Vol. 1032 No. 6
1. Deputy John Brady asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the progress that has been made towards implementing the working time directive for members of the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5155/23]
I am conscious that this is our first question time with the new Minister. I congratulate him on his new appointment. It is also our first question time since the tragic murder of Private Seán Rooney on 14 December so I will take this opportunity to offer my condolences to his friends, family and comrades and to wish Trooper Shane Kearney a speedy recovery from his serious injuries. Will the Tánaiste give us an update on the work that has been going on over recent years with regard to full implementation of the working time directive for members of the Defence Forces?
I thank the Deputy for his kind comments on my appointment as Minister for Defence and for his heartfelt comments on the very sad passing of Private Seán Rooney. I visited his comrades in Lebanon last week. We can talk about that later.
As the Deputy is aware, the Defence Forces are currently excluded from the provisions of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, which transposed the European working time directive into Irish law. However, the Government has committed to amending this Act and bringing both the Defence Forces and An Garda Síochána within the scope of its provisions, where appropriate in light of the nature of some of their duties. The responsibility for preparing the legislative framework required to bring the Defence Forces within the scope of the Act lies with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. My officials are continuing to engage actively with that Department to progress these changes.
A significant amount of work undertaken by military management has determined that a high percentage of the normal everyday work of the Defence Forces is already in compliance with the working time directive. However, it has also been determined that there are some activities which may be outside the scope of the directive due to their very specific nature. A robust time and attendance system is also an essential element in ensuring that the provisions of the working time directive are properly afforded to serving members of the Defence Forces and progress on this matter is also a priority.
Extensive deliberations between Department of Defence officials and the military authorities on these matters have been informed by the interpretation of recent European case law on military service as well as by the fundamental requirement to ensure that rights are afforded to serving members while ensuring that the Defence Forces can continue to fulfil their essential State functions. I am pleased to say that dialogue with the representative associations on a proposed management position is continuing and I am aware that a number of issues raised by the associations are actively being examined by civilian-military management. We should allow space for this dialogue to continue. I hope we will see the outcome of that dialogue relatively quickly.
The Tánaiste will be very aware that the Defence Forces are now reaching breaking point with members leaving in great numbers. Over the last 12 months, since the publication of the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces, a further 500 members of the Defence Forces have left. There are very significant pressures on members of the Defence Forces. The critical need to fully implement the working time directive has been highlighted time and again. In the Government's response to the commission's report, the high-level action plan, a number of early actions to be completed within six months of the Government decision, which was taken in July of last year, are indicated. One of these, which had regard to the working time directive, read "Heads of Bill to be finalised with a view to submitting to the Attorney General’s office." It has now been seven months since the Government's decision to implement level of ambition 2 and we have yet to see the heads of any Bill. What is the position with regard to the legislation? Will the Tánaiste touch on the exemptions? What exemptions are being looked at because the directive needs to be implemented in full?
I have discussed this with my officials in recent days. A final management position on the implementation of the directive will be submitted to me for my consideration and approval. Thereafter, our officials will work with officials in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, who will take forward the appropriate legislative framework. I have asked my officials to expedite this, to make sure the dialogue I referenced earlier can be brought to a conclusion and to get the final management position in so that we can move on this issue.
That is simply not good enough. In the Government's own high-level action plan for the implementation of the commission's recommendations, the low-hanging fruit was considered to be the bringing forward of heads of a Bill with regard to the working time directive. The Tánaiste now tells me that work has not even started. The Government's legislative programme for the spring does not even mention the drafting of such legislation as a priority. There is little or no faith in the Government's willingness or ability to implement any of the recommendations of the commission's report, particularly when its own high-level action plan is not being implemented. We were told that the heads of a Bill with regard to the working time directive would be brought forward within six months with a view to submitting them to the Attorney General but work has not even commenced. Will the Tánaiste indicate how long it will take for work to commence on the heads of Bill and when we will actually see them? More importantly and with regard to conversations with the representative bodies, what kinds of exemptions are being looked at because they are adamant that the directive needs to be fully implemented?
