Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence debate -
Thursday, 30 Jun 2022

Reports on Service by the Defence Forces with the UN and Permanent Structured Cooperation Projects: Motions

Chairman

I welcome the Minister for Defence, Deputy Simon Coveney, to our meeting to consider a motion referred to the select committee by Dáil Éireann in relation to the report by the Minister regarding service by the Defence Forces with the UN in 2020 and 2021, and to consider a motion referred to the select committee by Dáil Éireann in relation to Ireland's participation in four permanent structured cooperation projects, PESCO, projects. I am pleased to welcome the Minister, Deputy Coveney, and officials from the Department of Defence, and thank them for their briefing material.

The proposed format of our meeting is that for first hour or so we will hear opening remarks from the Minister in relation to two reports regarding service by the Defence Forces with the UN and will open up to the floor for questions from members of the committee. This will be followed by further opening remarks from the Minster, Deputy Coveney, in relation to Ireland's participation in the four permanent structured cooperation, PESCO, projects. We will again open up to the floor for questions, observations or issues that committee members wish to raise.

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 or body outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her or it in any way identifiable.

I was going to say that I welcome some old friends, but if I said that maybe some would take exception.

(Interruptions).

Chairman

Those in the Public Gallery are very welcome. They are always welcome to the precincts of the House of the Oireachtas.

I call on the Minister for Defence, Deputy Coveney, to make the first opening statement regarding service by the Defence Forces with the United Nations.

Minister for Defence (Deputy Simon Coveney)

I thank the Chair and members. I am pleased to report to the committee on the participation of the Irish Defence Forces in United Nations missions in 2020 and 2021. These reports were laid before the Dáil on 21 June 2021 and on 30 March 2022, respectively. The following motion were placed on the Order Paper for Dáil Éireann and have been referred to this committee. The first one is that Dáil Éireann approves the report by the Minister of Defence regarding service of the Defence Forces in the United Nations in 2020, a copy of which was laid before the Dáil on the 21 June 2021 in accordance with section 13 of the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006. The second one is that Dáil Éireann approves the report by the Minister for Defence regarding services of the Defence Forces with the United Nations in 2021, a copy of which was laid before the Dáil on 30 March 2022 in accordance with section 13 of the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006.

In commending the motions, I want to briefly outline some of the key aspects of Ireland's involvement with the UN in 2020 and 2021. There are currently some 546 Defence Forces personnel serving overseas in nine different missions around the world. During 2021 and 2020, notwithstanding the significant challenges presented by Covid-19, our Defence Forces personnel deployed as usual to UN-led and UN authorised missions. The exceptional circumstances of the pandemic required rotating troops to quarantine in military installations for a two week period immediately prior to their departure and again on arrival in the mission area.

I will start with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL. The UNIFIL mission in southern Lebanon, where Ireland as lead nation partners with Polish, Hungarian and Maltese troops, represents Ireland's largest overseas peace support deployment. I have had the opportunity to visit our troops in the Lebanon twice in the last six months. Most recently, just last month I accompanied the Taoiseach on a visit to the UNIFIL mission to mark the International Day of UN Peacekeepers. The valuable contribution the mission and our troops are making to international peace and security in the Middle East was, and is, very evident.

The United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, UNDOF, is Ireland's second largest overseas deployment and is on the Golan Heights. A contingent of the Permanent Defence Forces has been deployed to UNDOF since 2013 and the presence of the mission remains an important element in ensuring the continued ceasefire between Israel and Syria and in the wider Middle East region.

The next is the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali, or MINUSMA as it will be known to most members. Last year the Government approved the continued provision of up to 14 Defence Forces personnel to participate in MINUSMA, drawn primarily from the Army ranger wing. The United Nations led operation in Mali will be until 30 September 2022. All deployed personnel are embedded with a larger German company and are carrying out assigned tasks in accordance with the mission's mandate. Having originally deployed for a period of two years, which was subsequently extended for a third year, our participation in this mission will conclude in September this year.

The United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, MONUSCO, and the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara, MINURSO, are primarily staff or military observer missions with Ireland's personnel providing a valuable role in monitoring ceasefires and avoiding any escalation in these important but volatile regions. Following a review of overseas deployments in 2021, a decision was taken to withdraw the two Defence Forces personnel deployed to MINURSO, in western Sahara, and end Ireland's involvement in this mission. The withdrawal of these personnel arose from a need to consolidate operational deployments in the context of additional commitments to peacekeeping entered into by Ireland in recent years. It certainly does not represent a change in policy towards Western Sahara.

Other UN mandated missions in which Defence Forces personnel were deployed in 2020 and 2021 include the EU mission to train the armed forces in Mali, known as European Union Training Mission, the EUTM; EU-led mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina, or EUFOR as it is known; and the NATO-led international security presence in Kosovo or KFOR, as it is known.

Ireland is in its second year on the UN Security Council and while membership of the Security Council is an honour, it also brings with it great responsibility. Since January 2021, we have engaged actively across the Council's broad agenda and played a constructive role in bringing pragmatism and principle to the Council table, not least during our Presidency of the Council last September. In September 2021, I presided over the unanimous adoption of a UN Security Council resolution, spearheaded by Ireland, on peacekeeping. For the record, it is only the second ever Irish-led resolution that has been passed in the Security Council, which is interesting. UN Security Council Resolution 2594 was the first UN Security Council resolution devoted to the transition from peacekeeping to peace-building in countries - in other words, how you manage your exit while supporting and maintaining stability in a former conflict zone. It is an area where Ireland is developing quite a lot of credibility working in partnership with other UN members. Between now and the end of our term, we will continue to play a constructive and thoughtful role and support the vital work of promoting peace and international security.

In conclusion, I commend the members of the Defence Forces on their commitment to overseas service. I thank them for their significant contribution to UN peacekeeping. In many ways, they are Irish ambassadors in uniform in parts of the world that are volatile and sometimes dangerous. They are protecting and supporting people who they have never met and, in some cases, they never will meet, in parts of the world that need a UN peacekeeping presence which Ireland has been involved in every day for 60 years. I know the committee members will agree with me when I say that our Defence Forces personnel serving in missions to date, have built up an outstanding reputation as committed, conscientious professional and humane peacekeepers.

Without their loyal and continuing support, Ireland's strong tradition of service overseas under the auspices of the UN simply would not be possible. I commend the motions to the committee and I am happy to take any questions that members might have.

