Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Defence debate -
Thursday, 18 Oct 2018

Foreign Affairs Council – Defence, and Related Matters: Minister of State at the Department of Defence

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach and at the Department of Defence, Deputy Kehoe. The committee agreed as part of its work programme for 2018 to invite the Minister of State to discuss matters raised at the Foreign Affairs Council on defence, particularly the Common Security and Defence Policy, CSDP, permanent structured co-operation, PESCO, and other relevant EU-proposed initiatives in regard to defence. This meeting also provides an opportunity to have a detailed discussion with the Minister of State on all matters relevant to the Defence Forces. For the purposes of the meeting the Minister of State has been requested to provide a brief opening statement dealing with the Foreign Affairs Council on defence matters. The Minister of State has also been notified that all matters relevant to the Defence Forces are open for discussion in the subsequent question and answer session. I also welcome the Minister of State's officials here today and thank them for the briefing provided in advance of the meeting.

Before we begin, I remind members, witnesses and those in the Public Gallery to ensure their mobile phones are switched off completely for the duration of the meeting as they cause interference, even on silent mode, with the recording equipment in the committee room. This meeting is also being broadcast live on Oireachtas TV and across the various media platforms. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I draw the attention of witnesses to the fact that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I invite the Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe, to make his opening statement.

I thank the joint committee for the opportunity to appear before it. I wish to provide the committee with an update on Ireland's position and role in the European Union Common Security and Defence Policy, CSDP, and on my recent attendance at the informal ministerial meeting of European Union defence Ministers at the end of August. My opening statement will update members on a number of the main defence developments at EU level since my last appearance on this topic in April 2018. Since then, a Foreign Affairs Council, FAC, with defence Ministers was held in Luxembourg in June, and an informal ministerial meeting was held in Vienna in August. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Coveney, attended the FAC while I attended the informal ministerial meeting. I will also attend the FAC defence meeting in Brussels on 19 and 20 November, where a number of the issues I am detailing this morning will be discussed and progressed further.

At the FAC, a Council decision establishing the common set of governance rules for permanent structured co-operation, PESCO, projects was adopted. The agreed set of common governance rules is sufficiently robust while providing the correct balance between legal clarity and flexibility. In particular, Ireland welcomed the general agreement to allow member states participate as observers in PESCO projects. Observer status can allow participating member states keep abreast of developments in a particular area and is an example of the inclusive nature of the PESCO initiative. The FAC also provided Ministers with an opportunity to commence meaningful discussions on the exceptional participation of third states on PESCO projects. The informal ministerial meeting in Vienna on 29 and 30 August included an exchange of views on PESCO among other EU defence initiatives. This was an important opportunity for Ministers to come together to take stock of the PESCO initiative to date and to chart the key next steps for the way forward. Discussions were open and constructive. Key areas discussed were the conditions for the exceptional participation of third states and an early draft of the council recommendation on the sequencing of the more binding commitments. The Council recommendation on PESCO commitments provides a more objective and detailed basis for assessing whether PESCO participants are meeting their commitments. I am satisfied that the greater detail does not go beyond the actual commitments agreed in the original decision. This Council recommendation was adopted by the FAC on 15 October with the Tánaiste in attendance. Ireland’s position is that, with the overall architecture now in place, it is time to focus on the delivery of outputs and outcomes from PESCO projects.

Ireland participates in two PESCO projects as part of the first tranche of PESCO projects agreed by the FAC defence Ministers in March this year: a German-led project to develop a centre of excellence for EU military training missions and a Greek-led upgrade of maritime surveillance systems. Ireland is also an observer on a further eight PESCO first round projects. We are considering the draft list of possible second tranche PESCO projects, the final list of which will be formally approved at the upcoming FAC next month in Brussels. Another key decision regarding PESCO which will require ministerial agreement will be the conditions of exceptional participation of third states in PESCO projects. At the FAC in November, we intend to support the exceptional participation of third states provided that their participation is governed by the principle of added value. As discussions progress in advance of November’s meeting, I am happy with developments on this matter.

The proposed co-ordinated annual review on defence, CARD, aims to create greater transparency by sharing member states' information on future defence policy, capability development, budgets and investment. It is expected that such transparency will support greater collaboration among member states on investment in capabilities.

Participation in CARD is open to all member states on an entirely voluntary basis, recognising that the defence policies of member states, including defence spending and capabilities, is entirely a national competence. The detailed implementation and information sharing requirements for CARD have been developed by the European Defence Agency. They are being tested through a trial run that commenced in autumn 2017 involving all member states. The report on the trial run will feature as part of the FAC on defence in November, where recommendations will be presented, lessons will be identified and the proposed way ahead discussed. It is expected that the first full CARD cycle will be launched in autumn 2019. Ireland, in tandem with most other member states, supports the voluntary nature of CARD, which also recognises that defence policy, including defence spending, is a national competence.

The third European peace facility, EPF, proposal was published by EU High Representative Mogherini, with Commission support, on 13 June this year. The proposal is for an off-budget funding mechanism that will be an instrument of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, CFSP, and CSDP. There are many complicating factors in the proposal which require cross-Government consideration. The EPF would draw together and expand existing off-budget mechanisms devoted to security and defence in a number of key areas, including the Athena mechanism and the African peace facility.

At the FAC in June, Ministers participated in an initial exchange of views on the proposal during the joint security and defence session. In broad terms, member states expressed that consideration of the proposal was at a very early stage and would require further discussions at EU and national level given its cross-departmental nature and the level of funding proposed.

At the informal ministerial meeting in Vienna in August, Ministers again held tentative discussions about the proposal. The reaction of the majority of member states has been fairly negative on the overarching changes proposed under the EPF, particularly on the amendments to the Athena mechanism and the African peace facility. There was a very clear view from member states that they wished to ensure continued member state control of such funding mechanisms and for the most part expressed satisfaction with the existing governance arrangements.

While we want to be positive, we feel it is important for the High Representative and the Commission to recognise that member states’ review of the proposal is at a very early stage. While it is expected that the EPF will be a topic of discussion at the November FAC, no Council decision or recommendation regarding the EPF will be considered for adoption. This stage in the process is some way off yet. I look forward to a transparent, inclusive and realistic discussion on the issue in due course.

On 8 June last year, the Council adopted the decision establishing the military planning and conduct capability, MPCC, within the EU military staff. The establishment of the MPCC was a very important operational decision in providing a military planning component to match the existing civilian planning component. The actions of both the civil and military planning components are co-ordinated through a joint support co-ordination cell which supports the EU comprehensive approach to crisis management. In June last year, the MPCC assumed command of EU non-executive military CSDP missions, including the EU training mission in Mali where the Defence Forces are contributors.

The Council decision establishing the MPCC included a stipulation that a review of the mechanism should be carried out after a year of operations, but not later than the end of 2018. The review process is under way and was a topic of discussion at the informal ministerial meeting in August. The informal meeting offered Ministers the chance to provide initial thoughts on both the activities of the MPCC to date and the scope of the eventual review. It is anticipated that the MPCC review will be an agenda item at the November FAC. In terms of a recent report issued by High Representative and Vice President Mogherini regarding the review, we are in agreement that the MPCC, appropriately configured and supported through a fully operational joint support co-ordination cell, has the potential to deliver more effective and responsive CSDP civil and military operations, thereby contributing in a meaningful way to the EU’s comprehensive approach.

We support the current function and scope of the MPCC. Although neither the MPCC nor the joint support co-ordination cell is yet considered to be fully operational, we, like other member states, look forward to examining fully the proposals put forward by the High Representative and Vice President. This will include consideration of options for possible further development of the MPCC on a phased basis.

As I acknowledged during my previous appearance at the committee, the issue of military mobility has gained prominence on the EU agenda given difficulties that countries have experienced in moving their troops through other EU countries for the purposes of training and exercises. At the European Council in June, which was attended by the Taoiseach, Ireland welcomed the fact that the Council conclusions adopted recognised that full respect will be given to the sovereignty of EU member states over their national territory and national decision-making processes regarding military movements.

The European Union military committee has prepared a military requirements document and this document is under review. As this is an issue that goes beyond defence, discussions between the Department of Defence and other relevant Departments on the military mobility requirements is ongoing. It is anticipated that military mobility and the related PESCO project will be discussed at the FAC meeting in November.

On 13 June 2018, the Commission put forward proposals for a regulation establishing the European Defence Fund under the 2021-2027 multi-annual financial framework. The defence fund is divided into two strands or windows: research and capability, and development and acquisition. The focus of the fund is on the development of new research and technology in the defence sector. Activities under the research and capability window and under the development and acquisition window will be linked to defence capability priorities agreed by member states. Ireland sees the fund as a means of supporting the development of EU military capabilities for CSDP operations. Ireland’s position on the proposed €13 billion to be dedicated to the European Defence Fund - €4.1 billion to the research window and €8.9 billion to the capability window - will be addressed in the context of discussions on multi-annual financial framework. Discussions are ongoing at interdepartmental level in this regard.