As the newly appointed Minister for Defence, I am fully committed to this and see the importance of it in the context not only of the recruitment, but the retention of personnel within the Defence Forces. It is important that the dialogue with the representative associations bears fruit. We could proceed with legislation oblivious to those engagements with the representative associations but, in dealing with a matter that relates to the organisation of working time in the context of the directive, it is important that we have fruitful engagement and dialogue with the representative associations. Management is also to submit a final position to me. It is important to get it right because it is complex. There is no point in pretending it is not because it is. However, I am determined to get this done.
Why include it in the action plan when there was clearly no intent to bring it forward?
2. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence his plans to address recent reports that two further ships are to be taken out of service due to the lack of sailors to man the vessels; the progress made to date on measures to retain members in the Permanent Defence Force; the overall strength of the PDF in each of the past six months; when he expects the authorised strength level to be achieved; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5149/23]
I will also begin by wishing the Tánaiste well in his new role as Minister for Defence. I also associate myself with the condolences expressed to the family, friends and comrades of the late Private Seán Rooney. My question is simple. What are the Tánaiste's plans to arrest the ongoing haemorrhaging of staff from the Defence Forces, which we are aware of? In particular, what is the current status of our active seagoing fleet?
The military authorities advise that the strength of the Permanent Defence Force at 31 December 2022 was 7,987. The strength in July 2022 was 8,194; 8,146 in August; 8,103 in September; 8,074 in October and 8,049 in November. We have previously acknowledged, and I do so now, that the current staffing difficulties in the Naval Service are very serious. I received a briefing yesterday from members of military management and met them on their proposed recruitment strategy for 2023. Recruitment was notably lower in 2022 than in previous years and this briefing outlined how the Defence Forces military management proposes to counter this trend.
With regard to the Naval Service, it has been decided that the LÉ Róisín should be placed into operational reserve with effect from 31 January, as should the LÉ Niamh once its mid-life refit is completed later this year. This is aimed at stabilising operational delivery while assisting in regeneration by prioritising the training and development of existing Naval Service personnel. The Naval Service has advised that this action will not affect its ability to fulfil its current maritime security and defence commitments, including commitments provided under the current service level agreement with the Sea-Fisheries Protection Agency.
In response to the specific challenges in the Naval Service, a comprehensive Naval Service regeneration plan is being progressed and monitored by a high-level civil and military team. The aim of this plan is to address issues, including human resource matters, facing the Naval Service. This is in addition to ongoing general service and direct entry recruitment, and a tender competition for a specialist recruitment body to target individuals with the skills and expertise that are required by the Naval Service. A number of retention initiatives have been implemented and others are currently under way. These include service commitment schemes in the Air Corps and Naval Service, and the seagoing naval personnel tax credit. Agreement has also been secured to allow for an extension in service limits for privates and corporals and, on an interim arrangement, for sergeants.
There has been significant progress on pay as a result of increases arising from the Public Service Pay Commission report, from recent pay agreements and the early implementation of some of the recommendations of the Commission on the Defence Forces.
The reality is that whatever has happened to date is not working. We have been talking about the haemorrhaging of staff for a very long time and we are now at a critical level. The Tánaiste would have read the remarks of Lieutenant Colonel Conor King at the annual delegate conference of the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers, RACO, when he said that given the lack of action on crucial retention measures, the lack of implementation, the lack of respect and consideration afforded to commissioned men and women who are to be relied upon to drive the clearly identified changes required, we now know that we have an almost Sisyphean task to get back to a strength of 9,500. The task of getting to 11,500 is almost beyond reach. Is it the Tánaiste's objective to reach 11,500 members of the Permanent Defence Force and how is it going to happen? We are going backwards now, with two additional ships mothballed.