Chairman

I thank the Minister. To clarify, I proposed at the outset that we deal with the UN material over the first hour or so and then move to the PESCO material, keeping them entirely separate but ensuring that in the course of the afternoon we would give adequate debate to both topics and the motions. If members are happy with that, I am pleased to call on Deputy Brady.

Deputy John Brady

I thank the Minister and I broadly support what he has said, particularly in paying tribute to the members of the Defence Forces who have bravely done great service to this State with our overseas missions. There have been over 70,000 individual tours of duty carried out by members of the Defence Forces, which is a phenomenal record and something of which we should be very proud. It has built up the soft power that we as a small nation have created across the globe. It is something we should and can build on as an active neutral country. That is as opposed to any move towards being a militarily-aligned country. It is something I want to see further developed.

It should be said, nevertheless, that there are difficulties and the Minister is acutely aware of these, particularly when a representative body like the Representative Body of Commissioned Officers, RACO, has said quite recently that our obligations to the UN are at serious risk because of the recruitment and retention difficulties within the Defence Forces. They are jeopardising our involvement in some of these missions. Will the Minister comment on that? I know the commission report will be central to this matter and particularly retention issues. We are currently 1,000 members of the Defence Forces short of the establishment numbers. Will the Minister speak to the difficulties we are currently experiencing or whether the Minister sees any difficulties in meeting that mandate?

Following from that is the question of mandatory selection for some of the missions because of those difficulties with numbers. That in itself is creating difficulties for members of the Defence Forces who have just returned from overseas deployment. Due to the shortage of skilled or qualified personnel in different areas, members are being selected on a mandatory basis for deployment. That creates its own challenges in family and personal lives, as well as everything that goes with it.

I asked the Minister via a parliamentary question what records are kept about mandatory selection for deployment, along with appeals upheld or overturned. It was quite shocking that there is no centralised system of recording that information. It was indicated in the reply to the parliamentary question that a system would be put in place to record the information on how many appeals were taken by members of the Defence Forces on mandatory selection and whether the appeals were upheld or overturned. Will the Minister give us an update on that, because this has a major impact on both individuals and families?

I will also touch on the training mission to Mali. In his opening statement the Minister indicates it is due to end in September.

Deputy Simon Coveney

No. The UN mission in Mali is due to end in September. The training mission is not due to end.

Deputy John Brady

Okay.

Deputy Simon Coveney

There are two missions in Mali. There is the UN mission-----

Deputy John Brady

There is also the EU training mission.

Deputy Simon Coveney

-----involving the Ranger wing and two support staff. There is also the EU training mission. We are ending our involvement in the UN mission in September.

Deputy John Brady

Okay. I will speak to the EU training mission. The Minister is acutely aware of the difficulties in Mali and the involvement of the Wagner Group Russian mercenaries there. We were part of training troops in Mali and it is widely reported they were involved with all sorts of horrendous crimes, including murder and butchery, and that included members of the Wagner Group. The French have pulled out of that training mission and it has certainly put Irish troops in a difficult position.

What is the situation with that training mission? It must be said, as my party did at the outset, that it breached the triple lock mechanism we have in place. I know the Defence (Amendment) Act was introduced in 2006 to allow that type of training mission to take place but the training mission had no Dáil approval whatsoever to allow our troops to participate. Will the Minister give his view on that? It breached whatever limited safeguards we have in place with the triple lock because there was no Dáil approval.

I ask specifically about the triple lock, which gives us limited protections for our neutrality. The Minister and other members of the Government are on record saying they do not believe it is fit for purpose and there are serious challenges there. In light of the Minister's comments on the triple lock mechanism and the protections for our neutrality and deployment of troops abroad, what does he foresee being put in place if he and others in the Government had their way in abolishing the triple lock mechanism?

Chairman

In the past we have taken a number of questions first.

Deputy Simon Coveney

There were many questions in that contribution.

Deputy Sorca Clarke

I agree with the Minister.

Chairman

I am conscious that Deputy Clarke is the spokesperson. If members are happy, we can deal with Deputy Brady's questions first. Everybody will have an opportunity to put questions.

Deputy Simon Coveney

I suspect the reply to some of Deputy Brady's questions may inform some of the other questions. I thank the Deputy for paying tribute to the Defence Forces, whose members do an extraordinary job, particularly overseas. I have been to UNIFIL five or six times now and every time I am impressed by the relationship it has with local communities and how trusted those personnel are with local communities and the Lebanese armed forces, for example. They are doing a great job there. I have also been to the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, UNDOF, although not recently because one cannot get to UNDOF now without going through Damascus, which is impossible for a Minister. It is unfortunate that it is almost impossible to visit our troops in UNDOF but I get reports from there. I have been to the training mission in Mali as well. Again, our troops have done a really good job there.

The Deputy is right in outlining the difficulties we have and we do not have as many people in the Defence Forces as we need in order to operate to the establishment number. That has put pressure on our systems and not only with the Naval Service, as is well documented now with regard to ships.

There were also pressures on the Air Corps and there has been pressure on the Army. They have done well to manage that pressure in terms of shortages of people. Certainly, some specialties have caused difficulty and that has resulted in some of the people on rotation being there under mandatory selection rather than voluntary selection. That is not where we want to be. However, it is important not to give the impression that everyone who is overseas is there on a mandatory basis as they are not. I have spent quite a bit of time speaking to our Defence Forces personnel overseas about these issues and the vast majority are very happy to be there and want to be there, and most of the people who are there under mandatory selection also recognise that there are pressure points that they are being asked to help resolve until we get the numbers up to where they need to be.

I do not have detail of the numbers in terms of the number of appeals around mandatory selection but I can try to get that for the Deputy - I will have to ask the Chief of Staff for that. I want to recognise that it is an issue but also that the overall picture in terms of overseas service continues to be remarkably positive. Clearly, we need to get at least our establishment number back to where it should be. I also suspect that the commission report’s recommendations will be accepted by the Government on the issue of increasing the establishment number, or I certainly hope that will be the case in the next couple of weeks, when I bring recommendations to the Government. In my view, we need a bigger Defence Forces with more resources so we can address the pressure points that the Deputy recognises and go on to do more, because there is a huge appetite in the Defence Forces for peacekeeping overseas.

