Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence debate -
Thursday, 20 May 2021

Vote 36 - Defence (Revised)

Apologies have been received from Deputy Stanton. On the Estimates for the public services 2021, the Dáil ordered that the Revised Estimates for public services in respect of the following Votes be referred to this committee for consideration: Vote 35 - Army Pensions; and Vote 36 - Defence. Today, the committee will consider those Votes. On behalf of the committee, I welcome the Minister for Defence, Deputy Coveney, and officials from the Department of Defence, who we cannot see but who are present. I thank the officials for the briefing material received by the committee. On behalf of members, I take this opportunity to thank the Department for its engagement with us over the past while and for its prompt replies to queries and submissions on the part of members.

The committee will with deal Votes 35 and 36 under programmes A and B. At the outset of the consideration, I will invite the Minister to give an overview of the Votes, outlining any pressures likely to impact on the Department's performance or expenditure in regard to the Votes for the remainder of this year. We will take the Votes in reverse order, starting with Vote 36 and followed by Vote 35 and then the floor will be open to members for questions and observations on each programme for both Votes. I ask that members put their questions on specific programmes in order that we can progress in an orderly and efficient manner.

I remind members 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, her or it identifiable. Members have received the briefing documents on the Revised Estimates - Votes 35 and 36 - from the Department and the committee secretariat.

I invite the Minister, Deputy Coveney, to make his opening statement on these Votes.

I welcome the opportunity to engage with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence to consider the 2021 Revised Estimates for public services, Vote 35 - Army Pensions; and Vote 36 - Defence. In this opening statement, I will set out the overall position and update members on some of the recent developments within the defence sector.

As members will know, the defence sector comprises two Votes: Vote 35 - Army Pensions; and Vote 36 - Defence. The high level goal of both Votes is to provide for the military defence of the State, contribute to national and international peace and security and fulfil all other roles assigned by Government. Accordingly, defence sector outputs are delivered under a single programme in each Vote.

The combined Estimates for defence and Army pensions for 2021 provide for gross expenditure of more than €1.07 billion, an increase of over €32 million, or 3%, on last year. The 2021 provision comprises €810 million for Vote 36, which is all of the broader defence issues, and an increase of €29 million on 2020 and more than €262 million for Vote 35 - Army pensions, an increase of €3.5 million. The Army pension Vote is a single programme entitled, provision for Defence Forces pension benefits. It makes provision for pay, pensions, allowances and gratuities payable to, or in respect of, former members of the Defence Forces and certain dependants. The 2021 Estimate provides for a gross sum of €262.7 million for the Army pension Vote, of which €253 million covers expenditure on superannuation benefits. Pension benefits granted are, for the most part, statutory entitlements once certain criteria are met.

During 2020, 290 Defence Forces members retired on pension. There are currently 12,780 pensioners paid from the Army pension Vote and this number continues to rise year-on-year as people are living longer. Against that background, I am pleased to inform members that the gross allocation for Army pensions increased by €3.5 million to almost €263 million for 2021. This builds on the previous funding increase of €10 million achieved in last year's Estimates. On the issue of pensions, I am pleased to say that I recently secured the approval of my colleague, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Michael McGrath, to pass on to the qualifying military pensioners the benefit of the increase in the military service allowance, effective from 4 July 2019. This increase was awarded to Defence Forces personnel on foot of the 2019 report of the Public Service Pay Commission. The work is ongoing on the calculation on the pension arrears involved.

I will turn now to Vote 36 - Defence, which is delivered under a single programme entitled, defence policy and support, military capabilities and operational outputs. The Revised Defence Estimate of €810 million for 2021 includes a pay and allowances allocation of more than €534 million. The pay allocation provides for the pay and allowances of up to 10,440 public service employees, including Permanent Defence Force personnel, civil servants and civilian employees. It provides for all outstanding commitments arising from the Public Sector Stability Agreement 2018-2020, along with the restoration of the 5% cut in Permanent Defence Force allowances imposed under the financial emergency measures in the public interest, FEMPI, legislation. The non-pay allocation comprises current and capital elements and the Revised Defence Estimate provides a non-pay current expenditure allocation of more than €144 million for 2021. This allocation provides, in the main, for expenditure on ongoing and essential Defence Forces standing and operational costs such as utilities, fuel, catering, maintenance, information technology and training.

The capital allocation provided in the Revised Defence Estimate is €131 million. This allocation has increased over recent years and demonstrates the Government's commitment to capital investment in the Defence sector. It will facilitate an ongoing programme of equipment replacement and infrastructural development. Comprehensive multiannual plans completed through joint civil-military work in the form of the defence equipment development plan and infrastructure development plan were published last year and are delivering on the White Paper on Defence policy commitments.

The White Paper on Defence has identified that demands on future capability will need to take account of climate change objectives. In that regard, defence remains fully committed to incorporating green procurement practices into all defence organisation procurements, in line with the overarching climate action plan objectives and in accordance with all applicable obligations in the fields of environmental law applying under national and EU law, as well as various international conventions on environmental law matters. The principal demand drivers of defence capital funding are the ongoing renewal, retention and acquisition of military equipment, along with the development of military infrastructure and information and communications technologies. The acquisition of military equipment is pursued through the equipment development plan and is based on White Paper objectives and provides a consolidated, structured basis for investing in military equipment to maintain and develop the necessary capabilities.

At present, a significant number of defence equipment programmes and projects are at various stages of development and include the ongoing upgrade of the Army Mowag armoured personnel carriers, the maritime patrol aircraft replacement programme, the purchase of military transport vehicles and the mid-life refit of two Naval Service vessels. In addition, an ongoing schedule of capital investment across a broad range of force protection, transport, communications, information technology, weapons and ammunition systems continues in 2021.

Similarly, an infrastructural development plan sets out the requirements for essential infrastructure development works over the medium term. This infrastructural investment, which has a strong regional or local dividend in terms of local enterprise and employment, seeks to ensure that all Defence Forces installations are fit for purpose, taking account of operational security and health and safety considerations. A significant level of defence built infrastructure projects, many of which involve buildings with historical significance and encompass accommodation, training and storage facilities, are at various stages of development from design and tender to construction. Those include: an upgrade of training facilities in Sarsfield Barracks, Limerick, and Stephens Barracks, Kilkenny; upgrades of accommodation facilities and various military installations, including the Defence Forces' training centre in the Curragh Camp and Defence Forces student accommodation in Galway, which is badly needed, McKee Barracks and the Naval Service base in Haulbowline; an upgrade to aircraft hangars in Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel; and the remediation of Spencer Jetty in Haulbowline. I called in to look at the progress at the jetty in the past ten days or so.