Since my appointment I have reviewed the situation. The first priority is to get back to a strength of 9,500. The situation is not good right now in terms of the Naval Service in particular. The numbers are simply too low. We need a radical look at the entire organisation of the Naval Service in the context of recruitment and retention. It is simply not tenable right now in terms of the issues. We have moved on the pay front and substantial progress has been made. The starting pay for a newly qualified three-star private recruited on completion of basic training for possibly 26 weeks and the Naval Service equivalent is currently €36,419. A newly commissioned officer, that is, a school-leaver who applied for cadet training, is now commissioned after 15 to 18 months' cadet training and starts on a salary of €40,316. If officers are already graduates when they join, they start on a salary of €45,000. We can still look at other areas but I feel that it is something to do with the organisation of working time within the Naval Service itself. We have to take modern-day realities into account. We need to stand back and do everything we possibly can to arrest this decline. I do not disagree with the Deputy's basic point.
We have been hearing that sort of answer for a very long time. It is not having any effect. We are losing the skilled personnel that it has taken years to train. We have not got a solution to that; in fact we are going backwards. How many Naval Service vessels are actually patrolling our waters right now? Before we get to a strength of 11,500, when does the Tánaiste expect the interim target of 9,500 to be achieved?
I just gave the figures earlier. Right now we are hovering at about 8,000. It will take some time, certainly, within the next two to three years, to get to the figure of 9,500, maybe sooner. Yesterday there was a significant briefing on the investment we are going to put into Gormanston as a centre of excellence for induction training. That should have happened before now. It is a significant investment in itself. The Naval Service currently has a fleet of six vessels. The LÉ Niamh is in the process of a mid-life refit which is expected to be completed in quarter 3 of this year.
How many vessels are at sea or available for seagoing work?
I have given the details on what is now going to happen with the LÉ Róisín and the LÉ Niamh. Two inshore patrol vessels have been purchased to replace the LÉ Orla and the LÉ Ciara. Again, there are issues around trying to expand the catchment area in terms of the recruitment pool into the Naval Service. There are some thoughts on that which we discussed yesterday regarding recruiting more from different parts of the country where there would not have been a tradition of such recruitment heretofore.
3. Deputy John Brady asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the progress that has been made in the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Commission on the Defence Forces report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5156/23]
Next week marks the first anniversary of the publication of the report and recommendations of the Commission on the Defence Forces. Will the Tánaiste outline the process of implementing its recommendations? What meetings have taken place and what is the schedule for the full implementation of all the recommendations?
The Commission on the Defence Forces was established on foot of a commitment in the programme for Government, and its report was published on 9 February 2022. The commission has undertaken a significant body of work, encompassing wide-ranging terms of reference. It recommends significant changes for the Defence Forces and defence provision in Ireland. It covers high-level Defence Forces structures, defence capabilities, organisation, culture and human resources, the Reserve Defence Force and funding.
Given the significant recommendations contained in the report, detailed consideration of these recommendations was undertaken over a period of five months by the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces. Following this engagement, a high-level action plan and a memorandum for Government were brought to Government in July last year. This involved the approval of a move to level of ambition 2, LOA2, as set out in the capability framework devised by the Commission on the Defence Forces. This will result in the defence budget rising from €1.1 billion to €1.5 billion, in 2022 prices, by 2028, the largest increase in defence funding in the history of the State. This will allow for the required substantial transformation and investment in recruitment and equipment that were identified by the commission. The budget for 2023 included an increase of €67 million over the 2022 budget for defence. This includes an almost 25% increase in capital funding and demonstrates the Government’s strong commitment to support the transformation of the Defence Forces into a modern, agile military force capable of responding to increasingly complex security threats.
The move to LOA2 will require an additional 2,000 personnel, civil and military, over and above the current establishment of 9,500. Work has already commenced on this with the recently announced recruitment campaign, Be More. Some specific initiatives include the immediate commencement of planning for military radar capabilities, including primary radar and the establishment of an office of Reserve affairs with the priority objective of developing a regeneration plan for the Reserve Defence Force.
The high-level action plan set out initial implementation and oversight structures. An implementation oversight group has been established which met for the first time on 3 October. Subsequently, Ms Julie Sinnamon was appointed as the independent chair of the implementation oversight group with a second meeting taking place on 17 November and a third meeting taking place on 27 January. A high-level steering board has been established, chaired by the Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach, to oversee the implementation.