I would also like to mention that, over the next decade or so, we will see the kind of missions that we commit to changing and probably see them becoming more complex. As Ireland's reputation is so good in terms of peacekeeping, I think we will see the UN ask us to be involved in more Chapter VII missions, which effectively are peace enforcement missions. They are, by their nature, more challenging in terms of training, equipment and everything from the grade of armour to the firepower, and so on. That takes time in terms of investment and training, and building up for those kinds of more complex Chapter VII missions which I suspect Ireland will be asked to contribute to in the future. Unfortunately, we are not short of conflicts around the world where there is going to be a need for peacekeeping intervention, and the best countries need to be there, particularly for the most complex missions, when those missions are justified, of course.

I want to give that background and context in terms of the work that is ongoing between the Department and the Defence Forces and in terms of our civil-military teams assessing not only where we are this year and next year, but where we might be in 2027 in 2028 in terms of future peacekeeping missions and so on. That kind of planning is necessary because the processes of upgrading, training and new equipment, and the associated tendering processes and procurement, takes years with regard to defence equipment.

In terms of the European Union Training Mission, EUTM, we did not ignore the triple lock because as this is a training mission, it did not require the triple lock, or that is my understanding of it anyway.

Deputy John Brady

The Government brought in an amendment to the legislation to bypass the triple lock.

Deputy Simon Coveney

No, we did not.

Deputy John Brady

That is the case.

Deputy Simon Coveney

It is just like the situation where we did not need to go through a triple lock process to send a ship to the Mediterranean because it was not a UN mission. It was a bilateral support mission with the Italians that was based on a humanitarian cause that needed and benefited from an Irish intervention and that pulled 16,000 people out of the sea to save their lives. I hope the Deputy is not suggesting we should not have done that because we did not have a triple lock. There are certain times when the triple lock in terms of the UN mandate is not necessary. I have always been upfront and, on any decision I have made as Minister for Defence, I am very happy to go before the Dáil, the Seanad and the committee to explain and to argue the rationale. There are no quiet decisions to do something without fully testing politically those decisions, and that goes for the training mission in Mali or for any of the other decisions I have made.

We have signalled clearly now to the UN that we will not be continuing our presence in the UN mission in Mali and, to be honest, we are keeping our EU training mission under pretty close watch too. Things are changing in Mali and not for the better. Our security assessment in Mali has not changed as to the threat levels but we need to be very aware of what has been happening politically in Mali, which is moving in the wrong direction. The current government is there on the basis of a coup that followed another coup, and it does not have a democratic mandate and has not given the kind of timelines that should be expected in terms of elections and so on.

Deputy John Brady

The coup was carried out by troops that were trained by the EU.

Deputy Simon Coveney

No, the training-----

Deputy John Brady

It is a fact.

Deputy John Brady

I am sorry, what is the Deputy suggesting?

Deputy John Brady

I am just making a factual point, that is all.

Deputy Simon Coveney

Troops, as is always the case in terms of the military, will follow orders. Our job in Mali has been to train troops predominantly to try to de-mine certain areas and to try to protect themselves and the civilians they are there to try to protect from some pretty unsavoury forces across the Sahel and Mali. That is what they have been there for. I would not like the kind of slur that the Deputy has just attributed to them-----

Deputy John Brady

It is not a slur on anybody. It is a factual point.

Deputy Simon Coveney

To say that our troops actively trained the people responsible for the coup, I think, is something that maybe Sinn Féin should consider.

Deputy John Brady

Troops that were trained-----

Deputy Simon Coveney

Deputy Brady had his say.

Chairman

I will allow Deputy Brady in.

Deputy John Brady

Troops that were trained by this EU mission participated in the coup that overthrew the Government there. That is fact. That is not a slur on my behalf.

Deputy John Brady

It certainly is.

Deputy John Brady

I am stating the facts, that is all.

Chairman

Allow the Minister to respond, without interruption.

Deputy John Brady

It did not get any approval by this Dáil.

Deputy Simon Coveney

The point I am making is that we have been training troops for all of the right reasons. The people who are responsible for the coup are at a different level entirely and the Deputy should not be making the connection between the two, given the accusation that comes from that.

In regard to the continuing presence, we are likely to see some changes to that EU training mission but, for now, the view in the EU is that maintaining a presence there is still more beneficial than leaving. There are, of course, real concerns in regard to the presence of the Wagner Group, which is effectively a Russian-backed mercenary group that has huge resources and has a real and corrosive impact in different parts of Africa and, increasingly, in Mali. There is no way we can stand over training troops to operate in parallel with the Wagner Group. Obviously, those considerations are being managed at an EU level at the moment and Ministers are being kept informed. For now, we are there but we will keep that mission under close review.

In terms of the triple lock more generally, what I have said is that I cannot recall a time when the triple lock has prevented us from sending Irish Defence Forces personnel and peacekeepers to a part of the world where we believe they can make a positive contribution and, therefore, it has not not been a big priority for me to change. Theoretically, though, the triple lock is a problem. Are we happy with a situation where, effectively, a member of the permanent five on the Security Council can veto where Ireland chooses to send its Defence Forces personnel, particularly given what is happening at the moment in the context of Russia's aggression in Ukraine?

If, for example, Russia decided not to allow the mandate in Bosnia and Herzegovina to continue just because it did not like it, would that mean that Irish troops would have to leave? These are questions that we have to have an honest discussion around.

I am a big believer in Irish neutrality in the context of military non-alignment. I am not proposing that we change that. However, I am proposing that Irish neutrality - it does not mean political neutrality, by the way - should allow Ireland to decide where and when we send our troops. I do not believe that we should be prevented from doing so by a decision that may be made in the Kremlin or any of the other capitals of the Security Council's permanent five members, P5. That is a potential future problem with the triple lock. It has been a theoretical issue that people have raised at various times in recent years, but it has never been as real a potential blockage as it is now in terms of UN mandates to maintain peacekeeping missions and create new ones, given the tension that there currently is within the Security Council, which makes it difficult to agree anything. The triple lock may become a problem. We have to be open to changing it and honest about how we do that while protecting what we want to protect.