Council conclusions on migration adopted by the European Council in June noted that breaking the business model of smugglers in the Mediterranean required a new approach to the disembarkation of those who are saved in search and rescue operations, an approach based on shared or complementary actions among the member states. The Italian authorities have sought to progress this aspect of the June conclusions as quickly as possible. This resulted in a call for the strategic review of Operation Sophia to be brought forward for discussion, which it was. The report on the strategic review was considered at EU level. Further discussions on future disembarkation arrangements in the Mediterranean are ongoing. It was noted at the August defence ministerial meeting that the matter of disembarkation of migrants is broader than CSDP, where it was initially discussed in the context of the implications for Operation Sophia. It is recognised that political discussions and direction from justice and home affairs Ministers and Heads of State or Government are necessary to progress this issue as it will have clear importance for the future of the common European asylum system and for wider EU migration policy. At present, Operation Sophia continues to operate under its original mandate.

In anticipation of the NATO summit in July this year, the June FAC involved a working session on EU-NATO co-operation. Throughout 2018, EU-NATO co-operation remains a feature of the defence landscape within the European Union given that 22 of the 28 member states are also members of NATO. Sharing strategic interests and facing similar security challenges, NATO and the European Union co-operate on issues of common interest, especially in the areas of crisis management, new security threats and capability development. Following on from the 2016 joint declaration on EU-NATO co-operation, a second joint declaration on EU-NATO co-operation was signed in Brussels in July this year by the Presidents of the European Council and the European Commission, and the NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg. This declaration offered a key opportunity for the two organisations to take stock of achievements to date and to look forward. In June this year, the third progress report on EU-NATO co-operation was issued by the EU and NATO. It did not identify any new areas of co-operation and was positive regarding overall progress to date. Key areas of co-operation include countering hybrid threats, operational co-operation, including maritime issues, cybersecurity and defence, military mobility, women, peace and security and capacity building.

Ireland welcomes greater EU-NATO co-operation where it contributes to international peace and security and is focused on avoiding duplication of structures, systems and interoperability standards. This ensures better coherence and effectiveness on the ground in peace support and crisis management operations.

It is important to note that both the recent Joint Declaration and the 2016 Warsaw Joint Declaration confirm that EU-NATO co-operation will fully respect the decision-making autonomy of both organisations, and will not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of any member state. This is a strong acknowledgement that Ireland’s policy of neutrality and non-NATO membership will in no way be affected by enhanced co-operation.

Throughout 2018, Ireland has remained fully engaged in all common security and defence policy processes. This is important given the vital role that the EU plays in support of international peace and security and the UN. Fully participating in these developments ensures that Ireland continues to have a voice and to influence the evolution of EU defence and security policy. Efforts are ongoing by EU member states, within the treaty provisions, to respond to the challenging security environment we all face. These efforts are being advanced through the implementation of the EU global strategy of foreign policy and security, the Commission’s European defence action plan, and through enhanced co-operation with international partners including the UN and NATO.

In respect of the EU’s relationship with the UN, I would like to highlight that in early September, Ireland was instrumental in the adoption of Council conclusions endorsing the priorities of the UN-EU strategic partnership on peace operations and crisis management for the period 2019-2021. In the conclusions, the Council recognised the mutually beneficial nature of the long-standing UN-EU co-operation on peacekeeping and civilian, police and military crisis management. Ireland is very closely engaged in supporting greater co-operation and dialogue between the EU and the UN. At each ministerial meeting, I take the opportunity to meet with Jean-Pierre Lacroix, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, to review Ireland’s engagement with the UN and reflect our positive support and commitment to EU-UN co-operation.

In conclusion, our Defence Forces and the wider defence organisation are making an invaluable contribution to international peace and security and conflict resolution. This is achieved through their ongoing and professional engagement with the UN, the EU, NATO, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE, and other international engagements within a bilateral context. I thank the committee for the opportunity presented by today’s welcome invitation. Engagement with defence issues and policy matters in this forum can add to the existing public discussion of defence issues, and can also highlight the important, dynamic work being carried out from an international perspective by the Department of Defence and the Irish Defence Forces.

I thank the Minister of State for his detailed outline of discussions and happenings in the European Union.

The presentation was very detailed and my questions are quite specific. There has been an increase in the defence budget but it would appear that there has been a bigger increase for capital expenditure. The Minister of State might clarify that. We know there are outstanding issues in respect of pay for the Defence Forces. We are hearing about the numbers who are leaving and so on, yet we value our Defence Forces so highly. How high a priority is it to address those outstanding issues that have been allowed to develop for quite a while?

I had a question with the Department about the possibility of buying an MRV vehicle. I am told it is not being bought and ask for the Minister of State to clarify that also.

How are we going to pay for PESCO? We know it is a considerable cost. Will that come from the defence budget? Could the Minister of State explain what exactly is meant by the principle of added value? What are these capabilities that we are going to be investing in?

I cannot help but be struck by the irony in the report, particularly in respect of NATO. On the one hand, we are saying we are very supportive and welcome greater EU-NATO co-operation, yet the end of the document states that this is not going to undermine our policy of neutrality. I do not understand how those two sentences could be put together in the one section of the document. It appears that we are being sucked or dragged, willingly or unwillingly, into greater military co-operation. I wonder about the six European countries that are not members of NATO. Do the relevant officials and Ministers from those countries get together and discuss how they can maintain neutrality?

Some Deputies have been addressing my next point during the pre-European Council statements in the Dáil this week. It is the arms trade that is fuelling the conflict situations in the world. We will be hearing informally later from somebody from Yemen. It is the arms trade from the US to Saudi Arabia, facilitated also by Britain, France and Germany, that is continuing the conflict not just in Yemen but in other countries as well. Is there anybody at these Council meetings who is addressing that with Britain, France and Germany? Is anybody raising the point that they are continuing these wars by conducting an arms trade that is so lucrative for them?

The Deputy should address her last question to the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Coveney. It is more appropriate for him to answer it.

We had an increase in our budget. The total Defence allocation after this budget will be €1.994 billion. That is a 5% increase of €47 million from 2018. There is €29 million in capital funding and €6 million for pay increases under the public service stability agreement. The pay increases were received in January and on 1 October of this year. There are €2.2 million of additional UNIFIL costs from the Dormant Accounts Fund. This is provided on an Exchequer-neutral basis. There is also an increase in the pensions Vote of €10 million.

Of course pay and conditions and recruitment and retention are high priorities for me. I have spoken about them on numerous occasions on the public record. That is why members of the Defence Forces, like all members of the public service, have received pay increases this year under the public service stability programme under which there is a negotiated pay deal until 2020. By the time that pay deal is concluded, anybody at or under €70,000 will have had their pay restored. In parallel to that we have the independent pay commission, with which my Department and military management have been engaging fully over the last months. There was a joint military management and civil submission to the independent pay commission which was made in early September of this year. We expect it will be reported upon in the first quarter of next year. There is a considerable amount of work to be done on that and interface is taking place at the moment between the pay commission and the members of the Defence Forces.

Joining PESCO does not involve any additional cost to the Exchequer and I stated that when our intention to join PESCO was first mooted. Additional costs may arise in respect of participation in specific PESCO projects, similar to what is the case when the Defence Forces participate in European Defence Agency projects. The projects will relate to the ongoing development of the Defence Forces' capabilities for peace support and crisis management operations. Such costs would be incurred in the normal course and they will therefore be met from within the Department of Defence Vote. It is expected that sharing the cost of capability development across a number of member states should prove cost neutral in terms of the overall projected Defence expenditure.

The Deputy spoke about our policy on neutrality and NATO. Ireland is a member of Partnership for Peace within NATO and we meet with other members of the partnership on an ongoing basis that might have a policy like ours on neutrality. On the arms issue, which is more for the Minister, Deputy Coveney, for many countries, the defence industry is a significant element of their economy and a significant employer. As the Commission moves to apply Single Market principles to the defence sector, access to Commission instruments in support of conciliation and increasing efficiencies in the sector, including EU research and development funds, can come into play.

The plan does not focus on the arms industry but, rather, on research and the development of new technology in the defence sector in the widest sense, including the application of commercial and civilian technologies in the defence sector. As all members are aware, Ireland does not have a defence industry but it has particular strengths in the area of dual use and civil commercial technologies which can support defence capability. We must keep in mind that the technologies which will be developed under the action plan will also contribute to the capability of our Defence Forces when engaged in operations. The Defence Forces will require cutting-edge military equipment and technology and we will seek to ensure that this initiative delivers in that regard.

Are there any other issues the Deputy asked me to address?

It is splitting hairs to say there is no additional cost for PESCO but we will be contributing to certain projects within PESCO. Money will be needed for PESCO.

On the arms trade, the EU is the biggest development aid donor. It is okay for the EU to give such aid to the countries most in need of it because of poverty, hunger conflict and so on. However, at the same time other EU countries continue to fuel an arms trade which facilitates bombing of such countries and the creation of such problems. People are not talking to each other. The Minister of State stated that the defence industry is a lucrative employer, etc. However, he should look at the extent of the damage caused by the arms trade throughout the world.

I call Deputy Jack Chambers.

Would the Chairman rather if members asked questions in a block or should we have a back and forth discussion with the Minister of State?

Members should ask their questions in a block and we will then have supplementary questions if there is sufficient time. All members have indicated. We will try to accommodate everybody.