I will now briefly reference some of the many outputs to be delivered by the Defence Forces from the Defence Vote throughout 2021. The 2021 allocation will allow Defence Forces personnel to meet Government commitments on our overseas peace support missions and proudly represent Ireland abroad in diverse and often challenging locations around the world. As of 10 May, there were 561 Permanent Defence Force personnel serving in ten overseas missions around the world. This level of overseas deployment reflects Ireland's ongoing contribution to international peace and security and I thank our Defence Forces for their professionalism and commitment to their overseas roles. I hope to visit some of those missions by mid-summer.

At home, the funding provision allows the Defence Forces to continue to provide essential support for An Garda Síochána as requested across various roles, such as explosive ordnance disposal call-outs, Garda air support missions and Naval Service diving operations. It also enables the Defence Forces, as part of their aid to the civil authority role, to provide support to local authorities and to the HSE in their emergency response efforts. In what has been an unprecedented challenge to our country, the defence organisation has contributed and played a leading role in the national response to Covid-19 throughout 2020 and in 2021. This collective defence response involved Permanent Defence Force personnel, members of the Reserve, Civil Defence volunteers, civil servants and civilian employees within the Department. I thank them all for their resilience and support throughout what has been an anxious and uncertain period for us all. They have shown remarkable flexibility and professionalism in what they have been asked to do. I say that of the Department as well as the Defence Forces because members of both organisations have been phenomenal at a time of significant need when there have been big asks of them across multiple areas. I am happy to take questions about that, if committee members want me to.

Throughout the pandemic the Permanent Defence Force has continually provided significant and essential support to the HSE in areas such as contact tracing, patient transportation, logistics, vaccinations and Covid-19 testing. In terms of the financial impact, more than €18 million has been expended from the Defence Vote to date in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. This expenditure was incurred across a broad range of areas and includes, for example, the payment of additional aid to the civil authority allowances, to Defence Forces personnel, the acquisition of a new Pilatus PC-12 utility aircraft, additional expenditure on medical, engineering, building, personal protective equipment, audiovisual information technology, communication and transport requirements, and other additional Civil Defence and departmental requirements. All Covid-19-related expenditure was met from within the overall Defence Vote allocation in 2020 and to date in 2021.

The Defence Vote provides funding of more than €4 million for the Civil Defence in 2021. This funding supports Civil Defence units throughout the country by way of central training and the supply of vehicles, boats, uniforms and personal protective equipment for volunteers. Civil Defence volunteers provide essential support to efforts of the front-line services and had a highly visible role in dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Government also values the support of the Reserve Defence Force and the White Paper on defence highlights that there is a continued requirement to retain, develop and, I hope, grow the Reserve in the months and years ahead. On behalf of the Government, I commend the voluntary effort made by members of the Reserve Defence Force and thank them for their ongoing dedication and enthusiasm, particularly those who assisted in the Covid-19 response.

As members will be aware, pursuant to a commitment in the programme for Government, the Government established the independent Commission on the Defence Forces last December. The role of the commission is to examine structures for governance, joint command and control, the arrangements for the effective defence of the country and the composition of Defence Forces and their pay and allowance structures. The commission has been busy to date and I was delighted to observe a very productive and positive interaction between the committee chairperson and members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence at the meeting in April.

In addition, as a further part of a broad, ongoing consultative process, the commission is reviewing more than 500 submissions from individuals and organisations on matters relevant to the terms of reference. This level of response highlights the significant level of public interest in the broader issues with which the commission is being asked to deal. It is my hope that the commission's report, when published, will assist the Government in ensuring that our Defence Forces remain agile, flexible and adaptive in response to dynamic changes in the security environment, including new and emerging threats, such as from climate change and cybercrime, and in terms of seeking to develop a longer-term strategic vision for the Defence Forces. That applies not only to the Defence Forces' role in protecting the State and their international role, but also in presenting the Defence Forces as offering an attractive career path for people who want to choose them as a career option.

Aligning with the commission's role, I also want to advise members of the strategic review and development process currently under way within the Department. There is, in many ways, a parallel process here. There is a commission on the future of the Defence Forces and there is a review process of the Department, which is serious and robust. Both will report and conclude at the same time, which is appropriate for many reasons. This process, which will include, inter alia, a very comprehensive independent organisation capability review of my Department, allows for an objective assessment of the Department's capabilities and capacity to deliver on objectives and presents an opportunity for my Department to take positive action to address any gaps that may emerge from this review process. This process will be ongoing throughout the year.

The onset of the pandemic has forced a significant recalibration for all of us, as individuals and as organisations. However, through a combination of innovation, resilience and sacrifice, the collective national response, which encompassed significant defence inputs, has helped us to turn a corner. We can now start to look forward with real optimism to an easing of restrictions and a return to some semblance of normality across society.

I am very pleased with the significant overall level of funding of more than €1 billion provided to the defence sector for 2021. This allocation ensures that the Defence Forces will have the necessary level of resources to enable them to fulfil all the roles set by the Government and within the White Paper on Defence. Committee members have been provided with briefing material on both the defence and Army pension Estimates and I look forward to a positive engagement and to addressing any of the questions committee members might have. If there are technical or detailed questions that I cannot address today, perhaps committee members could send such questions on in writing or, as with previous meetings, if they want to follow up with telephone calls or meetings with me and various experts in the Department, we would be happy to do that.

That was quite a long introduction but hopefully it answers some of the questions from earlier on.

I thank the Minister. I now turn to members to put their questions on Vote 36, programme A, defence policy and support, including military and operational capabilities.

I acknowledge the efforts by the Minister and the Department in bringing forward the Estimates. I agree and fully support the comments by the Minister about the fantastic work by all members of the Defence Forces, and especially those on overseas missions and those engaged in efforts to tackle the Covid pandemic. I say a big well done to all members of the Defence Forces who actively participated in all of that.

The key issue affecting the Defence Forces is recruitment and retention. While the issue of pay and conditions are central to recruitment and retention, the financial answer to that question must be preceded by a political solution, namely, the freedom to associate with ICTU and the restoration of allowances. I spoke to the Minister in the Chamber last week on the issue of the 1994 service contracts. As we head into this debate, the number of members in the Defence Forces continues to drop. The 2019 to 2020 numbers have decreased again, which emphasises the problem and the huge issue of retention and recruitment. The ongoing under-staffing of the Naval Service and the Army remains a massive concern. I heard what the Minister said about the huge work the commission has embarked on, with more than 500 submissions. The commission will ultimately make its recommendations on all the matters that have been identified and that fit within the terms of reference. I am not entirely sure that we can hold our breath, however, and hope the political will that is required will actually follow to implement the recommendations that come. I hope to be proved wrong on that but we will have to wait and see.

