges it has but, unfortunately, the answer to the question is "No".

Questions were asked about DFR R5 and the utility of the medical corps. I will ask Mr. Cooney and Mr. Ecock to respond to these. The answers to the other questions can be bundled together and answered by Mr. Richardson.

Mr. Martin Cooney

With regard to DFR R5, this answer will cross the questions asked by Deputies Berry, Cronin and Stanton. Deputy Berry is 100% correct. Defence Force Regulation R5 is a statutory instrument. It is a piece of secondary legislation that requires the Minister to sign off. The powers that come down have to flow from the primary legislation. This is not something that is dynamic. I will keep repeating this. We are not dynamic. I have worked in the public sector. The Defence Forces have a very Civil Service-oriented mechanism in terms of administration. Deputy Berry will have seen this in his time in the Permanent Defence Force. If we want to do anything in the Defence Forces we make things happen with paper and not with action. It is all about the paperwork. There is nothing dynamic. Recruitment is not dynamic. We need to be dynamic. We should have a separate access stream for professionals with needed qualifications. They should not need medicals or the fitness test. As Deputy Cronin said, I do not need a doctor to walk up a hill with a general purpose machine gun; I need doctors for their skills. I do not need a plumber to do that either if what I need is a plumber. Why do we not have a separate stream for those personnel to come in?

I attended a talk in Boston from the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff of the US army General Martin Dempsey. He said that ten years ago the biggest threat to the US was not China or Russia but cyberterrorism and cyberattack. In December 2018 we made a submission to the Department of the Taoiseach in which we identified three main threats to the State. One was cyberterrorism and another was a pandemic. Both of these things have happened but we have not changed our Reserve to bring in a cyber element. I mentioned General Dempsey because he said he had to change his whole thought process around recruiting people into the US army because he was going to have to recruit divisions of fat people. He did not mean it in a pejorative way. He meant people who would not pass a fitness test. I do not mean it to come across as facetious but he meant it in a joking manner, in that these people would never ever get into the army that he came from. We need to be dynamic but we are not. Part of the reason we are not dynamic is due to our rules and our statutory instrument.

We should have an enabling mechanism. We could then have policies below it, as in any organisation, that allow people to be dynamic and change. We have this through administrative instructions which are the next tier down. What has happened in DFR R5 is that a provision has been added in whereby any administrative instruction the Defence Forces creates pursuant to DFR R5 has to be approved by the Minister. Now we have the Minister not only making the statutory instrument but having to approve how the Defence Forces operate. It is a third level of oversight. It is absolutely ridiculous. How can we be dynamic when the structures we put in place are not dynamic in the first instance and do not allow for any lateral thinking? There are only one or two ways to recruit and that is it. We cannot even bring in former members of the Permanent Defence Force because it is too difficult. I will make a point about the legislation on this separately.

They are not the rules of the Defence Forces, they are the Minister's rules that are imposed upon the uniformed services. This is very important. The Defence Forces get a lot of stick for their archaic regulations. They are not the regulations of the Defence Forces. They are ministerial regulations drafted by the Department and imposed on the Defence Forces.

Mr. Martin Cooney

To respond to the point made by Deputies Cronin and Stanton on bringing in people at their former rank and bringing in former members of the Permanent Defence Force, we would love if former members of the Permanent Defence Force could be brought in with their experience, knowledge and professionalism. I often get approached by personnel leaving who want to come into the Reserve but they have to come in at the lowest possible rank. I will give an example. I was an attesting officer for new recruits in the Curragh. I was swearing in people to the Defence Forces. A person who sat in front of me presented me with the sheet showing operational experience. That person had attended Sandhurst and had operational experience in Kenya, Afghanistan, Iraq and the Balkans.

He had done things we will never ever do, in any situation. He had to come into the Reserve as a recruit, without any recognition. He is currently employed as a military analyst by the BBC. We brought him in as a recruit. That is an insult. He was calling me "Sir" when he joined the Reserve. That is an insult. It was ridiculous. That is how we do not think laterally. We should be bringing them in and there should be a very simple process. You sign a form saying you want to go into the Reserve. You have already been security cleared, you have done your fitness and your medical. You should just be moved from one column to the next. Why is it so difficult?