I thank the Minister of State and his officials for their attendance. Has he read the submission made to his Department on 19 February 2018 by the strategic planning branch of the Chief of Staff's division? If so, what is his view on it? On family income supplement, it states that the approach of the Minister of State and the Department does not tally with the Government's loyalty to the Defence Forces as articulated by the Taoiseach and that media coverage of the number of Defence Forces personnel in receipt of the supplement has had an impact on the recruitment and retention of personnel in the Defence Forces. It further states that post the Lansdowne Road agreement pay increases an alarming number of Defence Forces members - 1,760 - are eligible for the family income supplement. I acknowledge there has been some disagreement on that issue. What is the view of the Minister of State on that issue in the context of the current pay and recruitment issues? Does he accept the view of the strategic planning branch in that regard?

Did he incorporate any of the recommendations made in the report in the submission of the Department to the Public Service Pay Commission? As the Minister of State is aware, air traffic control has been curtailed to daylight hours, air transport contracts have been outsourced, Naval Service operations have been curtailed and we have a massive recruitment and retention crisis. I ask the Minister of State to outline any update to a retention policy by his Department, if it has one. The report states that the current trend of premature voluntary retirement from the Defence Forces is not sustainable. The Defence Forces cannot continue to commit such a high proportion of its resources to training increasingly large intakes of recruits and cadets to the detriment of enhancing and evolving its capabilities to meet the threats of the dynamic operating environment. It also states that the Defence Forces cannot recruit its way out of the current situation and that retention must be the focus of restoring the strength of Defence Forces. I acknowledge that the Minister of State recently answered oral questions on this matter. What recommendations from the submission to his Department were included in the Department's submission to the Public Service Pay Commission? He stated in the Dáil that no recommendations were made by the Department despite this report containing multiple recommendations. He also stated that it is not his role to make recommendations. However, the terms of reference of the Public Service Stability Agreement 2018-2020 outline that he can make recommendations and provide data. What is his view on that? Does he accept the report submitted to him in the context of multiple recommendations?

I ask him to outline the status of the submission by military management. It was reported in the media that the submission of the Department to the Public Service Pay Commission failed to include all relevant points raised by military management in its submission to the Department. The committee needs to know the level of agreement reached. Are the Department and military management at one on the issues of pay, retention and recruitment? The submission was produced by a strategic unit in the Chief of Staff's division. The Chief of Staff stated that he will make a plea to the Public Pay Commission on behalf of the members of the Defence Forces. Is that because there is a wedge between his view and the submission made by the Department? We need more clarity on that. Did the Department fully embrace the report of military management? What recommendations did the Department make to address the ongoing trend of problematic manning levels in the Defence Forces? The terms of reference allow for such submissions. What recommendations were made by military management in its submission to address the ongoing difficulties in manning levels in the Defence Forces? Did the Minister of State incorporate anything it outlined in his submission? Media reports suggest that was not the case.

On air ambulances, has the Minister of State received any military advice regarding concerns over the continuity of the air ambulance service? The Minister of State should provide clarity on that issue. Perhaps I can come back in to address it.

What is the status of the application of the EU working time directive to the Defence Forces in compliance with the ruling of the European Court of Justice? Does the Minister of State accept that the public plea by the Chief of Staff was an indication of his lack of confidence in the so-called joint submission that was made? I ask that he provide clarity on his conversations with the Chief of Staff, who is to come before the committee before Christmas and will be able to address the matter.

On the CASA tender, the plane in question is 30 years old. What is the update on that tendering process? A capital allocation has been made and a timeline put in place.

I thank Deputy Chambers. When the first round of questions is completed, members may ask supplementary questions if necessary.

Deputy Chambers asked about divergence between senior military management of the Defence Forces and the Department. There has been no divergence whatsoever. Both parties signed off on the submission to the Public Service Pay Commission. I read the document submitted by the strategic planning branch earlier this year. The pay commission sought data, statistics and trends on recruitment and retention among other areas in the Defence Forces. A very detailed submission, running to almost 150 pages, was signed off by military management and the Department.

As I said earlier to Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan, there is ongoing interaction between the independent pay commission and the Defence Forces on the submission. What the commission sought in terms of additional correspondence was data on statistics and trends. I commend my officials on the huge amount of work they have done in collating this data which dates back over a number of years. Military management and the Department signed off on this joint submission. If either party had been dissatisfied with it, they would not have signed it. Both parties signed the submission and it was sent to the commission.

None of the recommendations was included.

The strategic planning branch worked in collaboration with the Department on collation of the data.

On the working family payment, this payment is made through the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection.

Eligibility for the payment is addressed in the strategic document.

People who are entitled to the payment can claim it. Members of the Defence Forces know full well that if they are entitled to the family income supplement or working family payment they can claim it. The representative organisations will assist them in doing so, if necessary. Fewer than 270 members of the defence organisation, by which I mean the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces, are in receipt of the working family payment. I recently saw a document which shows that 20% of members of the Defence Forces are in receipt of the working family payment, which is less than 1% of the organisation. I agree this is not acceptable. The working family payment is in place for specific reasons. I have no doubt there are many people within other organisations that are in receipt of this payment. I will give an example. Taking a 23 year old man who joins the Defence Forces and has one, two or three children, it would be unfair to his peers if we were to pay him €40,000 per annum because he has children and at the same time pay a three star new recruit €27,000 per annum. The working family payment is in place to address the family circumstances of a person.

I suggest that Deputy Jack Chambers properly examine the document.

I am quoting the military management document.

I can quote the real statistics.

I am quoting from the Chief of Staff office document.

I can quote the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection data on the number of people in the Defence Forces in receipt of the working family payment. As I said, the submission to the independent pay commission was data led and it involved a huge job of work over the last number of months. It was submitted in early September and it is hoped the commission's report and recommendations can be brought to Government by the first quarter of 2019.

No, it is not delayed.

I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Paul Kehoe, and Deputy Jack Chambers to speak through the Chair, please. I also ask Deputy Jack Chambers to allow the Minister of State to continue with his responses to the questions already asked. I will allow Deputy Chambers back in for supplementary questions.

I am conscious that Deputy Tony McLoughlin and Senator Gabrielle McFadden have commitments in the Dáil and Seanad, respectively, and I would like to allow both of them in as soon as possible.

I hope that the commission's report and recommendations will be with Government by Q1 2019. I understand the interim report will be made to Government by the end of this year. The Government will consider the recommendations made by the pay commission on that occasion.

On the air ambulance service, a number of options were suggested by the Air Corps. Members will be aware there is a huge shortage of pilots, as highlighted recently by the Air Corps and by me on the public record. The air ambulance will continue to operate. It has been a fantastic service for the mid-west and the whole of Ireland.

On the working time directive, a civil military group has been established to address the issue and discussions on it are also ongoing with PDFORRA. The Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection is addressing the legislative requirement in this regard.

On CASA, a request for proposals was issued earlier this year. The final competitive request for tenders is being finalised and will be issued shortly to the shortlisted companies.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Paul Kehoe, and thank him for his presentation. A number of members have already spoken about the issue of pay for Defence Forces' personnel which has been highlighted over the past few months in the media and is currently being examined by the independent pay commission. Will the Minister of State elaborate on the non-pay issues that contribute to the Defence Forces not being able to retain personnel and what is being done to address these issues in order that serving members can be retained? Will the Minister of State also confirm if Defence Forces' members continue to be provided with opportunities to serve overseas and what incentives are offered in this regard?

A matter that has been recently brought to my attention is the unrecoverable costs which Army personnel from the west of Ireland face. I refer in this regard to personnel operating out of Finner Camp when tasked with 24-hour duties in Dublin. Is this issue being examined by the independent pay commission?

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Paul Kehoe, and his officials for being here today. In his presentation, the Minister of State said that the organisation is making an invaluable contribution to international peace and security and conflict resolution. I do not doubt his pride and appreciate for the Defence Forces as it is always evident when I meet him face to face and in his dealings with members of the Defence Forces. It is important that we do not forget the work done by the Defences Forces at home. They are always the first port of call when there is a difficulty in terms of severe weather events, flooding and so on. They never fail to support us. I never hide the fact that I have an enormous grá for the Defence Forces. I find it very difficult to equate how proud we are of our Defence Forces personnel with the pay and conditions issue. Defence Forces personnel are the lowest paid public servants. Regardless of the outcome of the pay commission report, the likelihood is that they will remain the lowest paid public servants. There is reportedly €30 million in the Department of Defence Vote that cannot be spent because the strength of the Defence Forces is way below what was set out in the White Paper on Defence. This money will be returned to the Exchequer. Why can the Minister of State and the Department not fight for spend of this money on restoration of duty pay?

Nobody should do a full week's work in the Defence Forces, then do a 24 hour duty on the weekend, and then go back into work. People will say they get time in lieu. Time in lieu does not pay the electricity bill or put food on the table, so that is no good. That €30 million-odd could be used to restore duty pay. The cook technician pay issue has been going on since 2012, or that is when I became involved in it. I had many people come to me back in the day. Three of them were very good friends of mine and I am sad to say that two out of the three are now dead and never got their cook technician pay. On the provision for free rations and accommodation for recruits and apprentices, I cannot understand how a recruit would have to go to camp and then pay for his rations and accommodation as part of his training. That is not good enough. The €30 million could be used to pay for such things. Although people will say this will cause a domino effect with regard to teachers, nurses and so on, that money is in the Department and the Department should be able to use it whichever way it wants to.

Following on from that, I ask why the Chief of Staff does not have Accounting Officer status. This does not make sense to me. He should be able to do these things. He is a very capable academic and he has military knowledge, so he should be allowed to use it.