Within the Naval Service, we have seen a 40% reduction in the number of patrols carried out since 2018. This is alongside a 12% reduction in the number of inductions to the Permanent Defence Force in the same period. Those issues are a major concern that need to be addressed.

I want to touch on the issue of cybersecurity. It must be said that the Defence Forces are playing a key role in the State's efforts to defeat hacking attempts of key systems. Over the past week we have seen how important all of that work is and the impact it is having on our health service. The Communications and Information Services Corps is the unit with responsibility for this and is supplying the HSE with a specialist team from within that it. Will the Minister respond to the claim put out that the unit has been subject to massive cuts over the past years? It has been suggested that it included the loss of a whole company of 50 personnel and that the unit is currently one third below strength. It has also been suggested that these cuts have savagely undermined the capacity within the Defence Forces to assist in the defence of our country against these types of cyberattacks. These cuts, along with the failure of the Government to introduce the necessary measures to retain the key skilled personnel, are absolutely devastating. This is despite agreeing in 2019 to introduce technical pay for the specially trained members of the forces, such as those in the Communications and Information Services Corps. Will the Minister clarify what provisions will be made to bring this unit back up to full strength to ensure it can play the critical role it is supposed to play?

I turn now to the measures to ensure there is gender equality within the Defence Forces and to the need to recruit more women into the Defence Forces. I congratulate Chief of Staff, Mark Mellet, and his team on the immense amount of work they have done on the issue. I congratulate also Lieutenant Aoife Campbell who last month replaced Commandant Gillian Collins as the new gender equality and diversity adviser to the Defence Forces. We, as a country, and the Government have identified women, peace and security as a key area for the duration of Ireland's membership of the UN Security Council, which must be commended. It is a fact that the more women involved in peacekeeping missions the greater the chances of maintaining peace. I raised this last week with the Minister in the context of Mali and the key role played by women who participate in those peace negotiations and agreements. It is critical. By achieving a figure of 35% involved in peacekeeping missions we can see tangible transformation. What measures are contained in the Government's plans to increase female members within the Defence Forces and overseas missions to allow them to build on the already fantastic contributions in combat roles and peacekeeping missions?

I thank Deputy Brady.

I thank the Minister and his team for coming in today and for the opening statement. The Defence Estimates are very clearly itemised. It is very insightful with regard to what is going on in the Defence Forces at the moment.

I will go through the Estimates one page at a time, starting with page 3 if that is okay. I will flag a few things. The strength of the Reserve Defence Force at 39% is appalling. If one was asked to run a school with 39% of teachers, or a hospital with 39% of nurses, one can imagine how dysfunctional that school or hospital would be. It is particularly poignant this year in light of what the Reserve Defence Force could have done during the pandemic and could have done last week during the cyberattack. They really have niche skills that could have been used very effectively. I am aware the Minister has inherited this problem and he is actively engaged in improving it, but those figures are absolutely stark. They do not require any forensic questioning of the Estimates because they just jump off the page and slap us in the face.

On page 3, it is very clear that even though there is quite a large reduction in the numbers of troops, there is detailed expression there that there has been no impact on operations whatsoever. This gives the false impression that even though the Defence Forces claim to be in crisis, they cannot really be in crisis because they are meeting all their operational objectives. Underneath those figures, however, we must realise that many people are working to the point of exhaustion and of burnout. I can speak with personal experience on that. One of the reasons people are leaving the Defence Forces is that so few people are doing so many jobs. They are absolutely exhausted.

The next point I would like to raise concerns sea fisheries patrols. There was a big reduction in 2020 by comparison with the previous year. It is stated there is no control plan and no defined target for Naval Service inputs for 2022. This is also a point of concern. The Minister might be able to comment on that.

The fourth point relates to quite good news. Page 4 refers to the Defence (Amendment) Bill, which I hope will be enacted this year. It is important from the point of view of the Reserve Defence Force. There is a plan to enact the Bill this year. I got very good advice from a gentleman in Portarlington many moons ago. He said, "If the Minister wants it to happen, it will happen." In fairness to the current Minister, he has grabbed the bull by the horns on this one and is bringing forward legislation. Is there a date for enactment? When will the legislation come back before the Dáil for approval on Report Stage? What is contained in it? It was indicated that it would give the Reserve Defence Force the ability to serve overseas. What would be the position operationally from training, sport and ceremonial perspectives? It was suggested that the legislation may contain crucial employment protection provisions for Reserve Defence Force personnel called up on active service. Will it? This would be very useful.

The next point I would like to raise is on page 5. It concerns Naval Service patrol days. As Deputy Brady quite rightly pointed out, there is a big reduction. There is a mitigating factor in that it is stated that 197 days were spent in support of the HSE in three dockyards - in Cork, Galway and Dublin - in respect of the pandemic but even that does not account for the drop-off. My concern is that a reduction in the number of Naval Service patrol days increases the number of gaps in our defences. We need our ships on patrol to address issues with drugs, weapons, fugitives, vulnerable persons and, crucially after Brexit, fisheries protection.

There is some good news on page 6. Subhead A13 refers to built infrastructure. A sum of €28 million accounted for the Estimate in 2020. Unfortunately, 25% of that budget was not spent. I accept that the building sites were closed last year on foot of a Government direction and I can understand the public health reason for that. There is an increase for 2021, up to €37 million. It is already nearly the end of May. I would be grateful the hear the Minister's thoughts on whether that €37 million can be spent as intended. As he is aware, the infrastructure deficit in the Defence Forces is huge. Many of the buildings are from the Victorian era and were inherited from the British armed forces. Therefore, every single euro allocated for infrastructure needs to be spent in this area, if possible.

The next point is a little more contentious so I will be as courteous as possible. Page 7 mentions the Civil Service and the number of civil servants in the Department. I am very much in favour of the Civil Service and Department of Defence but there is an anomaly in that the number of uniformed personnel, or front-line troops, in the Defence Forces has plummeted in the past ten years from 10,500 to 8,500. Unfortunately, the number of civil servants in the Department has increased. That is a red flag in any organisation. According to the Estimates, the number of civil servants in 2010 was 354. Last year, the number had increased by seven. It is incredible that the number of troops has dropped by 2,000 while the number of civil servants has increased by seven over a ten-year period. In any organisation, alarm bells should ring when the number of administrators is increasing and the number of front-line personnel is in free fall. That is the canary in the coalmine. I fully appreciate that there is a need for the Department of Defence and for staff therein doing Civil Service duties but when we see one number increasing and another plummeting, it should raise concerns.