A Government decision, a Dáil decision and some other mechanism that can ensure that our peacekeeping missions are in the spirit of the UN and what it is trying to do around peace support and peacekeeping are important. I hope that, at the start of the next term, we can have a discussion on the matter. This is not about trying to undermine the basis on which we send troops abroad for peacekeeping purposes. Rather, it is about the practicalities of not being vetoed by a country or countries that have a different perspective to us on world affairs in terms of peacekeeping and conflict. I am afraid that we are being reminded of that every day in the images we are seeing from Ukraine.

That is my issue with the triple lock. Most Irish people would say "No" if asked whether they were happy that Russia had a veto over where Irish troops went, but that is effectively what the triple lock could mean if the relationships and difficulties on the Security Council remain as they are.

I believe I have covered most of the questions.

Deputy John Brady

The difficulty is you are better off having people within the UN than outside it. Removing the veto has consequences. That is a challenge. I agree with some of what the Minister has said, but serious questions should be asked about the impact that removing the veto would have. That there is a UN in the first place is because the permanent five and the veto were put in place. Reforming that while also keeping all of the players in the room poses serious challenges.

Deputy Simon Coveney

Yes, but that is a challenge that is way outside of Ireland's control.

Deputy John Brady

Absolutely.

Deputy Simon Coveney

Regarding the triple lock, we can control what we want to control when it comes to Irish troops, where they go, how long they stay there and what mandate they operate under. Controlling that is our job as the Government, the Oireachtas and so on. I am not happy that Ireland has to rely on the approval of some of the P5 member states for mandates for future peacekeeping missions, given the behaviour of one of the P5 countries right now.

Deputy John Brady

Is the Minister suggesting that we operate outside of a UN mandate?

Deputy Simon Coveney

No. What I am saying is that there are other mechanisms that we could use to reassure Irish people that we are sending troops on missions that are consistent with the objectives of the UN, those being, peace support and peacekeeping. Perhaps we can have that debate in the autumn; we are not going to have it now. I am just signalling that there are issues that we have to be mature enough to recognise and discuss without going down the avenue of claiming that the end of the triple lock means an end of Irish neutrality. That is just nonsense. As the Minister for Defence, I cannot stand over a potential situation where someone in the Kremlin decides whether Irish troops can stay in a peacekeeping mission because he or she refuses to renew a mandate. I do not believe that the Defence Forces should be put in that position.

There are other ways in which we can provide the reassurance that I hope will keep a very large majority in the Dáil comfortable with the basis on which we make decisions to send Irish troops abroad. I am happy to return to the committee in the autumn to go through some of the details on how we might be able to do that better.

Chairman

I am conscious of the fact that we are not debating that issue exclusively today, but I welcome the Minister's comments. I also welcome his remarks about the likelihood of our having a debate in some detail on the specific issue of the triple lock mechanism at some future date. In the meantime, we will return to the important issues on the motions. I give the floor to Deputy Clarke, followed by Deputy Stanton.

Deputy Sorca Clarke

I thank the Minister and his officials for their time today. The outstanding reputation that the Minister referred to is well earned and well deserved. We need not forget the struggles and loss of life that our Defence Forces have endured on overseas missions and that have led to their professional and humane peacekeeper reputation.

I wish to examine this report from a slightly different angle. The Minister referred to the changing and complex nature of UN missions. In recent weeks, this committee has heard about the concerning and serious potential for future conflicts caused by a myriad of reasons, including climate change. It is becoming clear that an increasing number of regions are facing instability and that the UN is likely to view them as needing peacebuilding and peacekeeping. Something else that has become clear, and on which previous witnesses before this committee have agreed, is that the establishment of peace is one thing, but maintaining it is a separate piece of work. Based on the experience of our Defence Forces on overseas missions, which we all recognise, in what roles could they be involved as part of a future UN mission? Are there fields or emerging roles in which our Defence Forces could be playing a significant part? How does the Commission on the Defence Forces fit into that scenario?

None of us is comfortable with the idea of mandatory overseas selection outside of special skill sets being required due to staff shortages. However, if there is a role where we see a potential increase for our involvement, do we have the capability to increase our Defence Forces' numbers, specialist training and equipment in that regard?

Deputy Simon Coveney

I thank the Deputy for her questions. The changing nature of peacekeeping is almost self-evident. I will give a good example. The previous time we were on the Security Council was in 2001 when 9-11 tragically happened. There has also been a great deal of tragedy this time, be it Afghanistan, Covid, Ukraine or many other conflicts.

I understand that, in 2001, the Security Council was dealing with 13 files in terms of conflicts. Today, it is dealing with over 30. That gives a sense of how significant the number of increased conflicts has been over that period of 20 years. It is hugely complex. We can all name them, from Afghanistan to Syria, Yemen, Libya and Ethiopia. It is a long list.

We are likely to see climate change impacting also on the acceleration of conflicts and tension in different parts of the world but, in particular, in already vulnerable parts of the world such as the Sahel in Africa and other parts of the Middle East. Peacekeeping in the future is likely to be less conventional in terms of keeping two countries apart and may well be more regional in terms of trying to manage the movement of people and the tensions that causes. Of course, it may well be trying to interrupt and prevent conflicts in the future which are more complex Chapter VII-type missions than observation missions or Chapter VI missions. That requires a great deal of extra training and an a great deal of extra equipment in terms of keeping the Defence Force personnel safe or as safe as we can make it in that kind of theatre and environment. Those, as I say, are the conversations that we are having.

Something we are doing from a policy perspective - this is where foreign policy and defence policy crosses over - is questioning how the UN plans for, invests in and manages the transition out of a peacekeeping mission into what follows so that one does not have peacekeepers on the ground indefinitely and countries relying on them being there. If one looks at the UNIFIL and UNDOF missions, they have been there for a very long time. If one looks at the peacekeeping mission in Somalia, for example, we are trying to manage a transition where tens of thousands of foreign soldiers no longer need to be there but that we would build up resilience within domestic systems around policing and defence capacity in a responsible way that does not contribute potentially to a new conflict. None of this is easy but it is why we were the authors of a resolution that got unanimous support that now requires the Secretary General to report back to the Security Council on peacekeeping transitions on the investment that the UN and its agencies are making in facilitating that transition over time from a blunt peacekeeping operation to something more stable. Ireland is well placed to be right in the middle of that policy, and the actioning of that on the ground. We have some experience in different parts of the world in those kind of transitions that involve politics as well as defence capacity.