The Minister of State referred to the air ambulance service, which is an area of great concern to me. Given the lack of pilots and given what happened with the Naval Service ships that were not able to depart, I am concerned about the air ambulance service. I fought very hard for that air ambulance to be maintained through the pilots scheme in Athlone, and I would hate to see it in any difficulty.

As the Minister of State said, it is not all bad news. With that in mind, I acknowledge what happened yesterday when the Minister of State announced that the budget for ONE went up from €44,000 last year to €100,000 this year. ONE is a fantastic organisation looking after ex-servicemen. I also acknowledge the €4.1 million that went into Athlone barracks for the dining hall. All of these things are positive, in particular the money that is being spent on capital projects. None of them is any good, however, if we do not have soldiers, and if we do not pay them, we will not get them. The only way to retain soldiers is to pay them properly. I urge the Minister of State to look into the issues of duty pay and cook technician pay. He should fight to use that €30 million to look after our Defence Forces.

I will address Deputy McLoughlin's questions first. There are a substantial number of non-pay initiatives and retention strategies that provide opportunities for members of the Defence Forces. The review of contracts is continuing and the Department and the representative organisations are working on that. This will allow those who have served 12 years to extend their service up to 21 years, thereby preventing the discharge of a significant number of individuals who would have had to retire. I told the PDFORRA conference in 2017 that I would review this matter and the Department, the Defence Forces and PDFORRA have worked closely on that. There are a number of other initiatives. There are significant opportunities for career progression in the Defence Forces. To date in 2018, there have been more than 600 promotions in the Permanent Defence Force, and a promotion means a pay increase, quite rightly. This means that one in 15 serving members received a promotion since 1 January.

There are ongoing opportunities to undertake career development courses, and the Defence Forces have made significant inroads towards ensuring that major courses acquire external accreditation, especially the NCO course, which is accredited by Carlow IT. In the next three weeks I will attend the conferring of members of the Defence Forces in Carlow IT. To give the Deputy an example of the possibilities for people, at last year's conferring in Carlow IT, a man in his late 20s came up to speak to me. He came into the Defence Forces with no leaving certificate but he passed it while a serving member of the Defence Forces, and he was then given an opportunity to attend third level at Carlow IT and received a third level qualification there. While people will always look at the negatives, a huge number of positive things are happening as well. Although that example is only one person, there are many more. I was in Athlone yesterday and I met the officer commanding. I asked him how many people he has who are completing their leaving certificate and there are quite a number. There are many other examples in all barracks and installations throughout the country. In three weeks, as I said, I will attend Carlow IT, where close to 300 members of the Defence Forces will receive a third level qualification. That is paid for by the Defence Forces and is an investment in the Defence Forces, and these people can then use their qualifications to develop themselves further but also to develop Defence Forces organisations.

There are ongoing opportunities for individuals to apply their military skills at home and overseas, which is a key motivator. This year, at the end of November, we will be sending a full battalion to UNIFIL in Lebanon. There will be more than 100 people with that battalion who have never served overseas before and this will be their first trip. The experience that any member of the Defence Forces gets when overseas, as they will say themselves, is fantastic for their career progression. There are many other opportunities. For the first time in ten years, we will have commissions from the ranks whereby 23 or 24 enlisted personnel will become commissioned officers of Óglaigh na hÉireann. This will continue to happen, and it is very important that we give such people an opportunity to be commissioned from the ranks. For members serving overseas, if they cannot serve overseas for six months, they can serve for three months and another member can come over in their place to serve for the next three months. This could apply to a father with a large number of children who cannot stay away for that long, or a mother who wants to serve overseas but cannot serve for six months because she has a young family, and where they want to have the opportunity to serve overseas. For members of the Defence Forces who are office based and who might be living in Cork or Galway but working in Dublin or serving in Cork but living in Dublin, for example, they can work from their own home base, that is, from the local barracks, for two to three days a week and they can go to the base where they are serving for the remainder of the week. There are quite a number of non-pay initiatives happening at the moment.

The expansion of our UNIFIL presence will provide for an additional 119 people overseas. The continued deployment of the Naval Service also provides significant opportunities for personnel. There are 620 people serving overseas and that will increase by the end of the year.

Did the Deputy have other questions?

I asked about Finner Camp.

I have acknowledged that. I have spoken to the Chief of Staff and military management on that issue and they are examining it.

It is a very serious issue. I thank the Minister of State.

I will now deal with Deputy McFadden's questions.

I have addressed the pay and conditions and the submission that we have made to the Low Pay Commission. Is that okay for the Senator?

The 24 hour duty allowance is part of the submission the Department has put in. The Senator spoke about technical pay for cooks and related adjudications. There are a number of outstanding adjudications and findings across the public service, including the Defence Forces, which cannot be implemented having regard to the provisions in the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Acts 2009 to 2015. There are four adjudication findings outstanding relating to the defence sector. One relates to increased technical pay for cooks and supervisory cooks from group 2 to group 3, subject to successful completion of two training modules and completion of four years as cooks, effective from 1 June 2006. Another was the Army Ranger Wing allowance, which was increased to €200 per week with effect from 1 June 2006. Another was the regime of charging recruits and apprentices for rations and accommodation during their training period, while another was that the account holder's allowance should continue to be applied to NCOs who have taken up duty since 1 January 2012.

The Public Service Stability Agreement 2018-2020 provides for a consideration of the process to address the outstanding adjudications across the public service and having due regard to the question of their continued validity and cost implications. On this specific issue, discussions with the relevant representative association commenced last week. My officials and PDFORRA were in discussions specifically on these issues last week, and I hope agreement will be reached. There is a financial reward for people with outstanding adjudications but it also has a financial reward for recruits and apprentices who pay for rations.

There are a number of challenges within the Air Corps, including the air ambulance service. I have spoken to both military management and my departmental officials. The air ambulance service is an important service in the mid-west and I would be the first to acknowledge that. It has saved lives and I have stated that it needs to be kept and continued out of Athlone.

I have a number of questions. I will concentrate first on the Minister of State's presentation. There are a range of other issues, but there are obvious contradictions in the Government's approach in working with military alliances which are non-neutral. There are also contradictions in committing to enhancing capabilities in Europe while not being able to deliver on existing capabilities and commitments in this country, such as the air ambulance service the Minister of State just mentioned being an aid to the civil power. Given the state of the Defence Forces at the moment, it cannot, in any shape or form, fully deliver on the aid that was delivered in the past to the civil power in the event of humanitarian disasters, flooding or other operations. There are also issues in fishery protection.

There are contradictions in making commitments in Europe on the Common Defence and Security Policy, in the European Defence Fund, the European Peace Facility, the European Defence Agency, the military planning and conduct capability, or the co-ordinated annual review of defence. The Government and its predecessors have committed to these repeatedly, and each ties Ireland to enhancing its capabilities, yet there has not been delivery on our emerging needs. More and more demands are being set on men and women in the Defence Forces who are already overstretched and finding it difficult to deliver on their day-to-day commitments as soldiers or Air Corps and Naval Service personnel.

We have had the argument about PESCO and I will not go back over it again. How many officials or members of the Defence Forces are committed to the existing projects as observers in PESCO projects? The Minister of State mentioned that the Council recommendations on PESCO commitments provide "a more objective and detailed basis for assessing whether PESCO participants are meeting their commitments". Are we meeting the commitments? Will we meet them in the forthcoming year, given the chaos in the Defence Forces and a budget, presented last week that was not advanced for the Defence Forces?

The final list of the second tranche of PESCO projects will be formally approved next month. Has the Minister of State that list? Will he provide the committee with the indicative list of the second tranche of PESCO projects so that we can have some evaluation of whether Ireland should opt in to these projects?

In the co-ordinated annual review on defence, CARD, I presume we are getting a red card. One of the commitments in the proposed CARD is that it would have the ability to look at the defence budget and make recommendations and assess it annually. I do not believe it is fully operational but, given that the budget has been delivered, has there been any informal comment, because it was an informal meeting, from the other Ministers for defence relating to the defence budget?

The European Union Military Committee has to do with military mobility, and even though the Minister of State cannot even get planes or helicopters off the ground or ships out of port, he is signing up to military mobility. The European Union Military Committee, the military command of the EU army, has prepared a military requirements document which is under review. Will the Minister of State supply the committee with a copy of that document so that we, as parliamentarians, can have some input into Ireland's approach to that document, or at least come back to him on it in the near future? It is anticipated that the document or the military mobility issue will be discussed at the European foreign affairs committee in November, so it is a short period between now and then.

A sum of €13 billion is to be dedicated to the European Defence Fund. I have criticised Ireland having anything to do with enhancing defence research in this way while there are major issues in terms of people dying of starvation and dying at sea on their way to Europe. What is being committed? Is there any commitment? What is the effect in Ireland of that €13 billion defence fund?

In terms of EU-NATO co-operation, the Minister of State mentioned that Ireland is a member of the Partnership for Peace, a part of NATO in his words, yet we are supposed to be a neutral country. There is a contradiction in that.

The Minister of State mentioned that Ireland is a neutral state. Has the Minister of State expressed this and why are we still a member of an organisation that is not neutral?