I am aware that an organisational capacity review is taking place. I thank the Minister for mentioning that in his opening statement. My concern is that the review might recommend a further increase in Civil Service numbers. That would have a serious effect on morale in the uniformed services. They would be dealing with more micromanagement, perhaps, and more encroachment and bureaucracy. The role of the organisational capacity review should be to reduce the layers of bureaucracy rather than increase them or keep the status quo. I would be grateful to hear the Minister's thoughts on that.

Even in the three past years, the number of civil servants has increased by 8%. It has increased by 22 in the past three years while the number of front-line personnel has plummeted. That is an anomaly in any organisation. Perhaps we could work on this over time.

There is some good news on page 9. It states there should be 14 members in the Army nursing service. They would have been really useful during the pandemic. They could have gone into nursing homes and helped out with vaccinations and a myriad of other tasks. There are probably only three or four left. A nursing review has been ongoing for the past five years. It depends on who one speaks to. Perhaps the Minister could comment on it or indicate when it will be completed. What is the report likely to contain? The review has been going on for years and the number of Army nursing service staff has plummeted in the meantime. At present, many on-call nurses are being hired. These are really expensive from an organisational point of view so it would make more sense to regularise the nurses' employment contracts. There is a nurse in Kilkenny barracks whose contract has pretty much been renewed every 24 hours for the past ten years. If the position could be regularised and the nurse could be brought into the Army nursing service to have a regular job with full benefits, it would make a whole lot of sense.

There is a comment on page 9 to the effect that the ability to adopt and train recruits in 2020 was severely impacted by Covid. That is 100% correct. My answer is that we should put more emphasis on re-induction. The re-enlistment and recommissioning of former members of the Defence Forces are important. I have two points to make on that. First, a major impediment to getting former members of the Defence Forces back is that their pension abatement is not waived. Most people will be aware that when personnel leave the Defence Forces, they get a very small pension. Its value is between that of the dole and that of the pandemic unemployment payment. That is the kind of scale we are talking about. If a prison officer returns to the Prison Service, his or her pension abatement is waived. Based on a deal struck with the unions and the Minister for Education, Deputy Foley, only a couple of months ago, a teacher who returns to the teaching profession can work for 50 days every year without having his or her pension abated. Similarly, a healthcare professional who returns to the health service can work for 19 hours per week without having his or her pension abated. Is it likely that these policies will be extended to members of the Defence Forces? It makes perfect sense. The principle is exactly the same. Members of the Defence Forces are also public servants. The provision is deemed good enough for the prison officers, healthcare staff and teachers so it should be extended to military personnel. I would be grateful to hear the Minister's thoughts on that.

As mentioned by Deputy Brady, the 1994 contract is coming to a head now. We should try to hold on to the personnel as much as possible. There is no point in turning on the tap of recruitment if there is a big leaky hole in the bath or sink. Any sensible intervention the Minister could make in this regard would make a whole lot of sense. We should remember that most people who join the public service get a full-time job and have tenure for life, but it is not the same in the Defence Forces. Any latitude or flexibility that could be granted would make a big difference.

On page 11, there is another good news story. I acknowledge the work of the Minister and the Secretary General over the last few months to sort out the anomaly in regard to the pay of the Defence Forces Reserve. The FEMPI cuts have been restored, which is a positive news story. There should not have been any cuts in the first instance, but the matter was promptly rectified when brought to the Minister's attention.

At the bottom of this page is news that is not so good. The strength of the Defence Forces Reserve, which should be more than 4,000, has continued to plummet in the last three years and now stands at 1,588, which is probably generous. I understand the effective strength is probably below 1,000 at this stage. The Defence Forces Reserve could have been very useful during the pandemic. Our Permanent Defence Force is exhausted. The Defence Forces Reserve could have been brought in to do camp security barracks guard and thus allow the regular troops to deploy on operations from a pandemic point of view. I do not think any other European Union country would accept those numbers in their Defence Forces Reserve, or the trajectory in that regard. I appreciate that the Minister is trying to make in-roads through the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2020, but a more concerted effort is required to get the numbers and capability back up, particularly from a cyber perspective. Many members of the Defence Forces Reserve work in the cyber field in large big tech companies around Dublin. It would be ideal to hold onto those people, who are very patriotic. The number of cyberattacks will likely increase over time and we need to be prepared for that.

On page 13, there is another good news story in terms of the slight increase in the number of civilian employees. There should be 550 such staff but currently there are only 446, which means we are down about 100. These are key staff. Many of these people have never served in the Defence Forces, but some of them have, and they re-entered as technicians, mechanics, aircraft inspectors and so on. I have received a number of calls from former members of the Defence Forces who would love to rejoin as a civilian employee. These people are skilled armourers, aircraft technicians and mechanics, but they cannot rejoin because of the pension abatement. The introduction of a pension abatement waiver in this area, as happens in other areas of the public service, would result in a large number of former members of the Defence Forces rejoining and a use of the skills they were trained to use in the Defence Forces. If this was implemented, it would make a significant difference, particularly in the Curragh Camp, where much of the technical expertise is based.

Page 17 deals with Naval Service fuel costs. This appears to be dressed up as an improvement. The reduction in costs for the Naval Service, from a fuel perspective, was €1.5 million. For me, this is a bad news story because it means the Naval Service was not patrolling the seas, as it should have been doing, and the fuel bill reduced by €1.5 million in 2020. I take the point that at least two of the Naval Service ships that could have been put to sea were deployed in Galway and Dublin temporarily. Our Naval Service ships should be on the high seas rather than tied up in port for lack of personnel.