There does not appear to be a sense of urgency or crisis within the Defence Forces. When the report was published this time last year, there were 8,468 members of the Defence Forces. As of the end of January, that figure stood at 7,907. The commission report could have been used to instil some sort of confidence that the Government is taking action.
Members of the Defence Forces are voting with their feet; they are leaving in their droves. Some 500 members have left in the 12 months since the publication of the commission's report. The issue with members of the Naval Service has been touched on already. This time last year, there were 867 members of the Naval Service. That figure now stands at 800, which is 294 fewer than the establishment figure. In January alone, 12 sailing days had to be cancelled because of the crisis in the Naval Service. There is no sense of urgency whatever, as I stated already, as regards the high-level action plan, with the Government's implementation targets already being missed.
The issue is finding solutions. No one is in any doubt about the challenges facing the Defence Forces, the loss of personnel or the fact that we are not recruiting sufficient personnel to offset the numbers who are leaving. That involves both a recruitment and a retention strategy. In the context of the high-level action group it involves implementation of the 38 early actions to be completed within six months of the Government decision. To date, approximately two thirds of those 38 early actions have been achieved. I can go through the details for the Deputy on the head of transformation and the head of strategic HR positions. The human resource management and human resource dimension of the Defence Forces have to be transformed, and there also has to be cultural transformation within the Defence Forces. We have implemented the oversight group, with Ms Julie Sinnamon approved as chair and overseeing the implementation. We have removed the requirement for three-star private able seamen to mark time for the first three years at that rank and we have ensured that all personnel at private three-star able seaman rank are paid the full-rate military service allowance applicable to the rank.
It is not working.
All of these measures have taken place but more is needed. It is not just about those specific issues; there is a broader issue at play.
This is about solutions and those solutions were provided by the commission 12 months ago. The Government responded with its analysis of the commission's recommendations seven months ago, in July of last year, and there is still a massive haemorrhaging of members of the Defence Forces. There is a lack of willingness, as far as I can see, to fully implement all of the commission's recommendations as quickly as possible. I have already highlighted the issue around the working time directive where a solution has been identified, not just by the commission but by representative bodies representing members of the Defence Forces. The Government gave a commitment to bring forward heads of Bill within six months. It was supposed to have submitted them to the Office of the Attorney General in January but has failed even to implement that solution. Of the recommendations in the commission's report, 37% were accepted by the Government, 42% were accepted in principle and 13% were to receive further evaluation, with the Government to revert in the case of 8% of them. On the analysis of the recommendations that were not accepted by the Government and those to be given further analysis, what is the position? Has that analysis been done? Is the Government fully supportive of all of the recommendations contained in the commission's report?
The Government decision is as it is; it is as has been taken. My task is to move forward quickly to implement the recommendations. Of the 38 early actions to be completed within six months, about two thirds have been achieved to date. That includes the head of transformation and the head of strategic HR positions being advertised externally and progressed. It also includes implementation and governance structures being developed and initiated, including the establishment of an implementation oversight group. I have gone through the specifics of the requirements for three-star private able seamen and so forth and I mentioned the recruitment and induction strategies. There will also be a fundamental legislative change, not just in the context of the organisation of working time directive but also a new defence Act. I have asked my officials to progress work on that legislation and to develop capacity within the Department to set about fundamentally updating and modernising defence legislation to take cognisance of the recommendations of the commission. I will be focusing strongly on that aspect.
4. Deputy Gary Gannon asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence his views and those of the Government on, “the triple lock”; and if he has any intention to change the current regime to a situation where the Government would have more flexibility to act militarily abroad. [5162/23]
I want to ask the Minister about his attitude and that of the Government towards the triple lock mechanism, and whether he has any intention to change the current regime to a situation where the Government would have more flexibility to act militarily abroad.
As the Deputy knows, the triple lock mechanism, which sets out the requirements for the deployment of the Defence Forces for peacekeeping operations, is set down in legislation. The legislation provides that the operation must be mandated by the United Nations, approved by the Government and approved by way of a resolution of Dáil Éireann. Any modification to the triple lock requirements for peacekeeping operations overseas, where the Irish Government can deploy Defence Forces personnel, would require a change in primary legislation to remove the requirement for the operation to be mandated by the United Nations.