The meeting was an informal one. I do not understand why this meeting is informal and why the others are formal. If it was an informal meeting, has the Minister of State discussed with his EU counterparts, as other members have alluded to, how they have overcome issues around retention of personnel and the failure to retain recruits in particular? A large number of recruits apply, that number is whittled down through the selection process and then the Defence Forces have the required number. These recruits, however, continually leave. Has the Minister of State discussed this retention issue with his counterparts with regard to the European working time directive or trade union membership? Those are quite pertinent issues that I have raised in the context of the chemical poisoning of members of the Air Corps. Other EU countries have also been and are addressing these types of issues. A Dáil motion was passed on the use of Lariam and all of the counterparts would, at this stage, have ended their use of Lariam as a drug of first choice to deal with malaria.

The Deputy has asked a wide range of questions. The Deputy referred to aid to the civil power and the Defence Forces organisation not being able to meet all of its requests. I have no proof that we are unable to meet the requests that have been made under aid to the civil power. I presume the Deputy was specifically referring to the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. While the Naval Service faces challenges in crew availability, patrol days output in the year 2017 was 25% up on the output of 2014. Given the Naval Service output for patrol days to the end of August 2018, the total Naval Service output for all of 2018 should be close to the 2017 numbers. I will go through the details for the Deputy. The number of patrol days carried out in 2013 was 1,382, in 2014 it was 1,127, in 2015 it was 1,204, in 2016 it was 1,376, in 2017 it was 1,408 and to the end of August 2018 it was heading for 1,000. In any requests from whatever agency, be they from An Garda Síochána, Customs and Excise or the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, we have been able to provide the service they have requested.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh spoke about the day-to-day demands on the Defence Forces. Of course there are huge demands on them. This winter, as with last winter, we will probably see snow or storms, which will place demands on the Defence Forces, and this is to be expected. Under aid to the civil power, we have been able to fill all of the requests.

The Deputy referred to PESCO and the number of personnel who are involved. Ireland is participating in two PESCO projects. One is the German-led European Union training mission competence centre project and the other is the Greek-led upgrade of the maritime surveillance. We will also be observers on a further eight projects. The projects to which the Deputy referred are at a very early stage of planning and no specific resources have been dedicated to them. As soon as the other projects are signed off, I would have no issue in forwarding the details on to the Deputy.

The proposed co-ordinated annual review on defence, CARD, will be a reporting mechanism. On military mobility, Ireland is a total observer on military mobility and it is entirely voluntary. As an observer in a monitoring role, Ireland would not be joining up. In November 2016, the Council concluded on implementing the European Union Global Strategy, EUGS, in the area of security and defence, and member states invited the High Representative and head of the European Defence Agency, EDA, to present on the scope, modalities and content of CARD. The objective of CARD is to develop voluntarily a more structured way to deliver identified capabilities based on greater transparency, political visibility and commitment from member states. CARD will provide a full picture of the European capability landscape and it will monitor defence plans as well as the implementation of capability development plan priorities, assess the state of defence co-operation in Europe, and identify co-operative opportunities, which in turn could be taken up within PESCO and possibly be funded under the European Defence Fund. CARD is effectively an analysis of the position of the aggregate European capability landscape. Ireland has participated fully in the process, and our trial run bilateral with the EDA took place on 14 December 2017. CARD aggregated analysis was presented at the capability director's steering board on 28 June. CARD aggregated analysis presents data aggregated at EU level and identifies initial trends regarding EU capability development as well as information on operational activities collected.

The Deputy spoke about Ireland being a member of the Partnership for Peace programme, PfP, within NATO. Many countries that are part of PfP have a similar policy of neutrality as Ireland's, and on all occasions we respect the policy on neutrality.

The Minister of State has said that he has no proof of the Defence Forces not being able to deliver on aid to the civil power. I know for a fact that there are occasions when the Defence Forces cannot deliver under aid to the civil power. We have discussed this before. If the air ambulance service, for example, requests to transfer children for operations in England, the Defence Forces cannot in any way, shape or form deliver on the full requirements. We have admitted that, and the Minister of State has admitted that. Search and rescue operations were taken off the Defence Forces in the past because it could not commit to being able to deliver fully. With fisheries we know for a fact that there are vessels that are not on fisheries protection duty. Just because they are anchored off Haulbowline or somewhere does not mean the vessels are on full duty. If we had flooding in the morning, as we had before, the required equipment and staffing levels to deliver a comprehensive aid to the civil power are not the same as previously. Nobody is saying that the members of the Defence Forces or the authorities in the Defence Forces are not willing to give their last ounce of strength or last ounce of equipment. That is not the point. The point is that because of the crisis in the Defence Forces, it cannot deliver on the same commitment it did before.

The word has gone out from the Department that one should not officially ask for help because it might not be able to deliver, and that instead one should ask what it can deliver and ask for that. It is a case of not asking for too much because it will not be available.

I call Senator Grealish, who is to be followed by Senator Craughwell.

May I address that question?

To finish my question----

I said I will allow members a second round. I call Deputy Grealish.

It has to do with-----

I said I will allow members to ask supplementary questions later. I call Deputy Grealish.

It has to do with the Minister of State's answer because he said the patrols-----

Deputy Ó Snodaigh-----

It is only one sentence.

It is one sentence too many. I call Deputy Grealish.

It is pointless truncating it. The Minister of State was the one who mentioned it, not me.

The Deputy made a speech and was given considerable latitude.

I did not make a speech. It relates to an answer from the Minister of State. He contradicts himself.

The Deputy can revert to the Minister of State later. I call Deputy Grealish, who is to be followed by Senator Craughwell.

I welcome the Minister of State and his officials. I asked a question in the Dáil a number of weeks ago to which the Minister of State replied:

The Defence Forces have full control over recruitment. No civilian is involved in this. It is solely the responsibility of the Defence Forces headed by military management and the Chief of Staff who has his own people in that recruitment office.

I believe that is incorrect. The terms and conditions on enlistments to the Defence Forces, regardless of the branch, are set by the Minister and the Department of Defence, not the Chief of Staff. The Department of Defence and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform agree the terms and conditions and then the advertisement is placed. Only after that does the Chief of Staff take over. It is not the sole function of the Chief of Staff to carry out recruitment. The view that it is needs to be corrected. Will the Minister of State respond on that first?

I cannot allow that. We are not staying here for the day.

That is no problem. Will the Minister of State come back to it?

A question was asked about the Chief of Staff being the Accounting Office of the Defence Forces. The Minister of State did not answer it. I asked the question in the Dáil on the last occasion and he did not answer. I want a clear reason from him as to why the Chief of Staff cannot be the Accounting Officer for the Defence Forces. That is the solution for the Defence Forces. The Garda Commissioner is the Accounting Officer for the Garda Síochána. I am led to believe the Chief of Staff cannot spend one red cent without going back to the Department for approval. I want the Minister of State to address this clearly.

I welcome Mr. Mooney today. He is newly appointed. He has strategic responsibility for human resources in the Defence Forces. Will the Minister of State outline what exactly Mr. Mooney's role is? I will not go over the pay and conditions of the Defence Forces. It is an absolute disgrace that members of the Defence Forces are protesting on our streets over their conditions. We are all very proud of the Defence Forces. The Minister of State referred to the family. Many members of the Defence Forces are on the working family payment but there is no member of An Garda Síochána on it. What is happening is a disgrace. Over the weekend of the Pope's visit, members of An Garda were paid €30 per hour in overtime. All the members of the Defence Forces got after tax was €67. That needs to be addressed.

I want the Minister of State to answer my question on the view that no civilian is involved in recruitment. Why can the Chief of Staff not be the Accounting Officer? Why is he looking over his shoulder when he has to make a decision on Defence Forces expenditure? Could the Minister of State give a clear reason as to why the Chief of Staff cannot be the chief Accounting Officer in the same way as the Garda Commissioner?

May I answer?

No. I call Senator Craughwell. I have made a ruling and we must stick to it.

I would like an answer on my question on the Accounting Officer.

I call Senator Craughwell. We have another meeting after this and are under considerable pressure.

We will not get the answer we want, then.

If the Minister of State does not answer, I will ask him to do so before he leaves? Is that fair enough? I call Senator Craughwell who should ask some questions.

I will get to them as quickly as I can. I thank the Minister of State and his officials for attending. The Chief of Staff going on national television to say pay and conditions were his primary concern, and then that he wanted to attend meetings of the pay commission himself, does not suggest there is any unanimous agreement on the pay and conditions of soldiers. It is a most unprecedented step for any Chief of Staff to seek the right to address a commission when the Department has already put in its submission.

With respect to the pay commission, the terms of reference clearly allow for recommendations and initiatives to be taken into account. I would like the Minister of State to explain whether the recommendations laid out by the Defence Forces have been submitted to the pay commission. I understand the commission will meet on 23 October and determine the date on which it will provide its report. I would like the Minister of State to explain how he knows this will be provided in quarter one of 2019 given that the commission has not yet met.

Does the Minister of State accept that he cannot recruit his way out of trouble? He is in serious trouble, with an establishment of 8,800 as opposed to the 9,500 who should be there. I understand somewhere between 50% and 60% of those applying to join the Defence Forces never get past stage one of the recruitment process, and that the overall number is less than 10%.

With respect to retention, which I have raised with the Minister of State in the Seanad several times, there is still no retention policy published by the Department. The White Paper of 2015 needs to be revised. When will we see that revision?