On page 19, again, there is a good news story in terms of the increase in the infrastructure spend for 2021 to €37 million. As we are almost half way through the year, how likely is it that that €37 million will be spent on infrastructure? My own view is that it will be difficult to spend that amount of infrastructure given building sites have been closed for four months. Are there alternatives or a plan B in regard to that spend from a capability perspective, if not on infrastructure? I was grateful for the Minister's comment a week or two ago that he is open to an multi-departmental approach to solving the infrastructural deficit in the Defence Forces. It would be a good move to get the Departments of Education, Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, Housing, Local Government and Heritage and Rural and Community Development and the OPW involved. In that regard, I would like to raise one matter with the Minister. The post office in the Curragh Camp is a historic building with massive heritage, but it is falling into disrepair. Kildare County Council is keen to use the town and village renewal scheme across the county. The old post office is owned by the Department of Defence. I would welcome the Minister's thoughts on tapping into that fund through Kildare County Council. My constituency team is meeting tomorrow to map out our plans for the post office and to put forward a proposal in that regard to Kildare County Council. Perhaps the Minister would arrange a meeting for us with the property management branch of the Department over the next few weeks at which we could firm up on what is possible in regard to the old post office. If we do not intervene soon, it will deteriorate further and open the doors for anti-social behaviour.

On page 23, there is another interesting statistic. In regard to travel and moving of stores and people abroad, the Defence Forces spent €1.74 million last year. That is a very expensive way of moving troops and cargo around. Would we not be better off purchasing our own organic capability from an aircraft perspective? If we are spending €1.74 million per annum in this area, would it not make more sense to invest in a strategic aircraft over a ten or 20 year timeframe? The aircraft would pay for itself overtime and also add a great deal more capability and flexibility not just across the Defence Forces, but Government. Rather than outsourcing that spend, we should in-source it and ensure maximum benefit across the public service.

I come now to page 24. I am very grateful to the Minister for addressing the issue of private healthcare for enlisted personnel, at a cost of €4 million, in the programme for Government. I accept it is expensive, but it is much less expensive than the cost of personal injury claims.

Page 27 deals with both a good news and bad news story in that it is about litigation and compensation costs. Approximately €7 million was spent on compensation claims last year. For me, this is unnecessary spend. Many of the compensation claims are medical claims, the reason being, that enlisted personnel who are injured in training exercises and operations receive emergency treatment free of charge through the HSE hospitals, but, if required, they have to pay for back surgery, knee surgery, MRI scans and CT scans. The only recourse they have then is to sue so that they or their families are not out of pocket. It would be helpful if the commitment in the programme for Government that private healthcare be extended to enlisted personnel, which is 11 months old at this stage, was implemented. This would result in savings for the State because the level of compensation would drastically fall. The vast majority of the compensation claims are to ensure that troops are not out of pocket. In regard to the €7 million paid out in compensation claims, statistically about 40% of those claims will go to legal fees. I do not think the Defence Forces should exist to pay the legal profession. The establishment of a compensation tribunal should be considered by the Minister and the Department. I refer to the model used by An Garda Síochána and the Irish Prison Service. As in the case of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board, PIAB, which is based in Cork, matters would be dealt with in a non-adversarial and non-legalistic way. This would save the Department a fortune in legal fees and, most important, it would result in swift and smaller pay outs for people who are deserving. If the Minister is not minded to establish a Defence compensation tribunal, consideration might be given to the Defence Forces linking into the model used by An Garda Síochána, which would then become a tribunal for gardaí and Defence Forces personnel. That would make a big difference from a compensation perspective and it would ensure that people who are injured would not be out of pocket.

I note that €1.5 million of the €7.5 million was for employment cases, rather than personal injury cases. Again, this begs the question as to whether we should be adopting this overly legalistic approach to solving employment cases. There is a conciliation and arbitration scheme in the Defence Forces' establishment. The findings of an adjudicator should be on a par with that of the Labour Court. The adjudicator's findings should be implemented and the matter not taken down the legal road because in doing so we are only feathering the nests of the legal profession, when the money should be going to the people who are deserving of it.

On page 28, there is a very good news story, or at least I think it is. On the grants to the veterans associations, I am not sure what the figures were last year but they seem to have increased this year which is a good thing. The amount is €411,00, which is very positive. IUNVA and the ONE will be very grateful for that. I am not sure of the breakdown but that appears to be an increase. Many people do not know this, but I suspect there are in excess of a 250,000 military veterans in the country, including former members of the Reserve Defence Forces and Permanent Defence Forces. That number is increasing over time. It is probably on a par with the GAA or the IFA in relation to the size of the network and constituency. I would not have become be a Deputy if it were not for that network. It is regularly overlooked. The veterans' network is huge and it must be supported. There are people in it with issues resulting from service and with medical issues. The veterans associations are the original Men's Shed. Any further support the Minister or the Department could provide would be greatly appreciated.

I am conscious of the time, Deputy Berry.

I am happy to finish and follow up with a written query.

I reckon we will have time for a second round. I acknowledge that many issues and questions were covered. I was quite liberal with time with Deputy Berry in particular, much to the detriment of Deputy Clarke. While I say to the detriment of Deputy Clarke, I hope it is not to her annoyance. I put it to her that we will revert to the Minister now to deal with the questions from Deputies Brady and Berry, and then come back to her with what should be a clean slate. If Deputy Clarke would like to come in at this stage, I am inclined to allow her, but I want to give another minute or 90 seconds to Deputy Berry, who I interrupted. How does Deputy Clarke feel about that? Should we go back to the Minister and then return to her?

I have no issue with Deputy Berry finishing his questions and contribution.

We will go back to the Minister after Deputy Berry and then give Deputy Clarke a clean slate for her questions. I will give Deputy Berry 90 seconds to two minutes to finish, and I will then return to the Minister. Deputy Brady, are you okay with that also? That is what we should do but I recognise the inconvenience to Deputy Clarke, notwithstanding the important contribution of Deputy Berry.

I thank the Chair and Deputy Clarke for her latitude and understanding. I think 60 seconds should be enough. On page 32, there is reference to receipts from occupation of official quarters. Some €90,000 was taken in rent. This proves that if we invest in military accommodation, it would not be a cost; it would actually be an investment because the Department would receive rent back. Something should be considered regarding married quarters. There are very few houses there and yet there is an income of €90,000 coming in under appropriations-in-aid, which is very important.

My last point is on appropriations-in-aid. Under receipts on discharge by purchase, €50,000 has been paid out by troops who have not fulfilled their full five-year engagement and are fined €300. These are people who have not gone to college or an educational establishment. They have only been taught how to march and shoot. I think this is an injustice. If the Minister could look into this and consider waiving the discharge by purchase system in the future, it would certainly help. As Members, we all sign up for a five-year term. If I leave today, I would walk out with a golden handshake, but if a private soldier walks out without having completed a five-year term, he or she would be handed an invoice for €300 or €900 depending on whether they have been taught to drive or not. There are all the questions I have.