There is another example of the madness. Section 53 of the Defence Act deals with enlistment of the PDF. An amendment was brought in, under section 53A, which provides that former members of the PDF may be re-enlisted. That is what is says. It does not say that they will be re-enlisted at their former rank; it just says they will be re-enlisted. I think that was a waste of time and we would have been better off using it to draft regulation R5, but we have added in a new section that I do not think we need. I will take any challenge on that. That is being used against us because section 55(1) deals with enlistment into the Reserve. We are being told that we need a section 55A to say that former members of the Reserve can re-enlist. It is also being used to say that we cannot re-enlist at our former rank, even though the very provision that they are using to bring in PDF at their former rank does not provide for that. It does not state that. It just said they may be re-enlisted. We are being told that we cannot re-enlist without a new provision in the Defence Act. How are we going to get that through? On a legal point, once you leave the Defence Forces, you are a person under the Act. There is no need to have a provision saying that a former member can be re-enlisted, because section 53 states that a person can be enlisted in the Defence Forces, subject to the Minister's requirements. I am paraphrasing. Why did we not just do it by statutory instrument if that is the way we are going to do it? We are being prevented from bringing in former members at their rank, on the basis of a provision that does not say that. It is a bit mad.

I think the answer I would have got to that was that we do not talk about them here. I would have been told to get my backside over there to the recruit block.

Mr. Neil Richardson

I might just group a couple of the questions together. I will start with Deputy Stanton's question on the effective strength versus the establishment. Overall, the Reserve should have 4,000 personnel. Deputies and Senators might be aware that officially, the effective strength of the Reserve - what we are supposed to have - is hovering around the 1,400 mark at the moment. We dispute that figure. There is a myriad of problems with the effective strength figure. We would argue that the number of reservists in any given year over the last couple of years who have undertaken at least one day of paid training a year is the real metric for gauging whether people are still in the organisation or still active within the organisation. Last year, approximately 800 members of the Reserve undertook at least one paid day of training. We would argue that that is the real strength figure of the Reserve, not the 1,400 that is quoted in the effective strength figure. The balance comprises individuals who are essentially still on the books but have not been seen for a number of years. We understand that so far this year, the number of reservists who have undertaken paid training is tracking somewhere in the region of around 600 personnel. It will probably increase as more people come on stream towards the end of the year to about the 700 or 800 mark. We are below 1,000. We have 800 personnel across the country.

As has already been alluded to by my colleagues, for example in questions from Deputies Cronin and Berry, there is the possibility of getting former or retiring members of the PDF to join the Reserve. These are individuals with years of skills and qualifications that we cannot take the time off work to obtain, and obviously they have overseas service. Essentially, at the moment, when they are asking if they can join the Reserve, they are being told that the computer says "No". As we have discussed already, the R5 regulation does not allow in any meaningful way, or outline an administrative roadmap, for former members of the PDF or indeed retiring members to transition into the Reserve. Invariably, these people are just let go out into civilian status and they cannot join.

We had a case a few years ago which serves as a good example. It concerned a recruit who had joined the PDF as a medical officer and was given the direct entry rank of captain. He went overseas to somewhere in Africa - maybe Chad or Liberia - and was promoted to the next rank up, commandant. When he left the PDF and sought to join the Reserve, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant, which is all the way down at the bottom of the officer scale, because the computer said "No" and he could not keep his rank. He left the Reserve again and went overseas after going back into the PDF where he obtained a higher rank. When he left the PDF again they recommissioned him as a second lieutenant again, all the way down at the bottom. He went from being a senior officer in the PDF one day to being a junior entry officer in the Reserve the next day. He was a doctor. This is a rare case of an individual who was willing to transition and go through all of the administrative hurdles to go back and forth.