With respect to the Air Corps, we are buying new CASAs and we do not have pilots. Is the Minister of State proud of the current circumstances in the Air Corps? We do not have pilots or air traffic control personnel. We have contracted out the air ambulance service over the next couple of years, at a cost of €7 million. We are paying on the double. I have asked before how ready we are to deal with a terrorist event that might arise in the west or south west of Ireland. How quickly could we get a ranger group down to a hijacked bus of American tourists in Dingle? The Minister of State knows the impact this would have on foreign direct investment.

With regard to services, is the Minister of State able to provide the number of patrol days of the Naval Service? Will he outline the percentages in regard to those being recruited by comparison with those leaving? With respect to governance, command and control are falling apart in the system. As of today, the 6th Infantry Battalion has five officers out of 25. Not so long ago, the 27th Infantry Battalion had three captains and one lieutenant running a battalion. That is totally and utterly unacceptable. Officers are moved around the country at short notice. What does that say about the Defence Forces' policy with respect to family-friendliness?

The one thing on which I will compliment the Minister of State is the treatment of the Jadotville heroes. He pulled out all the stops and did a good job. With respect to Jadotville, however, we were told there were no recommendations for medals and, if there were, they were nowhere to be found. I have to hand a recommendation for five military medals for gallantry and 31 recommendations for the distinguished service medal. I understand that, in respect of the entire period of the Congo mission, 196 recommendations were made for the distinguished service medal. I understand that is not a function of the Minister of State's Department but of the military. Will the Minister of State order a review of all recommendations for distinguished service medals and military medals for gallantry? We should not be mean about medals. We should be able to issue them to people who were recommended for them. It is a terrible indictment of this country that we see generals getting distinguished service medals. I have a list of those recommended for distinguished service medals and it includes approximately 20 privates, ten corporals, four sergeants, one company sergeant, three lieutenants and a captain. A corporal, a private, two sergeants and a company sergeant have been recommended for the military medal for gallantry. One of those, Sergeant Walter Hegarty, the father-in-law of my niece, died not knowing that he had two recommendations for distinguished service medals, one of which he was awarded, and a recommendation for the military medal for gallantry. It is simply not good enough. Flattery we do; respect we do not do. I thank the Minister of State. I am sorry there was a lot there but I had to get it out.

I thank the Senator. There were many questions, starting with those of Deputy Ó Snodaigh.

On Deputy Grealish's questions, I stand over my reply in the Dáil. The process of recruitment is entirely a matter for members of the Defence Forces.

There is not one civil servant involved in the process from the time someone applies for the Defence Forces.

Who places the advertisement? Who calls up the advertisement?

The question Deputy Grealish asked was who was involved in the process. From the time a person applies for the Defence Forces, he will never-----

Who does the vetting?

The Garda Síochána does the vetting in conjunction with the Defence Forces intelligence. No civil servant is involved in the process. Of course, setting out the terms and conditions of pay and everything like that is done by civil servants in the Department. The process is exactly the same as the process that applies to An Garda Síochána. The Defence Forces do not set the pay standards. That is done in the context of public service pay arrangements. Like all recruitment processes there are negotiations between the representative organisations, PDFORRA and RACO, and my Department about the terms and conditions.

I understand the Defence Forces place the advertisements, but I will come back to the Deputy on that. The Defence Forces place the advertisement. They do the recruitment campaign and get a budget to carry that out. Throughout the process no civil servant is involved, only members of the Defence Forces. When I have a recruitment meeting, I bring members of the Defence Forces to me. While I also have civil servants with me, the Defence Forces run the whole process of recruitment.

Regarding the Chief of Staff, arrangements for the Defence Forces were reviewed as part of the 2015 White Paper on Defence. I have no doubt the Deputy has read the White Paper from cover to cover. It is a very comprehensive document. On that occasion, the White Paper made no recommendation to change the Accounting Officer. In all of the meetings and conversations on the White Paper on Defence by people inside and outside the Defence Forces, absolutely no recommendation was made on that.

Significant aspects of the defence budget are delegated to the Defence Forces. Decisions on expenditure in these areas rest with the Defence Forces. Larger expenditure on joint groups requires high-level planning and procurement groups. The Department oversees that, just as the Department of Justice and Equality oversees spending within An Garda Síochána. The Garda Commissioner does not set the pay scales. He has a responsibility for the day-to-day running of An Garda Síochána.

Deputy Grealish asked me something else.

While I am not personalising anything, I ask the Minister of State to outline Mr. Robert Mooney's new role. I know he has only recently become an official in the Department.

Mr. Mooney's role relates to Defence Forces personnel, support services, communications, conciliation and arbitration and the litigation branch. The new appointment was to ensure an appropriate focus on human resources and to give greater support to that. I say this in Mr. Mooney's presence and I do not wish to flatter him in any way-----

I am not questioning his ability. I asked what his role is.

He is an excellent civil servant, as are all the civil servants in my Department. They come in for criticism on occasion. I will defend every one of my civil servants to the bitter end. They are absolutely outstanding public servants. I appreciate the work they do every day for the improvement and promotion of the Defence Forces. I know that message might not always come through. Of course, they have responsibilities and on occasion they have to question Defence Forces pay, but that is the very same with An Garda Síochána and everybody else.

I was very supportive of a new assistant secretary in the Department because European policy has become incredibly complex in recent years. The previous assistant secretary was looking after HR, European policy, all foreign policy and everything like that and simply could not do it all. When the proposal was made to me, I was strongly in favour of doing that and giving more support to the Defence Forces. They should see that with the addition of an assistant secretary they now have more support. There is not as much pressure on the person who was carrying out that role previously.

In response to Senator Craughwell, I have dealt with the pay commission and I do not want to rehearse what I said. The Senator spoke about the Chief of Staff looking for face time with the pay commission. I do not think it was the Chief of Staff but members of the Defence Forces senior military management who sought that. Before he even said that on television, I had already requested that there be face-to-face contact between the pay commission, senior military management and the Department. They could then go through the submission we made line by line. This has been a joint submission, signed off by Mr. Mooney and agreed by both the Defence Forces military management and the civil side.

I do not want to repeat myself, but I will say one thing. The amount of work that went into this submission in June, July and August was immense. People on both the military side and the civil side worked long hours and curtailed their holidays to get this submission in by the first week in September. As in any organisation, give and take are required, involving back-and-forth negotiation. I am happy with the submission that was made to the pay commission. There is already contact between the pay commission and the Defence Forces. They will have contact with-----

Will the Minister of State publish it?

I will not publish it.

It is a copy for the pay commission and the pay commission will probably publish it when it finishes its deliberations. Last year, I sought that the Defence Forces be highlighted and in fairness to the pay commission, it came back after meeting the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Donohoe. The Minister highlighted two areas, namely, health and the Defence Forces. I am happy that we will go through this process and reach a conclusion to this. Let the pay commission do its work. It is an independent commission, separate from politicians and Government. It will make recommendations to Government, which will then consider those recommendations.

The Senator referred to the figure of 8,800. It is just 9,000 in the Permanent Defence Forces who are-----

How many are in training?

I will come back to the Senator with the number in training. That has always been part and parcel of the numbers.

The Senator said that the air ambulance had been contracted out to a private-----

A private company has got a €7 million contract.

No. The air ambulance based in Athlone is fully operated by the Defence Forces.

I am talking about organ-----

No. Somebody else also mentioned that. That is a service level agreement that we had with the HSE. There is a big difference between aid to the civil power and aid to the civil authority. The service level agreement is that we will provide that service if and when available.

Realistically, we are never available.

We still provide some services to the HSE and will continue to do so. In approaching the challenge we had, we had to own up and say that we were not able to guarantee the service. We cannot say that we would be able to fly through the night or whatever the story is. We will not be able to be there 24-7. It would be wrong of me and I would be shirking my responsibility if I did not approach the Minister for Health and tell him that. The Senator would be jumping across the table at me now if a patient had died or something like that.

As I have said on numerous occasions, I face up to the challenges we face. That is why we have made a joint submission to the pay commission on pilots. I hope it will be concluded before the end of the year.

In 2013 the number of patrol days carried out by the Naval Service was 1,382. In 2014 the number was 1,127; in 2015, 1,204; in 2016, 1,376; and in 2017, 1,408. At the end of August it was 928. I presume it is now nearly 1,000. I expect that we will match or perhaps even overtake the number in 2017.

Will the Minister of State read the rest of the reply he gave to me about the number of lost days in that year? That is what I was trying to say to him. He gave me a reply on 9 October in which he listed the numbers of lost days. By August the number of lost days this year was already double the number for the same period last year.

I have said we have a number of challenges in the Naval Service on a number of issues, as I highlighted in the past few weeks. They could be due to personnel, weather or technical issues that we were not able to get to sea, but that is nothing new. There are lost days every year.

I know, but the number is going up.

We are addressing those issues. I have stated we have challenges.

The Minister of State is not delivering in the same way he did previously in providing aid for the civil power. That is the crux of the matter.

The Deputy is absolutely wrong in saying that. Earlier this year I met the CEO of the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority in Haulbowline. The Naval Service has been able to fulfil any request it has received from it, An Garda Síochána or the Customs service. I am not sure if the Deputy saw the successful drugs interdiction a number of weeks ago by the Naval Service in co-operation with An Garda Síochána and the Customs service.

It was a fantastic piece of work, but it does not explain the reason ships lay anchor a couple of miles off the County Cork coast and stay there for a few days.