I thank the Minister for hearing me out. I thank the Chair and Deputy Clarke for their latitude and understanding. It is much appreciated.

I am conscious that a large number of issues and a significant number of questions have been raised. I will call the Minister first and I will then call on Deputy Clarke to conclude the questions on Vote 36.

I want to flag that I will have to leave by 2.05 p.m. or 2.10 p.m. as I am speaking in the Dáil Chamber at 2.30 p.m. and I have to get over there. There is a lot of traffic because of the rain. I want to flag that at this stage rather than stopping someone speaking midstream at 2.05 p.m.

That is fine. It should allow for further contributions. I am particularly conscious of Deputy Clarke's position.

Given the number of questions I have been asked, I could keep going until 2.10 p.m. but, out of respect for Deputy Clarke, I will not do that I assure her. We must also consider Vote 35, but I think it is more straightforward. There are not anything like the same number of complications, as were in previous years, regarding shortages of fund for the pensions Vote. I think it is more straightforward.

Deputy Brady asked me about the ICTU issue. As he knows, within the Defence Forces organisations, there are differences of opinion on this. RACO's and PDFORRA's views on being formally associated with ICTU in the context of public sector pay negotiations is a source of ongoing discussion and debate. As I have said, I have an open mind on this. On balance, my view on this is that the setting up of a separate and independent pay review body for the Defence Forces makes sense, because a career in the Defence Forces is unique within the public service in terms of limitations on political lobbying and industrial action, and so on. The kind of service people commit to and the oath they take puts them in a slightly different category. We must take account of that in the context of the complexity of pay and allowances, and a take home package that is attractive enough for people to commit to a career with the Defence Forces. Whether or not associate membership of ICTU in someway compromises that, or compromises ICTU, is a source of ongoing discussion and debate. I will happily continue to talk to PDFORRA about this. I know it is pursuing a legal course of action on this issue.

On the pay and allowances issue, there is an outstanding discussion which is continuing with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform regarding the technical pay issue. Members who know about pay and allowances and commitments that have been made will know that there is an outstanding technical pay issue. We are trying to make progress on that. It has taken a long time but we continue to try to make progress on that with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

Deputies Berry and Brady have talked about the Naval Service and the number of patrol-duty hours. Let us be honest, we have a problem in the Naval Service with recruitment and retention. That has been the case for a number of years. We must fix it, and we are going to fix it. We are putting together a very ambitious plan to change those numbers. Ships have been tied up this year that would otherwise have gone to sea. Covid has added to that because we had to prioritise ships to set up testing facilities on quaysides in places like Cork and Dublin. That was a higher priority than fisheries protection. We made that call and that is what happens in the middle of a pandemic. That is why, when one looks at the patrol-duty hours, they are lower than they otherwise would have been because of both those reasons. Are we still doing a good job on fisheries protection? I think we are doing a pretty good job on fisheries protection. We have moved away from the memorandum of understanding with the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, which is the body that is answerable to the European Commission in terms of our sea-fisheries protection, the enforcement of the rules, and so on. We have moved away from a set number of hours that are committed annually to a risk and outcomes-based approach. That has given more flexibility of hours.

That does not mean it should be used as an excuse to drive down hours year after year, by describing that as a shift to a risk-based approach. We can do a lot in Air Corps surveillance, and a lot more data are available now for fishing vessels, which we can monitor in a much more accurate way than ten years ago. Anyone who visits the Naval Service and looks at the screens will see all the fishing boats in Irish waters under the Common Fisheries Policy. We have applied a risk-based approach, reflecting some of the challenges we have around sea-going capacity in our Naval Service fleet. We hope to get more ships to sea. To do that we are looking at the decommissioning of some vessels and the potential acquisition of vessels that could be crewed by a smaller number of crew, which could do as good if not a better job in terms of more modern vessels. These vessels are also much more efficient from a fuel perspective, which is a by-product benefit.

I do not shy away from the problems we have with the Naval Service numbers. We have great people in the Naval Service. It is a super career. I had very seriously thought of joining the Naval Service when I was leaving school but I did not do it for a whole series of reasons. We have an exciting plan for investment in new equipment and new ships. We are investing heavily in Haulbowline naval base, as we speak. The State has spent more than €30 million putting in the new People's Park as part of that, of which the Department of Defence has now taken ownership from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. The workplace on Haulbowline Island is improving all the time, in terms of quality of life and facilities, and will continue to improve through this year. We have a big capital expenditure programme there. I am on the case with regard to the problems in the Naval Service. I do not sugar coat the problem that is there. We are well below where we should be in numbers, but I hope to be able to turn that around in the next few years.

Everybody in the country is talking about cybersecurity at the moment because of what has happened with the HSE, the Department of Health and the attacks on the systems. If we do not manage it really well it will result in loss of life and huge inconvenience for patients. Hospitals are trying to manage a pandemic as well as significant increase in demand for healthcare over the last months. It is hugely demanding and now they are faced with this. We have a lot of good expertise in the Defence Forces. Cybersecurity is an issue with very significant implications. The response to cyber threats is a whole-of-government challenge, with the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications taking the lead role, through the National Cyber Security Centre, NCSC, and with inputs from An Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces. The primary role of the Defence Forces in cybersecurity relates to the defence and security of its own networks and systems, which I understand are well protected. During the current situation the Defence Forces have provided IT facilities for contact tracing, as requested by the HSE. I confirm that my Department has received briefings from NCSC on these incidents. As the situation is evolving and investigations are ongoing I will not make further comment at this time, because it is not appropriate to do so.

Officials from my Department and members of the Defence Forces are actively participating in the implementation of the national cybersecurity strategy. Officials from my Department are members of the steering group developing the public sector cybersecurity baseline standard. My officials and members of the Defence Forces are also actively involved in the preparation of a national cyber risk assessment, which will support the development of resilience in Ireland's national infrastructure. My Department has recently availed of Build to Share management desktop services.

In the interest of time, I suggest that the Minister would forward to rest of the note by way of email to the committee for the benefit of members.

On the actual strength of numbers, it is not true to say that we are one third down in staffing. There are some vacancies in the Communications and Information Services Corps, but there are also very strong contingents of people with a lot of expertise. We also have people on secondment in Tallinn, Estonia, which is the European research centre for cyber security response. We are very embedded in the national response and the cross-government response in cybersecurity protections. We are involved in this current incident also, working with the HSE and the Department of Health. I just want to give some reassurance around that.