As for how the commission fits into it, the commission will be central to everything for the future of the Defence Forces for the next number of decades. We will, hopefully, approve the memorandum that has come out of the commission report in the next ten days or so in government and it will give a clear signal as to where we are going in terms of increased resources, increased numbers and increased infrastructure. This is about upsizing the Defence Forces and their capacity, not downsizing, and ensuring that we get value for money in that but also spending much more money because that is what is needed to deal with the capacity issues that are required to be addressed in order that the Defence Forces can deliver what we ask of them. There is a gap between the resources they have and what we plan to ask the Defences Forces to do in terms of defence policy, whether that is in the White Paper or, indeed, evolving asks as we move into a different global environment given what is happening in Ukraine right now. For example, in the short term, we are not waiting for the commission report. We have already made a decision in relation to increasing the role of the Reserve, for example, so that it will be possible for reservists to serve overseas. We have already moved towards a more family-friendly policy and flexibilities for Defence Force personnel serving overseas where some people in certain circumstances can choose to go on a three-month rotation rather than a six-month rotation recognising family pressures and we would pair two people up for a six-month rotation so that each of them would do three months each. That kind of thinking, which we would not have seen five years ago, is now very much evident in terms of how we manage our people in the Defence Forces recognising the need for more flexibility, more family-family friendly policies and a range of other issues as well in terms of how we deal with issues such as maternity leave in the Defence Forces. Much of that is evolving and changing for the better.

Most importantly, we simply need more people across all elements of the Defence Forces. We will build a much bigger cyber command within the Defence Forces. Certainly, if one looks at what we are proposing to do within the Naval Service, we want to move to what is called double-crewing, which means an extra 700 people in the Naval Service, but that cannot happen overnight. That is a process that will take four, five, six or seven years and we need to have funding certainty to be able to make sure that we can plan for that and deliver it. All of that will flow from the commission's evidence base and recommendations, and obviously a Government decision which I do not have yet but I hope to have before we break up for the summer recess to be able start that process of quite dramatic transformation of the Defence Forces for the better in terms of restructuring, changing the culture but also, significantly, increasing the resources that are available to bring about that change. If that plan works, and I certainly hope it will, it will give us options in terms of peacekeeping abroad. Certainly, it means that I hope we will not have to rely on mandatory selection in terms of people going overseas but we would have more than enough people volunteering for positions, whether they be reservists supplementing what the Permanent Defence Force is doing or Permanent Defence Force members.

Deputy Sorca Clarke

In relation to members of the Reserve the Minister mentioned, does he see them taking on a greater role in terms of specialist expertise or areas of specialist expertise? On cybersecurity, are there any plans for a greater management role within the National Cyber Security Centre for the Defence Forces?

Deputy Simon Coveney

There is a role for the Defence Forces in the National Cyber Security Centre in terms of secondments, etc. but it is primarily the responsibility of the Minister for-----

Deputy Sorca Clarke

Transport.

Deputy Simon Coveney

Yes, the Minister for Transport or rather, the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications. It is the same person. Let us wait and see how that evolves. Certainly, the Government is conscious of the need to continue to build capacity in terms of cybersecurity generally. Within the Defence Forces, we have to make sure that our own systems are as bulletproof as they can be from cyberattack. That means building more resilience within the Defence Forces and our systems and structures, particularly if those systems and structures are to grow, which they are. The Defence Forces contribution to national cybersecurity issues will increase, probably in terms of the partnership in the National Cyber Security Centre. That may involve more Defence Forces involvement but that is to be discussed by Government. Certainly, within the Defence Forces, we need to build more capacity and resilience there, and we will do that. We have people seconded to other centres of excellence around Europe, obviously, learning and training, etc., so that we can benefit from other countries' developments, ideas and skill sets.

On the Reserve, there is a role for the Reserve to play there, although I think we need to build that skill set within the Permanent Defence Force too.

The Reserve is not where it needs to be. It needs to increase in size by not quite but nearly threefold. I hope by the end of the year we will have a revitalisation plan, if you like, for our Reserve in terms of resourcing, training and how it fits into the new defence headquarters------

Deputy Sorca Clarke

Into the overall structure.

Deputy Simon Coveney

-----which is recommended. It will be much closer to the Chief of Staff and his team. The head of the Reserve will be plugged right into the Chief of Staff's office in the defence headquarters.

Chairman

The Minister is straying a bit from the motion.

Deputy Simon Coveney

We are looking at a much stronger structure.

Chairman

I am very keen to call Deputies Stanton and Berry. I did allow some latitude to Deputy Clarke, which I am sure she appreciates.

Deputy Sorca Clarke

Very much so.

Deputy David Stanton

I will be brief as many of my colleagues asked a lot of the questions already. I join colleagues in commending our troops abroad. I have been out there a few times and the reaction in Lebanon, in particular, from the civilian population is very positive to our troops in the way they interact and the informal friendly and professional way they very often go about their business. Our troops are recognised globally for being extremely professional in peacekeeping operations. I want to put that on the record.

Moving on to what Deputy Clarke mentioned a while ago, I see more and more articles and studies with headlines that say democracy globally is in retreat. That links with to what she has been saying with respect to conflict and climate change and what the Minister himself said with respect to the increase in files in the United Nations at the moment across the globe, which went from 13 a number of years ago to 30 now and is growing. That is something about which I think we have to be concerned. Freedom and democracy are also in retreat in many parts of the world. We cannot be complacent about that. We have a role to play there in preserving freedoms and democracy as we know it.

On the Reserve, again, part of the issue the Minister mentioned was the fact of getting troops in more than once and so on. We know what the issues are. Where are we with the Reserve going overseas? How soon and how many? What is being done to secure their civilian jobs at home while they are actually abroad? Those are some specific questions.

I have already gone on the record more than once to question the recruitment process in the Defence Forces and the fact that 60% of people who want to join, or rather who apply to join, fail the aptitude test. I mentioned that recently in the Dáil as well and maybe it is something that can be looked at. That figure seems to me to be very high. Deputy Berry might have more to say on that in a minute seeing as he has experience of it. It seems to be quite high, however. If youngsters want to join and they are faced with this, is there something wrong here? Are we missing something? I do not know.