I hear also this information-----

Is the Minister of State going to act on it?

The Senator put out a tweet a number of weeks ago in which he said-----

I am glad that you follow me.

You must, if you can say-----

Please speak through the Chair.

The Senator said all of our ships were tied up, which was totally incorrect.

We had eight ships at the time, one of which was in the Mediterranean. There were seven masts at Haulbowline. Unless the Minister of State has a few spare masts lying around, they were tied up.

The Minister of State should deal with the questions asked earlier. Deputy Jack Chambers and other members indicated that they had supplementary questions to ask and we want to get to them also.

I dealt with the Chief of Staff and the Accounting Officer. I will speak to Deputy Grealish separately about the medals. I do not wish to get into that matter now.

Retention was the other issue. The Minister of State speaks about the White Paper, but retention is mentioned once and it is only one word.

I have addressed the non-pay retention issues and also those on the pay side.

Many senior NCOs who are due to retire would happily stay on if the Minister of State extended the period.

All contracts are being examined. I can talk to the Senator separately about that matter.

That is fine. I thank the Minister of State.

The implementation of the White Paper has been ongoing since 2015. What tangible projects have been concluded and what impact have they had on the Defence Forces? The Minister of State said there was going to be a report on pilots in this quarter and appeared to refer to the strong argument he had made about them. Did he make recommendations related to them as part of his submission? We know that he did not make recommendations as part of the general submission. Perhaps he might clarify the matter.

On Naval Service patrol day numbers, are more personnel leaving than being recruited? How will the Minister of State address manning levels? Some 1,500 applied this year, which number may yield approximately 350. According to the strategic document, over 10,000 applied in 2012. There are diminishing numbers applying and larger numbers are leaving. The recruitment and retention crisis has reached catastrophic levels in the organisation, but we have yet to see recommendations or progress made in this area. How will the Minister of State address manning levels?

As Senator Craughwell mentioned, the contract for organ transplant flights was outsourced because of the shortage of trained staff. Will there be a contagion effect across other areas of the Air Corps? When does the Minister of State see himself plugging the gap in the context of the diminishing service that can be provided? In addition, safety concerns have been conveyed to him about the experienced personnel leaving the Air Corps. It is a big concern that we are losing very experienced people in that area. There must be progress in dealing with the issue.

The White Paper on defence provides the policy framework over a ten-year planning horizon. A key commitment is the introduction of a system of fixed cycle reviews to ensure policy will remain up to date. The approach is to have an update every three years and a more strategic review every six years. The first White Paper update review is under way and I understand it will be before the committee shortly. I wrote to it about it.

Yes, we have to discuss it later.

I will not get into it now if we will be returning to the committee about it.

The submission on pilots was sent last April. I expect it-----

What were the recommendations?

What the pay commission had sought from us was a data based submission in which we gave it all of the statistics, trends and so forth. It is not up to us to make recommendations. It is up to the pay commission to make recommendations to the Government. Of course, the interface and dialogue are ongoing with the pay commission, the Department and the military. Why would one have a pay commission to make recommendations if we were to make recommendations to the pay commission?

The Minister of State did not answer Senator Craughwell's question about the position in the first quarter of 2019. Why has there been a delay? That is another concern of members of the Defence Forces. If it is meeting on 23 October, how does the Minister of State know that there is a delay in making its report to the Government?

My officials tell me that we included in the submission the pilot retention scheme that was also in place.

The Minister of State did make a recommendation.

We included what was in place.

That is good to know. The Minister of State has told the committee that he did make a-----

Not a recommendation. We included what was in place.

The Minister of State made a recommendation for pilots but not for anybody else in the Defence Forces.

No. In the submission we made to the pay commission on pilot retention we looked at a number of measures that were in place. It is up to the pay commission to recommend.

It is up to the commission, but the Minister of State should have made recommendations in other areas. He mentioned what he did for pilots. However, there is a morale issue and the fact that the Minister of State did not make recommendations on the basis of the data he submitted is concerning. He should have provided for greater elaboration. It is interesting that he incorporated a recommendation for pilots but not for anybody else. It also shows that he could have made a recommendation, but decided not to do so. He could have incorporated some of the recommendations from the strategic office and the Chief of Staff, but he decided not to do so.

9999After we submitted the submission on pilots the Public Service Pay Commission came back to us looking for data-based evidence for the wider Defence Forces organisation. That is what we put to it. It looked for data-based evidence and trends, which is what we gave it.

Deputy Jack Chambers spoke about trends in recruitment. With regard to general service recruitment, in 2002, 2,750 people applied; in 2008, 5,466 applied; in 2014, 7,332 applied; and in 2017, 8,164 applied. In respect of the recruitment of cadets, in 2003, 1,111 people applied; in 2012, 2,477 applied; in 2016, 4,807 applied; and in 2017, 3,447 applied. They are the trends in people applying in respect of general service recruitment. Did the Deputy speak about Naval Service recruitment?

I referred to patrol day numbers.

I have given them.

I asked about the personnel.

I am sorry-----

Are more people leaving than being recruited?

In reply to the Deputy in the Dáil a number of weeks ago I said we had challenges. We are going through the process with the Public Service Pay Commission. Adjudications are happening. If fixing pay was within my remit, it would have been fixed long ago, but it is not within my remit. It is the responsibility of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. We have highlighted all of the challenges in the Naval Service, the Air Corps and the Army in our submissions to the Public Service Pay Commission. I am hopeful the outcome will be positive.

How does the Minister of State know that the decision is due in quarter 1 of 2019 if it is meeting on 23 October?

I do not know, but I expect that that is when it will be due. The commission has stated it requires a number of months to do its work. It is working in the area of health. There is an interface-----

It reported on the area of health.

No, it has not reported fully on it. It is interfacing with the Defence Forces. I want to give it time and space to do its work and go through the process. I expect that it will be quarter 1 of 2019 before we have it. If it is earlier, great.

What about the safety issues concerning the retention policy for pilots? Has the Minister of State received military advice on concerns about the air ambulance service?

I have received a number of reviews and recommendations. My Department and I are working on them, with senior military management.

The Minister of State continually uses one term in some of his responses to parliamentary questions, that things are under "ongoing review". Will he tell me what that means? A lot of policies in his Department seem to be under ongoing review all of the time and forever more. What does the term actually mean?

Will the Deputy give me a few examples?

An example would be the White Paper. How could something be under "ongoing review"? When will it be implemented?

We are coming to the committee. I would call it an ongoing review.

There is a review in the case of everything. What about policy implementation? I asked the Minister of State what tangible projects had been concluded under the White Paper, but he could not give an answer. He said it would come before the committee.

There are 80 projects involved in respect of Defence Forces military management. A Defence Forces team and a civil team are looking after all of the projects included in the White Paper. Of course, there is an ongoing review of all of the projects that are happening. Will the Deputy give me other examples? The White Paper will be brought before the committee. I have written to it in respect of talking about the review of the White Paper. I stated the reasons we would review it. It is a moving organisation. Are there other examples where there is an ongoing review?

I think the Minister of State mentioned that there was a review of psychometric testing.

It is occurring within the process of recruitment. We are not going to say we are going to fix this and not change it for the next five years. Of course, we will review our practices and processes. I would be very critical of the organisation if it was not doing so.

A number of my questions were not replied to in the first round, one of which concerned what the Minister of State might have considered to be a flippant comment, although it was not. It concerned the difference between a formal meeting and informal meeting of Defence Ministers. At an informal meeting does the Minister of State or his officials get to talk with other Ministers about challenges? I listed the challenges, but the Minister of State does not have to answer about specific ones. At a formal meeting are there opportunities to discuss matters with other military forces that have gone through some of the challenges facing the Defence Forces, some of which I have listed? Does the Minister of State manage to do this because sometimes when mistakes are dealt with or overcome by others and expertise is shared, it can help us?

One of my questions concerned military personnel mobility. The Minister of State might have answered it. The European Union Military Committee has prepared a military requirements document. I asked whether we would see it prior to the discussion in November. Two questions of mine emerged from the publicity that followed on foot of the conference of the Permanent Defence Force Other Ranks Representative Association, PDFORRA which I know the Minister of State attended. Some newspapers carried stories based on testimony given by people who had spoken at the conference. One concerned bomb disposal expert teams going back on duty after a 24-hour shift. Will the Minister of State confirm if that is the practice because it seems to be a change from what happened previously? From the outside, it seems to be very dangerous for bomb disposal experts to work a 24-hour shift. An article that was very concerning referred to a psychiatrist who had left a job within the Defence Forces having flagged that they were leaving. We talked about the great job being done in the Mediterranean, but, in some cases, what Defence Forces personnel see on duty there or elsewhere can have a severe effect on them. What happens if psychiatrists are not available to make these assessments? Is there a temporary contract with the private sector or the HSE to plug the gap until somebody is employed full time?

The Minister of State quoted recruitment figures. He gave a figure of almost 8,000 in 2017, almost 5,000 in 2016 and so on. We must get away from quoting the numbers who express an interest. Clearly, the Defence Forces have told the Minister of State that the level of resilience is below 10%. I think it is 9% at present. Of those who apply, less than 50% actually get through the first stage - psychometric testing. That is not the Minister of State's fault, but we must be more honest about it because it is a problem he has openly acknowledged today. Is he seriously worried about the problems in all three forces? Why are people applying for entry to the Defence Forces and, when they get the letter asking them to sign into a website for psychometric testing, they do not bother? Are they trying to fool the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection? Is this an issue at which we need to look?