When most members of the PDF are leaving and express an interest in joining the Reserve, only to be informed that there is either no administrative roadmap or a myriad of hoops that they have to jump through, they decide they are not that interested and leave. The Defence Forces, as a whole, loses out and the Reserve loses out on these people who could join. Most of these situations are organisationally imposed, as Deputy Berry alluded to. Changes to regulation R5 would fix a lot of this, which is why we made it one of our three key points. The minimum age at which a reservist can join is set by international law, but the maximum age is currently capped at 35. Many people can pass entrance fitness tests in their 40s and even into their 50s. As Mr. Cooney alluded to, the return of rank is organisationally imposed. The computer says "No." If you joined the Reserve pre-2005 and are an enlisted member, you can serve until you are 60. The R5 regulation that came in in 2005 states that those who have joined after that date must go at 50. If I joined in September 2005, I can serve until I am 60 years of age. If I joined a week later, in October 2005, I will be gone at 50, for no other reason than that the computer says "No".

Finally, as I have mentioned, on members of the PDF transitioning into the RDF, the State is losing out on a massive pool of experienced people . The regulations just simply do not allow for the transition. Until those regulations are changed, we are going to see more and more of these problems continuing.

Mr. Eugene Gargan

Deputy Berry asked about the Air Corps reserve. We have not seen anything in relation to that. It is something that would be of great interest to me because I work in a field related to aviation. We have covered the issue of the First Line Reserve. We have addressed the R5 regulation. Perhaps Mr. Ecock wants to respond to Deputy Berry's question about the medical corps.

Mr. Mark Ecock

Deputy Berry asked about the possibility of Reserve doctors performing medicals. Pre-2013, we had a large number of personnel in the establishment. After the establishment of the single-force concept, the CMU or the medical corps, from a Reserve perspective, was reduced to about 20% of what it was pre-2013. That affects our ability to have a number of key personnel who are able to do medicals. The establishment did not reflect being able to have that. Our Reserve doctors who are suitably qualified can perform the medicals, but we just do not have the establishment with the 1,000 applicants that we have. We do not have the number of doctors to do that. We need to change the establishment. We have key personnel, even if they are small in number. Our infectious disease specialists were able to help during the pandemic. We also have anaesthetists and doctors of psychology. We can attract the key personnel, but we need to have the establishment so that we can grow and recruit these people. Again, we do not want to have the same application process so that we just have the surge capacity to take in these personnel who can give us the ability to provide the input to the Defence Forces in times of pandemic and when they are needed for grave utilisation. We need to change the establishment so it allows us to recruit them. The models, such as the one used by the British Army, are all out there. We do not need to reinvent the wheel. We just need to look at what they are doing across the water in terms of the establishments, with key hospitals and other things of that nature which the British army does. We need to take that template and import it into the Irish system. That would give us the surge capacity and the ability to attract specialists into the Defence Forces and potentially not have to outsource the medicals. There are plenty of solutions there but we are not engaged properly in order to be able to establish them.

Mr. Eugene Gargan

Most of the questions Deputy Stanton asked related to the effective strength. We have already answered that. He also asked about the reduction in our size since 2005, and returning at a particular rank. He asked about the availability of special leave for those serving in the Civil Service.

There is special leave for those serving in the Civil Service. I do not work in the Civil Service, but I believe that such leave is available. It is a model we looked at. We sought to incorporate that as part of one of the functions of the employment protection legislation. That model could be deployed and broadened out, at least to start with, as a trial for potential members of the RDF whose day job is working in the Civil Service. That is something we looked at.

Deputy Cronin has left. She asked about moving training camps to different geographical locations. This was something that used to be done more than is the case now. Generally speaking, there is centralised training. We go to specialist facilities, be it the Glen of Imaal or maybe one of the larger barracks, and combined training is conducted there. That is something we have done.

Regarding interoperability and standards, it is the association's view, reflecting the opinions of our members, that notwithstanding the special cases Mr. Cooney talked about, standards ought to be the same. If we are doing the same job, we should be trained to the same standard, we should be at the same level of fitness and we should be in the same overall level of health.

The final question was on our role. That has been one of the great vexed questions of my time in the RDF and the RDFRA. What exactly are we for? It goes no further than saying we are there to augment the Permanent Defence Forces, when required. Surely there has to be more to it than that. If we are looking at the international situation, as Deputy Berry and Senator Craughwell spoke about, the fact is that we have to build capability. It has to be organically done and surely the best platform for doing that is through the RDF.

We are into the second round of brief questions. First will be Deputy Carthy. He will be followed by Senator O'Reilly and Deputy Stanton.