The Minister mentioned cybersecurity. Will he comment on the security of our mobile telephone systems? Earlier this year, the Minister told us his own telephone was hacked. How secure are our mobile telephone systems? Everything is on these things now. We saw some reports in the newspapers last week about the Pegasus software that has been developed in some other countries and is being used to quite devastating impact and effect. People tell me one does not even know it is on one's telephone. The Chairman's telephone could be hacked and he would not even know it. The Minister's telephone could be as well. A person's physical location can be monitored and tracked or who he or she is with or speaks to and what emails he or she sends can be monitored and so on. Deputy Brady's telephone could be the same - who knows? None of us knows.

Deputy John Brady

I am conscious that Pegasus is Israeli technology.

Deputy David Stanton

It seems many other countries also have this now and other technologies. It is something about which we should be concerned.

Will the Minister comment a bit further on that very positive development of UN Security Council Resolution 2594, which was mentioned almost as a postscript to the presentation? It seems to me to be a very positive development. The Minister and his team are to be congratulated on their leadership in bringing this forward.

Deputy Simon Coveney

I thank the Deputy. I agree with him. I am not sure global democracy is in retreat but it certainly needs to push back to protect its existence. There are certainly parts of the world where it is under attack. That goes for human rights standards, respect for international law and a range of other things.

Our commitment to multilateralism is absolute when it comes to foreign policy. Small countries cannot survive if they rely on unilateralism and transaction-based foreign policy, where countries pair off with each other on the basis of supporting each other on important things. That is a disaster for small countries. What we need is a world set of rules protected by international law, global standards from a human rights perspective, and conventions that countries respect, even in conflict situations, as opposed to a might is right, brutality rules type approach, of which, unfortunately, we have seen a number of examples, not just in Ukraine but elsewhere. That is a given and I think it is something on which we can all agree.

The UN is central to Irish foreign policy. It is far from perfect. It is incredibly frustrating at times when the Security Council sees sensible resolutions that have the support of well over 100 countries in the General Assembly get vetoed. When Ireland, for example, tried to get a resolution on climate and security agreed, it was vetoed by Russia. We had 119 co-sponsors from the General Assembly who wanted that resolution passed. An overwhelming majority recognised the impact of climate on security issues and it got vetoed. It is very frustrating stuff. Despite all of that, however, it is by far the best we have in terms of trying to assist and help people.

If we think about it, and I will stop giving members statistics after this, 100 million people are displaced in the world today. Most of them are in refugee camps and virtually all of them are being fed by international organisations, predominantly led by the UN. I have just been to the Syrian-Turkish border where Ireland has specific responsibility, along with Norway, to keep humanitarian access into north-western Syria. It is the only international border crossing into Syria. It is called Bab al-Hawa. That is literally feeding, clothing and providing medicines for four million people, which is almost our population. If you cross the border there, there is effectively a tented city for as far as the eye can see made up predominantly of children, only 20% of whom actually get any form of education at all. This is the scale we are talking about in terms of the consequences of a 12- or 13-year conflict in Syria. Most people living in that area in north-west Syria in the Idlib province have not only been displaced once, twice or three times but some of them have been ten to 15 times in terms of being moved on from different towns that have been attacked and brutalised and so on. I just want to give members a sense of the pressures to which the UN system is responding in keeping people alive but also the other frustrations that the system has not been able to get over.

In terms of the Reserve overseas, a reservist has actually gone on a NATO training course in the past couple of weeks, which I am sure Deputy Berry will remind me of, and which I think is a sign of things to come, not in terms of NATO membership but in terms of reservists going overseas and improving their skill sets so they can be a stronger asset in supporting the Permanent Defence Force. We do not have reservists going overseas on rotation yet. That is something on which I will be relying on the Chief of Staff and the general staff to come back with recommendations in terms of how they incorporate that, particularly around specialist areas. This is not about competing with the Permanent Defence Force or taking opportunities from it. It is quite the opposite. It is about supplementing what it is doing, adding specialties and potentially giving options in terms of earlier rotation for family reasons, flexibility, work-life balance and all the other things. If people need a break for whatever reason, reservists should be able to fill in there. There is great interest within the Reserve in serving overseas. I met the Reserve Defence Force Representative Association, RDFRA, about that the week before last.

As for the aptitude test, there is a myth out there that no one is applying to join the Defence Forces. Loads of people are applying to join the Defence Forces, but that is not translating into increased numbers to the extent we need. Roughly, we are seeing between 500 and 600 people join the Defence Forces and between 500 and 600 people leave the Defence Forces every year. We have seen either a small decline or a small increase in net terms over recent years, and that is not good enough. What we need to see, if we are to be serious about getting to the numbers we plan to get to, are significant net increases of people in the Defence Forces each year to get back up to an establishment of 9,500 and then to go well beyond that in order to get to what I would like to see, which is a Permanent Defence Force establishment of about 11,500 and close to another 3,000 people in the Reserve. We are 1,000 people below the establishment figure of 9,500 in the Permanent Defence Force, so we need to add about 3,000 people to the Permanent Defence Force and about 3,000 people to our Reserve. That is 6,000 new men and women in our Defence Forces. The questions are how we do it, how long it will take, how we manage the training in that regard, how we manage the intake, how we keep standards while getting more people in and how we maintain the thresholds needed to ensure we have the standards we have currently in respect of fitness, aptitude, skill sets and so on. Those are massive challenges, but those are the questions the commission has asked and that is the challenge it has put to us.

From my experience of the Defence Forces, when a clear challenge is put to them, with clear results required and timelines to get us there, they are very good at delivering once there is a plan to do that. It is seen as a mission to be accomplished. My job is to make sure that they have the resources and the policy platform to be able to do that and that they have the expertise. Some of it will need to be sourced externally to deliver those kinds of extraordinary outcomes over the next five to seven years, which is the time horizon I think we will be looking at. Part of that is the aptitude test stuff, but I have to rely on the Defence Forces to come back to me with recommendations. I will not lower the standards of the Defence Forces to get more people in, but there are valid questions. Rather than simply having a cut-off point, whereby people are told they are not good enough, can we involve training mechanisms that can improve resilience, fitness and so on to allow people to get as good as they need to be to be in the Defence Forces, as opposed to eliminating them on one test or a series of beep tests? Those are the kinds of things we are considering and talking to the Defence Forces about.

I will not say very much about cybersecurity because some of it involves national security issues and so on. I need to be a bit careful. Suffice to say we will invest heavily to increase cybersecurity capacity in the Defence Forces, as I said earlier. That is more than justified and is very much supported by the commission's work.