We need to look at this and have a discussion on it because of where we are with the United Nations, in particular, with the composition of the Security Council and the behaviour of certain of its members. The significant reluctance to facilitate peacekeeping missions could impinge on the sovereignty of the Irish State in deciding whether it wants to participate in peacekeeping missions into the future. There is a real dark cloud over whether there will be future UN-mandated peacekeeping missions. I would welcome an Oireachtas debate and discussion on this, free from calling people out, name-calling or labelling. We need an informed and mature debate on this because the way things have evolved is such that Russia has a veto on whether Ireland takes part in peacekeeping in the future. We need to reflect on that. I genuinely believe that, having thought about it over the last six months when this issue has been raised. There is a cause for reflection on the part of all of us.
It was with that cause for reflection that I was motivated to ask the question. I assume I have a different opinion from the Tánaiste, in that I believe the triple lock has given us strength until this point and I do not want to infringe in any way on our neutrality, although we may disagree as to whether it would or not. Why not have the debate as opposed to spending the past year or more listening to the Minister's predecessor and other members of the Government saying we need to talk about Irish defence or neutrality? Let us have that conversation at this point.
The Tánaiste said we would need to change primary legislation if we were to reconsider the triple lock. That cannot be imposed either on this House or the population so let us have that debate and make space for it. I encourage the Tánaiste to do that. Let us stop talking about this. The Tánaiste should give us the opportunity to have that debate.
The Deputy has asked the question and I have given him my views. This is a debate and maybe it is the catalyst for the commencement of a debate. We will shortly commence work on a strategic defence review and this is a serious issue that we need to consider. Peacekeeping is a noble Irish tradition. It has been a hallmark of the execution of our foreign policy and has brought great honour to the nation, involving generations of peacekeepers. There is a real possibility now that there will not be a UN peacekeeping mission for some time, particularly given how the world is evolving and how certain powers are using other militias and paramilitary groups to exert their will in certain parts of the world. We need to take stock of all of that reality and have that informed debate. I have repeatedly said this. Wearing my Department of Foreign Affairs hat, I will say that we are also looking at that discussion and at what type of forum we would develop to discuss the wider issues of the modern day threats to the security of the State and the area of clarifying and working through our position around military neutrality and so forth.
It was my intention to raise this matter in a respectful manner so that we could create a catalyst for such a debate. Is it the Government's intention to bring forward primary legislation in this term to remove the triple lock?
No. That is not in the programme for Government.
Is that the answer?
The programme for Government commits to the retention of the triple lock but the context has changed because of the war in Ukraine and the behaviour of Russia on the UN Security Council. If we look at Ireland's performance on the UN Security Council for the past two years, it has been quite effective and impactful, particularly in facilitating humanitarian access to areas of significant and severe conflict like Syria and Ethiopia.
Many of the authorities there did not like what Ireland was doing because we were defending those who desperately needed humanitarian access. It was a lesson to us too. It opened up some insights as to where this is all going. We need a debate on that in the House. Perhaps we could organise a discussion at committee level first. In the interests of the peacekeeping tradition, which I am talking about first and foremost, I want to see Ireland continue to play its role on the peacekeeping front primarily. That is our greatest strength. We are not a military power and we never will be a military power of any consequence, but we can contribute significantly to peace in the world and to the assistance of people who are under threat because of war and starvation.
5. Deputy Sorca Clarke asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if he will provide an update regarding the independent review group into the allegations made by a group (details supplied). [4773/23]
Will the Minister provide an update regarding the independent review group that is inquiring into the allegations made by Women of Honour?
I wish to state at the outset that I am fully committed to ensuring that every member of the Defence Forces has the right to undertake duties in a safe environment, underpinned by dignity and equality and by a culture of zero tolerance for any kind of bullying, discrimination, harassment or sexual abuse. That is an absolute priority.