We have made some progress in the area of gender equality. The last time I was in the defence role I spent a lot of time speaking to the Chief of Staff and the Secretary General about how we can attract more women into the Defence Forces. There has been a gradual improvement. In 2016 it was 6.2%; in 2017 it was 6.5%; in 2018 it was 6.7%; in 2019 it was 6.9%; and 2020 it was 7%. There is a gradual increase, but it is still only 7% of our Defence Forces. We must get that into double figures at least. Much thought is going into how we can make a career in the Defence Forces more attractive for women. It is working, but it is working far too slowly. It is one request I often get when I have conversations at the UN on peacekeeping. It is always asking if it could get more female peacekeepers from Ireland. In many of the very complex environments, which Deputy Berry will understand very well, and particularly in conflict and post-conflict management in parts of the world where sexual violence is being used as a tool of war, as well as being really good soldiers, female peacekeepers can do things that male peacekeepers cannot such as engaging with local populations and having private conversations that are often difficult and traumatic. We will continue to prioritise this and I thank Deputy Brady for raising it.

There are 600 women in the Defence Forces, which is a good story and can be made better. I would sum it up that way. I do not want to down play what we have done here. It is an improving situation. Ireland is one of the few countries in the world where it is an improving situation. Let us take the positives when they are there. When one considers the career of someone like General Maureen O'Brien, for example, and the role she continues to play, there are templates for hugely successful careers for women in the Defence Forces.

On Deputy Berry's 96 questions, I will get to them. I am joking, but the Deputy knows that I am happy to take a call from him at any stage on any specific questions. I will try to move through these questions quickly.

The strength of the Reserve Defence Force is nowhere near where it needs to be. There are a number of reasons for that. The main reason is why would a person join if he or she does not feel part of something that is active? Of course, some people will always want to join for the opportunities around training and career development, but ultimately I would like to see a broadening of the role for the Reserve, very much working in a complementary manner to the Permanent Defence Force at home and overseas. This is why the legislation is being amended, as we have proposed. We hope to have this done well before the end of the year. It is not complicated legislation. This element of the Reserve has become the focal point of that legislation now, rather than the other elements within it. I hope we will see a significant increase in numbers.

On some of the suggestions we have got, people who leave the Permanent Defence Force now are targeted as potential reservists in that they are given a brief on the Reserve and the options available to them. There is a genuine effort to attract new personnel into the Reserve but it is also a case of asking personnel who leave the Permanent Defence Force to consider joining the Reserve because their skill sets could be very useful, not just in a pandemic but more generally.

The Defence Forces are delivering on what they are asked to do but they have to work 120% more than they would otherwise have to. I take that point. I have heard it made during visits to various barracks and so on, and having spoken to leaders there about the multitasking of many Defence Forces personnel. Ultimately, we are a thousand personnel short of where we should be in terms of the overall Defence Forces number. The Naval Service experiences the really sharp end of the problem but it also features in the Air Corps and the Army. In some areas, however, we are not short at all. In others, there are many vacancies. This is not going to be solved overnight but it certainly needs to be solved in a sustained and planned way over a period. I hope the commission will be able to make a serious contribution by way of proposals in this regard. The idea that we are standing still or sitting on our hands on this issue is not true. There are many things going on, such as re-enlistment, recruitment, recommissioning and directly targeting people from the private sector. The latter initiative has been very successful in getting pilots back into the Air Corps, for example. There is a lot happening in this space but we need to do more. It is the job of the commission to consider this strategically.

On the question as to when we will see the legislation, I will introduce it as quickly as we can. Whether we will be able to complete it before the summer, I am not sure, but we will certainly try to get it passed before the end of the year. My target is to have it done before the commission reports, so it will have more options legally. What we do not want is for the commission to make recommendations on the Reserve and then for us to go through a 12-month process of legislation to facilitate that. The legislation allows us to do a lot more with reservists. I hope it will allow us to act quickly on the commission recommendations on the Reserve.

I believe I answered the question on the targets for the Naval Service. We do not have a target number of patrol hours. The arrangement with the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority is different. It is more qualitative and risk based but that is not necessarily an excuse for fewer hours; it is just a different approach.

On the question on whether we can spend €37 million on built infrastructure, I believe we can. There are currently infrastructure projects worth more than €53 million at different stages of development. This expenditure will increase as the programmes advance. It is projected that €100 million will be spent over the next three years and that €145 million will be invested between 2021 and 2025. There is no shortage of projects; it is a question of whether they can be delivered in the context of the disruption for which the pandemic has been responsible.

Capital expenditure for this year is likely to increase significantly beyond the estimated amount because there will be unspent money marked for current expenditure because we have enough in our Estimate for 9,500 serving personnel but we do not have anything like that number. Therefore, we have managed to solidify an agreement with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to transfer unspent money for salaries and allowances into capital and funds for other strategic investments. Our Estimate is probably an underestimate of what it is possible to spend in this area. I hope that gives us financial options. The main challenge is whether the Defence Forces and the Department of Defence can, working together, deliver the projects in a timely manner given the huge disruption so far this year, particularly affecting building projects.

On staff, it is a little unfair to make the case that the number in the Department is increasing and the number in the Defence Forces is decreasing as if Government policy were to increase the number of civil servants and reduce the number of serving personnel. That is not the case. We are bending over backwards to try to find ways to recruit more people into the Defence Forces and to limit the losses owing to people being targeted by the private sector. An increase of seven people in the Department is hardly a significant one. Believe me, they are hard-working, talented people. I work with them every day. As in other Departments, there has been a modest increase in the number of civil servants since the deep recession of ten years ago, during which the number of civil and public servants generally was reduced. The growth in civil servant numbers is very modest. The civil servants are working in a very focused way to help the Defence Forces to recruit more people. The better the teams in the Department, the more we will be able to improve the prospects for recruitment to the Defence Forces and have less churn in terms of losses. There are some signs of positivity based on the numbers of personnel leaving the Defence Forces last year and this year by comparison with previous years. There have been challenges associated with recruitment and training because of Covid restrictions, which have been a genuine problem. The Defence Forces are trying to respond to that.

I must intervene although I am conscious of the Minister's need to give a comprehensive reply. Several questions are outstanding so the Minister might drop a note to the committee on them because we have to move on to the pensions Vote. I am very keen to hear from Deputy Clarke. I will call her now and then return to the Minister briefly, based on his agreement to furnish in writing the many outstanding replies to Deputy Berry.