Chairman

You stated, Minister, that you expect to have a Government decision on the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces before the end of this term, that is, before we rise for the summer. You also indicated, in response to some of the Deputies' questions, that you do not have the approval of the Government. Can I take it that what you mean by that is that the Government has not had an opportunity to debate the report of the commission rather than that there is resistance in the Government, which might be implied, or that there will be or is an alternative view to your ambition and to what you propose to bring to the Government by way of an official response to the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces, which the committee has awaited for some time?

Deputy Simon Coveney

A report of this significance does not just get signed off on overnight. I need to find agreement with multiple other Departments, particularly the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, the Department of Finance and the Department of the Taoiseach, in order to get final agreement on the report. I think we are almost there. There has been an awful lot of work on this. We are not just signing off on a memo here; we are also signing off on an action plan. There are 69 different actions asked of us in the report. If the sub-actions are added, there are 130 or so. We will itemise all of those and then give an indication as to how or if we will progress them all, whether we agree with them in principle but more work is required, whether we can progress them straight away, whether more advice is required in order to progress them and so on. There has been an enormous amount of work. I pay tribute to my Department and to the Chief of Staff and his team in the Defence Forces because, certainly in my time in politics, I have never seen such a level of co-operation on the civil and military side with regard to bringing forward something with the same level of ambition coming from both the Department and the Defence Forces. I have never seen that as strong as it is now. My job is to get the rest of the Government on board. I think there is an appetite in the Government that recognises that the commission report is a really good piece of work. Many of the Ministers to whom I have spoken have taken the time to read it, and it is quite a big piece of work. I think we will get it past the Government. Considering the other pressures the Government faces at the moment, however, this is a huge financial commitment and we are finalising how it will be rolled out in the years ahead. I am very confident we will be in a position to bring it to the Government probably the week after next.

Deputy Cathal Berry

I am conscious of the clock so I will be as quick as I can. I acknowledge the presence of the Defence Force veterans and their spouses in the Public Gallery. Many of the contributors pointed quite rightly to the excellent reputation of Irish peacekeepers overseas. That is because of the people sitting behind me, so well done to them. They are most welcome here any time at all.

I have four brief points to make. I know that the triple lock is not the entire focus of the motion before us, but many researchers read the transcripts of committee meetings so it is important to put on record that the three locks of the triple lock are Government decision, Oireachtas approval and UN mandate. I recognise the views of Deputy Brady and the Minister, and both sides of the argument are completely sincerely held. I am not too comfortable with the fact that Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping - or even Boris Johnson, in light of recent events - gets to decide where we send our troops. I think there is a bit of flexibility on the second lock, which is Oireachtas approval. At the moment Oireachtas approval is by simple majority, so a simple majority in the Dáil unlocks the second lock. I think we can move towards a qualified majority of 55% or 60% or something like that, which would allow the Oireachtas to maintain the autonomy and the sovereignty of deploying our troops without compromising the safeguards built into the triple lock. Instead of a UN mandate being mandatory, we could have regard to a UN mandate. Obviously, a UN mandate would be preferable, and whether it exists or does not exist would sway the vote of a qualified majority in the Dáil Chamber. That is probably a good way to go. I offer that freely, and the researchers or party researchers can deal with it as they see fit.

My first question is about Ukraine. We know that conflicts do not last for ever, but this one will go on for quite some time. Is there any planning from a post-conflict point of view? There is a lot of expertise in the Defence Forces in demining, demolition of explosive ordnance and even investigation of war crimes and reconstruction. Does the military have any spare capacity or contingency planning done in case a request comes in? Do we have capacity to assist the international community from a reconstruction point of view?

My second question is about strategic airlift. I know I have been hounding the Minister on this for the past few years. He mentioned we have troops scattered all over the world. My concern is that we do not have any means to get to them in the event of a crisis. I know that is a concern of the Minister's as well. The memo to come to the Government, if it comes on Tuesday week, as he suggests, is a golden opportunity to grasp this nettle and to make a recommendation that we need at least one aircraft that will be able to reach our people overseas if they get into trouble.

We have never had that capability in the past, particularly in the past 100 years. It would be a great capability to have and we should be focused on that.

My final question relates to the Reserve Defence Force overseas. I am glad both sides brought it up. I am very much in favour of it and welcome the recent course overseas for the Reserve Defence Force. The Minister may or may not be aware that a proposal is going around to the effect that Reserve Defence Force personnel can only be activated for a maximum of a 90-day period. To me, that is completely unworkable. A person going overseas, even as a member of the Permanent Defence Force regulars, will spend six weeks in preparatory training before deploying. If there is a 90-day cap on Reserve Defence Force personnel heading overseas, they will only be able to form up for six weeks and deploy for six weeks. These people are either in the military or they are not. They are either members of the Defence Forces or they are not. If a full tour of duty is six months, I do not see why a cap should apply. There is no cap on the Permanent Defence Force, for instance, and I do not understand they there should be one on the Reserve Defence Force.

Those are my views. I would be grateful to hear the Minister's thoughts on the triple lock, strategic airlift, Ukraine and the Reserve Defence Force.

Chairman

I am conscious that the committee had an engagement on the triple lock and heard the views of the Minister. He indicated that if we were to have a detailed debate on that matter, it would require a single item agenda on another day. I note the detailed comment the Deputy made. I am not sure if the Minister is in a position to respond. I am sure the Minister will comment but I do not wish the meeting to be engaged on this single issue at this stage.

Deputy Simon Coveney

I am sure my officials will kill me for saying this, but I would happily bring forward an options paper on how we might address some of the concerns that have been outlined by the committee. I would happily do that in the early autumn when we return after the summer recess. There are ways in which we can provide a lock system of sorts but at the same time not hand a veto to a government or country that we do not regard as consistent with our value system. That is what we have at the moment. It has not been a problem to date, in reality. It could potentially have been a problem theoretically but it has not been, which is why there has not been a big focus on it. I think it did perform a useful political purpose in giving reassurance around the neutrality question in the sense that everything we did required a UN mandate, which made many people comfortable. The truth is that UN mandates can now be vetoed by countries whose motivation and priorities we do not share. If we are to be a serious country in terms of peacekeeping and peace interventions, and if we want to be able to make decisions for ourselves as a country that is non-aligned militarily, then we need to be able to make decisions by ourselves with the right motivation. I think we can do things to add to that and to give the reassurance that some Deputies will look for in terms of consistency with international law and the invitation of the country concerned. We can look for consistency with various UN resolutions or whatever else. There are options at which we can look. If it would be helpful to the committee, I could bring in some options at which we could look and discuss. I would like to get agreement on this with other political parties rather than have the Government force it through. These are important issues and I would like as many as people in the Oireachtas as possible to be comfortable with them, as opposed to it becoming a debate around something it is not. We may well have to have a debate in the future around neutrality, if that is justified, but I am not proposing to have that debate in the context of how and where we send our troops. The triple lock is a separate issue. It is potentially a problem because of the way in which global politics has changed in the past five or six months. I do not believe we should be operating in a straitjacket on the basis of relying on certain countries not vetoing decisions we would like to make.

