The Members who tabled Questions Nos. 6 and 7 are not present. We will move on to Question No. 8.
Ceisteanna Eile - Other Questions
I think that Question No. 6 is grouped with No. 55, which is in the name of Deputy Ó Murchú.
That is grouped together with Question No. 63. Deputy Brady indicated that-----
Question No. 55 was tabled by Deputy Ó Murchú. He asked to-----
I will check that and come back to the Deputy. There is no problem if that has been indicated but I have nothing in front of me.
Deputy Ó Murchú has been in touch to transfer it.
This happens all the time. I will not leave the Deputy short, but this was the very reason we brought in this procedure. The Clerk has told me that this was not offered to him.
Questions Nos. 6 and 7 taken with Written Answers.
Defence Forces
Matt Carthy
Ceist:8. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the number of new recruits to the Defence Forces; and the number of discharges in each of the years 2018 to 2022, inclusive. [4694/23]
Paul Kehoe
Ceist:13. Deputy Paul Kehoe asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the strength of the Naval Service, Army and Air Corps in each of the years from 2020 to date, in tabular form; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5021/23]
Cathal Crowe
Ceist:22. Deputy Cathal Crowe asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the initiatives he will be taking in relation to recruitment and retention in the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4739/23]
I apologise. Things moved a little quicker than expected. The number of new recruits to, and discharges from, the Defence Forces has been repeatedly mentioned in this House over the past ten to 15 years. I ask the Minister to outline what is the tipping point where he and the Department review all the efforts to date regarding retention and recruitment. Will they have an honest review that will state this is not working and we need to try something different?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 13 and 22 together.
We had that meeting yesterday. I met with the military command and senior officials in my Department in respect of recruitment and retention.
The question before me refers specifically to attracting females to enlist in the Defence Forces and to feel fully respected. In terms of recruitment strategies generally, as I have already highlighted my immediate focus is on stabilising the staffing situation in the Naval Service, and thereafter on bringing the strength of the Naval Service and the Defence Forces generally to the numbers required to meet the agreed level of ambition arising from the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces. Within this commitment, I wish to confirm that it is Government policy to increase female participation rates at all levels across the Defence Forces.
The high-level action plan agreed by the Government on the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces contains a range of recommendations designed to assist in increasing female participation in the Defence Forces. A number of these recommendations have been identified as early actions, including the appointment of a senior gender adviser at colonel level, options for female participation at general staff level, a review of fitness standards, and the development of gender, diversity and unconscious bias training. These are critical recommendations which will underpin the commitment to moving to a strong representation by women across the ranks.
You are reading the wrong reply.
Am I on the wrong one?
You are giving the reply to Question No. 7.
Which one are we on?
Question No. 8
I apologise. I thought we had moved on to No. 7 but it was not taken. In any event, as I said, yesterday we had a meeting on recruitment and retention. Particularly with regard to the Naval Service we clearly have to stand back. We have taken measures. Pay and conditions were identified as issues over the past two to three years. There has been a lot of movement on the pay front. We have more work to do for those working in the Naval Service because the numbers are critically low. We need to move very quickly on recruitment for the Naval Service and develop different strategies. The Chief of Staff and others have clear views in respect of this.
We have heard that various industries, from the pharmaceutical industry to the air industry to security companies to logistics companies, are head-hunting people out of the Naval Service. What we do not hear, and certainly what we do not see, is a corresponding intensity from the Government to be able to counter these challenges because they are very real.
Earlier when responding to Deputy Howlin the Tánaiste mentioned the LÉ Niamh. What he failed to mention is that the LÉ Niamh will be placed into operational reserve on completion of a mid-life refit later this year. Two ships will remain in operational reserve until such time as the Naval Service has sufficiently regenerated suitably qualified and experienced personnel. This is included in the response to a parliamentary question I received from the Department yesterday.
I said that earlier.
They are being mothballed.
They are being mothballed. Once they are delivered to Ireland a plan will be developed to achieve initial operating capability for two inshore patrol vessels coming from New Zealand. I have to put it to the Tánaiste that waiting until we are looking at another two ships being mothballed and unable to put staff on them is not a coherent plan. It is not any form of a plan. The staffing arrangements for existing vessels, and any new one, need to be something on which the Department and the Tánaiste are focused on now.
We are focused on it now.
Clearly you are not. You are still-----
What Deputy Clarke read out is what I gave in response to an earlier question from Deputy Howlin with regard to the LÉ Róisín and the LÉ Niamh. We have to continue to invest in the Naval Service.