I must have miscounted Deputy Berry's questions. I believed there were 102, not 96. I do not intend to go back over questions that have already been asked. I thank Deputy Berry for his generosity in that regard. I very much echo his concerns about the Defence Forces. The numbers are deeply concerning. The Minister might address the Civil Defence and the funding of €4 million that is being provided. I note there was under-expenditure in 2020 and I note also, with some concern, that there has been a significant drop in the number participating in courses, seminars and exercises. I am concerned for constituencies like mine, which rely heavily on the Defence Forces and Civil Defence when it comes to issues such as flooding. They have played a significant role in this area in recent years.

I want to touch on subheads A10 and A17, which concern military transport and Defence Forces logistics and travel, respectively. In one case there is a decrease, and in the other there is a significant increase. Can the Minister go into some detail on how the climate Bill will affect these two subheads of the Estimates? What is the impact of the reorganisation that took place several years ago on the increasing travel demands being placed on members of the Defence Forces?

I would like to move on to Defence Forces communication and IT.

A quick glance over the documentation provided today would say to me this is an area that is looking at a significant decrease, in fact one that is very closely behind the payments being allocated to relatives of those in the War of Independence. It is one of the highest levels of decrease. I have to put it to the Minister that in many ways this is not reflective of a modern defence force. We should be seeing increases in spending on technology as the work undertaken by the Defence Forces changes and modernises in line with the rest of society.

Which heading is the Deputy speaking about?

This is heading A15 on communication and IT. It is an area where we should be seeing increased spending year on year simply because of the changing nature of the environment in which the Defence Forces work.

I know we are under time pressure and I want to move ahead quite swiftly. With regard to medical care and support and the increase in the Estimate for litigation and compensation costs, when we look at this in comparison with A5, which is under Vote 35, regarding allowances for compensation payments, how does the Minister square this circle? We are seeing a decrease in allocation for medical and healthcare supports and an increase for litigation and compensation costs but we are not seeing an increase in the allowance for compensation payments. This is something that needs to be looked at again. With regard to these compensation costs and payments, what alternative non-adversarial models has the Department looked at to reach a quicker outcome that meets the needs of the person and the Department and limits the amount of money that needs to be spent on legal fees? Often, in my experience, resolution can be found much quicker and much more easily where there is active negotiation and communication.

The Minister mentioned briefly there has been an agreement with regard to an underspend being almost ring-fenced into defence and this is very positive. The Minister also mentioned buildings of historical significance. How much money is being allocated this year for barracks that are closed and for the maintenance of historic buildings to ensure they do not go to such a low level that essentially they are worthless or useless, or that we lose all of their historical aspects?

I thank the Deputy. The total number of active Civil Defence volunteers as of today is 2,793. The total budget for Civil Defence from the Department in 2021 is €5.64 million. This includes €1 million from the dormant accounts fund, which is used to upgrade the Civil Defence fleet. This allocation will ensure the Civil Defence continues to perform its core function of supporting the principal response agencies, as set out in the Civil Defence - Towards 2030 policy, which was launched last year. We continue to support the Civil Defence and it is playing a significant role again this year in the voluntary work it does. Our funding is primarily about ensuring it gets the right equipment and training to be able to do the job and we remain strongly supportive of the work it does.

Climate action is important across all aspects of Government now, even in defence. If we look at what we are doing here, we are investing in the energy proofing of our buildings and we have a significant number of buildings. Improving energy efficiency and the energy management of our portfolio of buildings is important. We use electric vehicles where possible but there are some vehicles for which this does not work. We are not likely to have an electric Mowag any time soon. This does not mean that in terms of many of the transportation vehicles we cannot look at more emissions-efficient vehicles. We are also using green energy where possible. This will be factored into procurement discussions and choices, as it will for every Department.

With regard to communications and information technology, the outturn for last year was a lot higher than this year's Estimate. I am told that if the outturn this year is higher than the Estimate as it was last year then we will spend more money as needed. When we look at the list of areas where we are spending money, including computer and data preparation, equipment, printing, photocopying, signal equipment and maintenance and telecommunications services, they are in contract cycles so we will sometimes have higher expenditure and sometimes lower expenditure. I assure the Deputy, and I have been very clear with the chair of the Commission on the Future of the Defence Forces on this, that I expect it to look in a very serious way at cybersecurity as one of the key priorities in future planning for the Defence Forces, in terms of their own systems and contributing to the national challenges on this. I do not think money or funding will be a problem in terms of this issue. The challenges will be skill sets and recruitment. The Deputy can take from me that the actual hardware and equipment and the housing of those personnel will not be a problem. It is about the skill sets. We already have many skilled people in the Defence Forces but we probably need more. Believe me, there is a lot of competition for people who are talented and educated in this area.

On the compensation issue-----

It is under A18 and A21.

I am told there is no real relationship between compensation and ongoing medical costs per se. We have an arbitration process in the Defence Forces that works reasonably well. I make a point of committing to the recommendations that come through this system and the same goes for the ombudsman. If there are better ways in which we can make decisions that avoid court cases I am totally open to it. There is too much litigation linked to the defence family, if we want to call it that. There are also a lot of protected disclosures that we have to think about how we address in terms of systems in the Defence Forces. This has less to do with the Department and much more to do with the Defence Forces per se, whereby people feel they have not been treated fairly or that decisions were made that did not follow full procedures. Within the Defence Forces we have many procedures and structures and we need to find a way of not tying ourselves up in knots when we do not need to with regard to litigation and protected disclosures. Of course, there has to be a transparent and confidential outlet for people also who feel they have been unfairly treated.

That is important, particularly among Defence Forces personnel and working in a structured environment which needs to protect people as well as systems.

I am going to bring this section to a conclusion because of the time situation. The Minister can respond to Deputy Berry's question in writing.

We will now deal with Vote 35, Army pensions.

It is pretty straightforward this year. There is no funding shortfall.

That concludes Vote 35, provisions for Defence Forces pension benefits and appropriations-in-aid.

I will bring matters to a conclusion in accordance with the Minister's desire to be in the Chamber soon. Again, I want to acknowledge the constraints that we are operating under with regard to Covid in terms of not having people present and our time strictures.

I thank the Minister and his officials for attending and for dealing with questions. On my own behalf and that of members, I acknowledge this has been a difficult year for the Defence Forces with the challenges of Covid in particular. They have made a great contribution over a wide range of issues directly related to the pandemic. The committee is most grateful for the leadership and endeavour shown by the Chief of Staff, the Defence Forces and officials in the Department of Defence. Their contribution to logistics, testing and the ongoing vaccination programme, along with the assistance to the civil power has been quite remarkable. I know it will continue.

Top
Share