We can consider some of the suggestions made by Deputy Berry but there is no tradition of qualified majority voting, QMV, in the Oireachtas, as far as I am aware. There are ways in which I think we can put safeguards in place to ensure no future Government will run away with this issue and force it through easily without some safety mechanisms.

Deputy John Brady

I hear what the Minister is saying but at this point, given the drive by certain parties around neutrality, I think it is impossible to separate neutrality and the triple lock mechanism.

Deputy Simon Coveney

It is absolutely possible to separate the two, if people choose to do it. The triple lock is a technical mechanism. One of the locks is no longer appropriate and we can replace it with something else that does a similar job. We do not have to turn this into a political issue around neutrality unless people choose to do so. It is as simple as that.

Chairman

It is clear that we do not have the key for one of the locks or we will not have the key. That is the issue.

Deputy Simon Coveney

We have not had it in the past but that has not been a problem that has come to light in the past, in practice. It is now likely to, or certainly one could seriously envisage an issue in that regard.

Deputy John Brady

It has always been there, as long as the UN-----

Deputy Simon Coveney

We have seen the problem of the use of the veto in recent times. I do not want our ability to send troops on an appropriate peacekeeping mission to be vetoed by somebody who has no interest in Ireland's motivation. If it would be okay, perhaps we will come back and have a detailed discussion on this matter.

Deputy John Brady

We can do that. However, I am saying it is impossible to separate neutrality and the future of the Defence Forces potentially outside a UN mandate.

Deputy Simon Coveney

I think it is absolutely possible. Our neutrality has never been determined by UN mandate. Our neutrality is based on military non-alignment.

Deputy John Brady

Roll over the Defence Forces.

Chairman

Perhaps the Minister would deal with the important issues raised by Deputy Berry. I think we should move on because we have gone over time.

Deputy Simon Coveney

Following a request from the Ukrainian Prime Minister to the Taoiseach for the provision of specialist training to the Ukrainian armed forces, the Defence Forces have been in contact with the Ukrainian armed forces to clarify their precise training needs and to assess the possibility of providing such training. That request related specifically to the area of demining. Having been to Ukraine since the war began, I am aware there are mines all over that country, including in houses, schools, public buildings and fields. Even before this war ends, for the parts of Ukraine that are not impacted by the war, there will be a need for some demining operations and so on. They need help, they have asked for it and we are going to try to respond positively to that request.

There has also been a request for engineering assistance around the rebuilding of buildings that have been destroyed by cruise missiles and other munitions. The reconstruction of Ukrainian cities will cost hundreds of billions of euro, which the EU will help to fund in the years ahead. That will be less a military operation. It will require expertise in engineering, construction and project management. Ireland will be more than willing to assist in that regard.

We are considering the issue of strategic lift capacity. The development of a strategic airlift capacity for the Air Corps, although desirable and at a pre-planning stage, requires an informed approach and full consideration. That is a very general answer. We are considering what kind of lift capacity we are looking at. Are we looking at medium-range capacity? If we are doing that, what size aircraft are we looking at? Are we looking at taking out small numbers of people in situations where we need to get people out quickly? Are we talking about moving large troop contingents?

They are two very different prospects with a very different cost. Those things are being examined and I will be happy to let the Deputy know when we have made some decisions on them in terms of investments and so forth. However, we are certainly looking at medium-range capacity, which I believe is necessary and has been raised as well by the commission report.

Regarding the Reserve, I hope we gave the RDFRA some reassurance on this issue. What we have said is there is a figure of 90 days but that it is certainly not cast in stone and can be increased. It is quite straightforward to do that. More importantly, we need to get agreement with employers. The vast majority of reservists have a day job doing something else and I need to make sure people who sign up to be in the Reserve Defence Force and who volunteer to perform a mission or a function with the Permanent Defence Force do not find that their jobs are gone when they come back. We have started the process of reaching out to IBEC and other employer groups to try to agree an understanding on how we can facilitate reservists contributing more to defence infrastructure without risking losing their jobs or missing out on promotion opportunities or whatever. The best way to do that, rather than going straight to legislation where there could be a lot of resistance and so forth, is to try to get agreement on reasonable parameters that would allow reservists to take time off work to be part of missions at home or overseas, and they would get protections from their employers to do that. I am also speaking to the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment's office on that because he is the one who potentially would have to put something in legislation that would firm that up. We are in discussions on that issue at present.

Chairman

Deputy Berry has a brief supplementary question.

Deputy Cathal Berry

I wish to make a small point on that, and I am glad the Minister raised it. I know the Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association, ISME, and IBEC are important, but the biggest and most important employer in this link is the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. If we could get agreement in the public service first and demonstrate to ISME and IBEC that this is quite doable, then we could expand it into the private sector thereafter. My recommendation is to get agreement in the public service first, such as if there are teachers, nurses and doctors who are available to deploy overseas, and that we ring-fence their work within the public service and then we can expand to the private sector thereafter. It is just a suggestion.

Deputy Simon Coveney

That undoubtedly has to be part of the conversation. It depends on what work they are doing. Sometimes it is easier said than done to take three months or six months out or whatever the period may be. However, I take the point about 90 days. We had a detailed discussion on this last week or the week before with members of the Reserve Defence Force in terms of the training period that would be required before going overseas and then time when they return again, which would limit the period for which they could be overseas. We need to factor that in. There will need to be flexibilities. They understand that now.

Chairman

Undoubtedly these are issues to which we will return, probably at an early date having regard to what the Minister said in respect of the report of the commission.