In the last session I asked the Minister of State about the issue of command and control. I told him some time ago about three near misses with .5 heavy machine guns when lives could have been lost.

We had a barrel for a heavy machine gun knocked overboard on a naval ship again. In terms of command and control, it cannot be expected that a second lieutenant coming out of the Curragh will take responsibility for three or four platoons. I have met soldiers who have said to me that they question how they can get a bad recommendation from an officer in command when he or she might only be there for three months before suddenly moving somewhere else. Whatever happened to the point where a platoon had a platoon commander, a company had a company commander and a second-in-command, 2IC, a battalion had a battalion commander, a 2IC and an adjutant and we all knew where we were in the organisation? What has happened to that? There are currently five officers out of 25 in Athlone, and three captains in the 27th Infantry Battalion and one lieutenant. This country will be sued at some stage, either for an accident or for somebody being denied promotion or overseas service because he or she did not get a favourable report. Maybe the military authorities are not telling the Minister of State the truth about where these issues stand. The "can do" ethos of soldiers is one that is now working to their detriment. They will do any job they are given but we are scraping the bottom of the barrel now. Is the Minister of State being told the truth about command and control?

First, I will deal with the formal decision making process. It is also important to have an informal discussion beforehand because when I go to these meetings I arrive on the evening before and I am gone by around two or three o'clock the next day. It is really important to have informal discussions around decisions that will be made at the formal meetings. Of course I discuss the challenges that we have with my counterparts. I have sidebar meetings at most of the formal and informal meetings that I have and aside from that, I know that Mr. Murphy deals with his counterparts on an ongoing basis about challenges that we have within our organisations.

On the PDFORRA conference on 24 June, that is all within the working time directive and there is a civil-military team working on that at the moment.

On the psychiatry services that were mentioned, we are in the process of recruiting new personnel for that but there is an arrangement in place where a private contractor will come in and there is an arrangement with the HSE as well. I outlined that in a recent parliamentary question that I had in the Dáil but we are in the process of recruiting a new person.

On Senator Craughwell's questions, I have raised these issues with the Chief of Staff. If people raise issues of safety with me I have always stated that I want to know about these problems and issues but they have to come through the channels of the Chief of Staff and the organisation. On the gaps in the organisation we have brought forward a White Paper process which is a gap analysis of the organisation and there is a civil-military team working on that at the moment. I want to find out from that White Paper where the gaps are within the organisation-----

Did anybody mention this problem to the Deputy when he was in Athlone yesterday?

I will not divulge any conversations I had in a private capacity with anybody.

I apologise for being delayed, I was in a meeting. Thankfully, due to the current state of the economy and the demands that are on everybody, it is only natural that the Defence Forces will suffer in being able to recruit the necessary number and quality of people that it wishes to have. That is a fact and the fact that X number apply and B number turn up for interview is part and parcel of the recruitment process. Would members mind staying quiet while I make my point? That is a serious situation but it is the reality because of the current position of our economy. There are other options for people. It is time that we had a review of what exactly we are going to ask the Defence Forces to do in terms of its priorities as long as this situation pertains. The reality is that there are so many options now for people that those who would have joined the Defence Forces in hard times because of a lack of job opportunities are no longer available and that is why a large number are applying and a smaller number are following on and attending for interview. That is the reality of the times we live in. I know that this will be a bit of a heresy when I say this but in terms of trying to spread our wings too far we have to review our commitments overseas in light of this current situation. We need to specify what our priorities are for our Defence Forces and the numbers that are available to us because we cannot spread butter that thinly. We will not have the numbers required to spread it that far and I ask the Minister of State if he has reviewed the situation. It is all very well taking on board overseas commitments. I have been a Minister for Defence and I know that it is part and parcel of the Defence Forces that it loves doing overseas duties but if we are short of personnel for works here at home then we have to prioritise that. Do we have sufficient numbers in the Defence Forces at present to spread our wings so widely and should we review the exact roles that we should be participating in?

Would the Minister of State also refer to the role of the Reserve Defence Forces? That was not mentioned today and it is an area that is never given the attention it should be given in society in general. Over the years, the Reserve Defence Forces has been an important organisation. Many times it has led to people progressing to serve in the Permanent Defence Forces and it was also important from the point of view of ensuring that young people who may have been vulnerable to becoming involved in paramilitary organisations got involved in the structure of the then Fórsa Cosanta Áitiúil, FCA, or the Reserve Defence Forces. Those people have gone on to contribute handsomely to society and its role is important. Some time ago I know there were concerns on the numbers enrolling in the Reserve Defence Forces and some recruitment campaigns were undertaken. I sincerely hope that those campaigns will be continued and that they will be successful. We need the Reserve Defence Forces to be as strong as possible throughout the country. It does very valuable work which is often unsung and unnoticed and it has been particularly important in giving the opportunity to many young people to gain skills and training and go on to worthwhile careers, be they in the Permanent Defence Forces or elsewhere. Being a representative for two Border counties and having seen the thuggery, violence and criminal activity going on in paramilitary circles in our region over many decades, I must say that the role of people who served in the Reserve Defence Forces was never given the credit that it deserved.

The huge pressures on members of the Defence Forces were mentioned. The message here today has been that we all want to see better pay and conditions for our Permanent Defence Forces members and I am very conscious of the people who were transferred from the likes of Dún Uí Néill Barracks in Cavan to Athlone and then on to a barracks in Dublin, be it Cathal Brugha Barracks or wherever. Those people have additional costs now in travelling to work and in many instances there may not be a second car in a home. This poses particular difficulty for partners. In most instances a wife would be at home with children who have to be brought to school, to Gaelic games and to participate in other activities and the fact that the serving member of the Defence Forces has to travel and be away from home for some time creates an extra pressure on household income.

I would appreciate it if the additional costs borne by people who have had to transfer because of barrack closures could be taken into account in determining future pay, conditions and remuneration.

Deputy Barrett is a former Minister, and he fully understands that when one is competing in a troubled economy one of the areas hit hardest in the public sector is the Defence Forces. Looking at trends over the years, it is clear that that has always been the case. We have to prioritise what we can and cannot do, but the important thing is that it is done in a very safe environment and in a very safe way. That is my priority, and I have stated that on numerous occasions. We are sending a full battalion to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, this November. We can do that for 12 months, but not beyond that. I have stated that to the Under-Secretary General of the UN.

The Defence Forces are great for young people. They get the opportunity to see action on the front line on numerous occasions. When asked why they join the Defence Forces they often say that they want to go overseas. We are giving more than 100 young people the opportunity to travel overseas to Lebanon for the first time. It is absolutely fantastic, and great for them. I met those travelling in November at Glen of Imaal in County Wicklow for a night shoot last Monday.

The Deputy spoke about certain trends. The number of people who apply compared to the number who go through the whole process has been highlighted to the Public Service Pay Commission. It looks for trends and data, and we have submitted that information to the Public Service Pay Commission.

The Chairman asked about the Reserve Defence Forces, RDF. It forms a very important part of the Defence Forces. The current strength of the Army-enabled service reserve is 1,745 effective personnel. The Army Reserve is 1,650 and the Naval Service Reserve is 125. On recruitment, the Defence Forces are actively recruiting locally for the RDF in 2018, and to date there have been 1,363 applications to join the RDF, consisting of 1,153 for Army Reserve applications, 170 of whom are female, and 210 Naval Service Reserve applications, 31 of whom are female. Some 124 members have been inducted in the RDF in 2018 to date. The White Paper on defence highlights the importance of the RDF throughout. The first line reserve, as of 31 August 2018, has 272 people. The Chief of Staff appointed a colonel to look after the Reserves. Colonel Brian Cleary has moved on and another person has been appointed to that position who is in daily communication with the reserve units across the country, encouraging recruitment and making sure it is active and addressing any issues or problems members may have. This person was appointed in the last seven or eight months.

The Chair spoke about people who were relocated from various barracks following the reorganisation in 2012. We submitted information on that to the Public Service Pay Commission, and I know that during meetings between my Department, senior military management and the pay commission the issue is raised. The issue of people having to travel long distances, for example those based in Dublin or the Curragh in Kildare, or those who are based in Galway who have to travel, was also mentioned, and I assure the Deputy that those issues will be raised at future meetings with the pay commission.

I thank the Minister for the detailed outline of discussions. Does Deputy Wallace want to speak?

No. There are a few things I could take up with Deputy Kehoe but he would not like that and I would not like to upset him.

Perhaps the two Deputies could meet on home territory for a weekend. I thank the Minister of State for the detailed report he gave us on the issues raised at the informal and formal Defence Council meetings, and thank him for his exchange with the members of this committee. The issues are of concern to the committee and to the Permanent Defence Forces, and we look forward to ongoing dialogue with him on them.

The Chief of Staff has agreed to come before this committee, but that date has not been fixed yet. It will occur during this Dáil term. He had agreed to appear before the committee in July but we had to postpone the meeting because he had a commitment abroad and the timeline would have made it difficult for him to make an appearance on that occasion. The meeting will be held before Christmas.

The joint committee went into private session at 11.46 a.m. and adjourned at 11.53 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 15 November 2018
Top
Share