In fairness, nearly everything has been covered. In terms of the Chair's proposal, which I fully support, I suggest that perhaps the secretariat could pull together the transcript of this meeting, when it is available, and provide that to the Chief of Staff and the Department. This is in order that we get a substantive response in respect of each of the issues that has been raised in advance of the hearing, which I hope can be organised for early September.

I strongly support the Chair's proposal regarding action to follow today's meeting. I also support Deputy Carthy's idea that we send on the entire transcript of proceedings. We need to act on the matter because this is the second time around.

The most stark or bizarre statistic today is that 47 people out of a potential 1,000 are have been sworn in or recruited. That is just a horror and it needs to be noted into the transcript. It is shocking. Could we not, like how we did during Covid-19, use the Mater Private Hospital, the Beacon or the private sector to supplement the public sector and volunteer doctors who are members of the RDF? Could that not be part of the solution? It is a horror. It is a shocking indictment that the people in question want to join but cannot do so.

When I was at the Department of Justice we put the national youth justice strategy together. I am very aware of the other impacts the reserve has on wider society by instilling self-confidence, discipline, statecraft and so on in young people, in particular. I am not looking for the witnesses to respond today. We could probably spend the whole meeting talking about the wider impact of a large Reserve on society in general in the context, for example, of building citizenship. Maybe the witnesses would let the committee know if they are aware of any studies that have been undertaken in this area. If they have any views on this matter, will they send them to the committee in written form? Maybe they should not comment now because we could spend the whole day at it. It is a very important area. I have seen instances where young people's self-confidence increased, their behaviour changed and so on as a result of being in the Reserve. Their self-discipline, the confidence and so on moved up.

In 2019, Mr. Gargan spoke about the cost of training and indicated that the State owed the Reserve millions. Will he provide an update, by way of a note, on the situation with respect to the cost to individual members who have to travel to training centres that are located at a distance from where they live, of supplying their own kit and equipment and on the other matters he mentioned in 2019?

Mr. Cooney mentioned the rotund cybersecurity people. I am speaking as a member of that community myself.

Cyber-community.

Cyber is now the greatest threat across the globe. To have RDF members, irrespective of their bodily shapes, trained up and ready to roll the moment we are the subject of a serious cyberattack. We have to be aware that cyberattacks are happening all day, every day. Has a proposal been put to the Department to set up a cyber group within the Reserve in this regard? We refer to it as the fianna cyber group. This matter has been examined by a number of different groups that meet to discuss cyber issues. Such a cyber group would be a second line of defence within the Reserve that could move into the HSE, for example, or any other organisation in the aftermath of an attack. It would be a massive thing to invest in. Given that we are running a surplus of €11 billion at the moment, this would be a very simple ask.

In the UK there is a strong relationship between the IT industry and the forces. I sat on the board of CompTIA for a number of years. Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, Intel and all of these companies had relationships with the Reserve. Would RDFRA see a benefit in that?

My final point relates to the move into apprenticeship from the Reserve. If we go back to cyber and IT, which is Mr. Cooney's area, if we give people basic skills they can move into the industry. If there was a relationship with Microsoft, the Facebook, etc., we would see not only a movement of people into those organisations, but we would see them favourably disposed to allow their people to take the courses Mr. Richardson spoke about. I would love to see a proposal on that put together and brought this committee for it to examine and maybe make a recommendation on.

My final point is a general one. I am going to double down on what I said earlier. This committee should probably adopting a more assertive role when it comes to defence similar to what the Committee of Public Accounts has been doing very effectively in recent weeks in respect of its work. This testimony would not be acceptable on Capitol Hill. No Congressman or Senator would accept it. People would be wheeled in and held to account over their, to be honest, utter failings regarding defence.

They take it seriously in the US, and for good reason. Surface ships are pushing up to the 12-nautical-mile limit, we have no idea where the Russian submarines are and we are being utterly reckless when it comes to the territorial integrity and sovereignty of our country. I thank the delegation for attending and for giving their absolutely blunt and candid assessment. It is hugely appreciated.

I thank Deputy Berry. I ask Mr. Gargan and his colleagues to respond and wrap up. I remind them of the recommendations contained in the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces, which states: "The RDF is at present in such a poor state that the Commission[ers] believes the more relevant options are quite stark: [either] regeneration or abolition." Does the RDFRA have confidence in the commission and in its report and recommendations?