Last year, in my role as Taoiseach, I met with both groups, Women of Honour and Men and Women of Honour, and I was very taken by the incredible courage they displayed in sharing their experiences of unacceptable behaviour in the Defence Forces. From extensive engagements with serving and former members of the Defence Forces, it has also been very clear that there is a critical and immediate need to address the prevailing work culture, including issues relating to the current systems, policies and procedures for dealing with such behaviour in the Defence Forces.
The judge-led independent review group, established on 25 January last year by the Government, has been examining those very systems, policies and procedures for dealing with issues relating to bullying, discrimination, harassment, sexual harassment and sexual misconduct in the Defence Forces, as well as the prevailing workplace culture. The primary objective of all concerned at the outset, therefore, has been to acknowledge issues in the current workplace and to establish a course of action that would address that. The independent review group has undertaken this work in the past 12 months, while also examining matters of a historical nature. I am aware that many stakeholders, including serving members, have lent their support to the independent review group.
Both I and the former Minister for Defence have at all times been clear that we would await the assessment from this report, including with regard to historical matters. It is imperative that the current workplace culture is fully aligned with the principles of dignity, equality, mutual respect and duty of care for every member of the Defence Forces. I am fully confident that this report will help us do that while also advising on historical matters. I understand the group is nearing the conclusion of the report and it will be submitted to me later this week. I will consider this report in full in consultation with the Attorney General. I assure the Deputy that I will bring the report to the Government for its consideration and subsequent publication. I have not yet seen the report and therefore do not intend to pre-empt its conclusions or recommendations, but I will revert to the House on these very important matters in due course.
The Minister said this report will be given to him "later in the week". It is Thursday. Is there a specific day for when this report will be provided? At the time Fianna Fáil voted against the Sinn Féin motion for a statutory independent inquiry, we were told that speed was of the essence. I put it to the Minister that the Government gave a commitment to completing this report within a year, on that basis of speed. It has broken that commitment. It is now more than a year and there is still no sign of this report. What plausible explanation for this delay can the Minister give to those who engaged in that process? When was he made aware that this delay was going to take place? Has he requested a specific date for this report to be handed over to him? By the end of the week means nothing to those who engaged in the process. More importantly, after the Minister has received the report, when will he pass it on to the Attorney General and what is the timeframe for him to receive a response?
When I referenced "later this week", I should have stated that the judge chairing the review group has asked to present the report to me later today. I will receive the report. There has been no delay on my side. Once an independent review group has been appointed, we have to allow the judge to conduct the report without engagement or interference from the political side.
Why then give the commitment of within a year?
I will then refer the report to the Attorney General, which is the normal procedure following publication. I intend to bring the report to the Government. I will obviously come back to the House in respect of it and will consult with various stakeholder groups, in addition to those who are clearly involved. It is a report that is of importance to every serving member of the Defence Forces and is of wide public interest to the country at large. It will be a very important report, as will its recommendations and our work on them. As I said, I have not seen the report yet.
The vast majority of people who serve in our Defence Forces are good people, even though there are those who have had horrendous and horrific experiences. The failure to publish this report in the timeframe that was given by the Government is a very poor reflection. When the Minister was in Lebanon he was quoted as saying it was his intention to make sure that the recommendations contained in the report are fulfilled. Does that include taking actions in addition to the recommendations already included in the high-level action plan for the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces, such as amending the complaints procedure to introduce a mechanism away from military command and into the hands of An Garda Síochána?
I am sure the Minister is familiar with Christine Whitecross, the senior Canadian military officer who was tasked with probing similar complaints within their services. She outlined that complaints being investigated by senior officers meant that they were not being correctly dealt with from the very start. Does the Minister intend, if the report recommends it, to initiate a full statutory inquiry, a State apology, and an insistence that the use of any subsequent non-disclosure agreements will only be at the request of victims and not the Department or its representatives?
The important point is that on receipt of the report, I will make a comprehensive statement, when I come to the House following the bringing of the report to the Government, which will deal with a comprehensive range of issues, some of which the Deputy referenced. I have very clear views on those issues and in respect of the full set of recommendations that will come from the report itself. First, I want to get the report and bring it to my Government colleagues because they will also be involved in that decision-making. I will make recommendations to the Government on foot of the report. It will then be debated in the House.