Mr. Eugene Gargan

Absolutely. We engaged fully with the commission. We were delighted with the response and the hearing we got. The vast majority of the commission members understood exactly where we were coming from and valued our input, but the also valued our potential as reservists. They understood the changing landscape of defence. That is why it is particularly sad for us to see that the impact of the report is fading, as I mentioned earlier. That is terrible. We have no issue with anything or with any of the recommendations. We do not dispute any of them at all. We were delighted to deal with it and to have the opportunity to make our submissions to the commission.

Senator Joe O'Reilly asked about the use of private hospitals. I will pass that question on to Mr. Richardson. After that, we will take the other four or five questions in sequence.

Mr. Neil Richardson

The brief answer to that question is that it would be fantastic if that could be brought in. Our main contention has always been that the medical resourcing of Reserve recruitment has been woefully inadequate. In past years, we have always been told that the next competition will be different and that the resources will be in place. We are now being told that an element of the Reserve Defence Force enlistment medical will be outsourced and that 600 medicals will be provided a year. That is a great statement but we would like to see it substantively come about. We are very much advocating for a fully outsourced model for Reserve enlistment medicals simply because past evidence has shown that the Defence Forces internal medical system is not capable of handling the volume of applicants we get for the Reserve. Perhaps, it may be better for this system to focus on Permanent Defence Force applicants. However, we absolutely agree that private sector medicals are one way to fix that problem.

Mr. Eugene Gargan

To paraphrase Deputy Stanton's question, he asked about the wider societal and social benefit of service in the military. We absolutely subscribe to that idea. To speak about how I have benefited from service in the Reserve, I can see the value in my career and in my capability. It is of benefit to citizenship. In economic terms, the experience of engaging with the training and being part of that whole organisation is recognised as an externality. It bleeds over and is a form of training for other individuals. Those of us who have served recognise that more acutely than people who have only ever been civilians. I take the Deputy's point but I will point out that, when we raised this is a secondary effect of service in the Reserve a number of years ago, all the way back at the time of the value-for-money review, if people remember that, the thinking at the time among the most senior levels in the military was that there was no other value to the Reserve outside of its strict military value. When our capabilities were run down, we had very little value in strict military terms. We dispute that. We recognise that there is loads of value and many benefits to the economy and wider society in the Reserve.

The Deputy also asked about the cost of training, reminding me of a comment I made during a previous appearance here. The point I made back then is that none of us serve in the RDF to make money. We do so because it is an expression of our patriotism - that is a reason for me - because of the sense of comradery and community, because it is a challenge and because we wish to do something different and to lead that life less ordinary. That is not just a cliché for us; we really actively embrace it. We want to play our part. However, it comes at a cost to our family lives and the amount of time we have to spend doing anything else, whether recreationally, for our employers or for our families. It also hits us in the pocket. If we are going to drive out to barracks and have to pass a toll bridge either way, that represents a direct cost. There is also the cost of fuel. You have to look after your own uniform and all of that kind of thing as well and you are doing it for free. I make the argument that, if you are doing it for free, it is volunteering in the wrong sense. The phrase we hear back is "Well, you are volunteers." That is true but we are volunteers in the military sense. We are not volunteers in that we are doing it for no value. If we are doing it and not getting paid appropriately for it, it is literally worthless. I do not think anybody should be working for nothing in that kind of context. If it is worthless, it creates all sorts of other problems. I will pass back to Mr. Richardson on that matter because there are a few points he wanted to make on it.

Mr. Neil Richardson

I have just one brief point to make. Again, I do not want to labour it. A considerable amount of ancillary costs come with being a member of the Reserve. I do not really want to get into the weeds of it because this is not really the forum for that. However, certain criteria are in place on certain items of kit and equipment that are given to Reserve members such as waterproof boots and warm-weather clothing. To come back to the regulations and the issues they cause, the regulations might say that particular items of clothing are only issuable to a reservist who is undertaking a tactical exercise of a certain duration. If you are out doing tactics for 72 hours, you can get the waterproof boots and warm-weather clothing but, if your exercise is only 48 hours long, you do not get those things. Our feet not being permanently waterproof, a lot of reservists go out and purchase these items at their own expense. As Mr. Gargan has said, you can add to this the cost of fuel to get to training locations. The FCA van is long gone so that is another cost that comes out of individuals' pockets. By the end of a calendar year, you can have engaged in Reserve service at a net personal loss. You have a small form of Reserve income but it might only balance out if you are lucky. Before 2012, there were financial incentives to cover this but they all disappeared with the last reorganisation. That is just something to bear in mind.

Mr. Eugene Gargan

Senator Craughwell asked about the establishment of a Reserve cyber group. Having worked in cybersecurity and telecoms for a number of years before I moved career last year, I have an insight into this area. The first important point I will briefly make, without meaning to be glib, is that if the military authorities, the Department and the State cannot organise the Reserve as it is established, they stand no hope of effectively creating a specialist reserve. All of the challenges that would be faced in establishing something like that will be even more difficult to address than the current challenges. Issues we have been advocating on for a long time, such as employment protection legislation or strategic purpose, have not been addressed. I mentioned earlier the challenges in respect of the organisation of working time. How do you go about fixing that? If that cannot be fixed for the likes of us, how would it be managed when engaging with industry? The Senator asked about engagement with industry. That would be a great idea. It is something we did ourselves as a representative association a number of years ago. We spoke to both of the employer bodies and were very well received because they could see the value of having people who were motivated, trained, fit and subject to random drug testing, who understood discipline, who generally understood authority, could get on and, for the most part, possessed some degree of leadership skills, who you could trust and who had a fair degree of common sense. We would absolutely advocate for that. Perhaps Mr. Cooney will further address the question of establishing a Reserve cybersecurity group.

Mr. Martin Cooney

We made submissions to the Commission on the Defence Forces regarding a specialist reserve comprised of personnel with specific skills the Defence Forces need at certain times. They might not face the same service requirements as regards turning up during the week and at weekends but could be called upon when needed. The commission came to a point where it said the Reserve was facing such fundamental problems, as Mr. Gargan has alluded to, that it would find it very difficult to get those people in.

In respect of one of the submissions, one of the two Nordic generals on the commission was absolutely astounded that we did not have partnerships with private industry. He could not understand why we did not have engagement with private industry, which speaks to the Senator's point. He said that, when their forces want to go overseas, they partner with a logistics firm. There are reservists at officer level or management level. They put a uniform on them and there is then direct interoperability because they can operate with their military hat on while also giving directions in their own companies to get the stuff where it needs to go. For many reasons, it is an absolute travesty that we have not done that. There is no ability for personnel to come out of the Defence Forces and into roles in those companies on which we rely so heavily.

We should look at the amount of data centres and subsea cables we have in this State. There is an enormous amount of finance here. We are the second biggest administrator of funds in the world. Some 80% of the world's aircraft financing is handled here. These are things that brought this country from being a Second World country in the 1980s to a First World pioneer in many areas and we have nothing to protect the infrastructure all of these industries rely on. Let us think about that. We do not have anything to protect it. A ship can go out in the sea to mess with our cables and someone in a trawler has to go out to attack it. A fisherman has to go out. We do not have the ability to protect that infrastructure in a country that relies very heavily on foreign direct investment. That is absolutely crazy. Should we have partnerships with those people? Yes, we should. We should be talking to Facebook, Google and other companies and asking what they need from us to make sure they stay here employing their thousands of people and paying the taxes they pay here that have made this country a country with a surplus. We should be asking them how to keep them here for the long term and what we can do to support them. It is not the case that we have to fund it all. Joint initiatives mean that the private sector also funds it. It is what the Americans do all of the time. I would always say that these are brain-dead ideas. Why are we not doing these things?

I want to thank our witnesses. I remind members that it is not the first time we have heard such a report. As Deputy Berry and others said, I believe there is a role for us in ensuring these issues are finally, if belatedly, acted upon. We will be in contact with Mr. Gargan and his colleagues to chart progress, or otherwise, in respect of the issues we have agreed to deal with. We look forward to meeting you again and we thank you for the very strong presentation and dealing in a most comprehensive way with the issues raised by members.

The joint committee went into private session at 5.41 p.m. and adjourned at 5.49 p.m. sine die.
Top
Share