We are mothballing ships. That is the problem.
Deciding not to purchase ships-----
No-----
There is no point in saying we want to expand, develop and modernise the Naval Service, and then criticise the fact that we are purchasing two more ships particularly for inshore patrolling.
There was no criticism. You have assets but you are failing to invest in the-----
It is part of the wider multifaceted approach that has to be taken to modernise our Naval Service and it impacts on recruitment and retention. We have moved on the pay rates, including military service allowances for the ranks of private three-star-----
It is still below most European countries.
No, it is not. Able seamen start at €36,000 in the first year, rising to €37,000 in the second year and €39,000 in the third year. A graduate cadet on commission starts on €45,496 while a school leaver cadet starts at €40,000 while in full-time third level education.
You are failing to mention the allowances. Until conditions are better-----
This is far in excess. This is in excess of comparable positions elsewhere.
What the Tánaiste failed to mention is that while the pay may be slightly increased, the allowances and conditions are not being increased in line with comparable countries' defence forces or militaries. This is a fact. The Tánaiste can go and look it up if he needs to but it is a fact. We are haemorrhaging a level of skill from the Defence Forces, particularly the Naval Service which the Tánaiste mentioned, and losing a knowledge base that will take a significant period of time to replace. Nobody coming in the door to any job is able to carry out that job to the same level as somebody who has been there for ten or 15 years. This is specifically true when we look at the very specialised work that those in the Naval Service undertake. While the Tánaiste may be bringing in additional staff and focusing on getting the number back up to 9,500, he is not taking into account the impact that the loss of experienced staff has on ensuring that any training is done efficiently and speedily and that people are brought through to be fully serving members of the Defence Forces. There is a difference between being a member of the Defence Forces in training and someone carrying out the job they are due to do.
I have another question on staffing levels in the Defence Forces. How many posts of an ancillary nature in the Defence Forces are unoccupied?
We will provide tables to the Deputy on the various staffing levels. There is an urgency attached to this and we are moving on all fronts with regard to recruitment and retention. All morning I have heard no solution or any concrete recommendation from anybody over and above what is already being done.
The working time directive.
We have clear commitments-----
They are in the commission's report and you are not implementing them.
-----and changes. There has been significant movement on the pay front. Deputy Clarke dismissed this but that is her wont coming from the Opposition perspective.
It was not dismissed.
We have to do more and we will do more to improve terms and conditions. This will improve the implementation of the working time directive.
It is not on the legislative schedule.
There are broader issues and challenges in terms of the modern economy and people being incentivised out of our services by other industries. This is a significant challenge for us given the full employment nature of the economy we have in this country. This is a further factor in what is taking place.
Defence Forces
Denis Naughten
Ceist:9. Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the future plans for Custume Barracks, Athlone; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2033/23]
I want to ask about the status of Custume Barracks in Athlone and the plans for investment in it. There has been ongoing concern about the status of the barracks since Athlone lost its brigade status. These are genuine concerns. I want an update on the future plans for Custume Barracks in Athlone.
The Defence Forces infrastructure development plan sets out a programme of anticipated project delivery based on the achievement of the high-level goals as set out in White Paper 2015. The plan is iterative in nature, thus ensuring it remains relevant and investment is targeted where most needed. A mid-term review of the plan was recently completed by the Department and the Defence Forces to ensure the plan continues to reflect current operational requirements.
In respect of Custume Barracks, a number of projects are either ongoing or scheduled for progression in the coming year at a combined cost of €1.8 million. These are electric vehicle points enabling works, an upgrade to the main helipad, replacement of the EAS hangar and heat pump installation in the band hall and the main billet block.
A number of the recommendations contained in the Commission on the Defence Forces report may impact on the structure of the Defence Forces, including that the structure of the Army be reviewed. In this context the disposition of units throughout the Defence Forces may be considered.
The recommendation that the structure of the Army be reviewed was identified as an early action in the high-level action plan. Military authorities are progressing the establishment of an office of Army force design which will undertake the work required to give effect to this recommendation. The implementation management office is working on the production of a detailed implementation plan for the remaining recommendations, which will include those that may assist with informing any decision on the future structure and organisation of the Defence Forces.
Custume Barracks is, and will continue to be, a very important operational military barracks. Of this Deputies can be assured.
As the Tánaiste knows, the Commission on the Defence Forces, which was established on foot of a commitment in the programme for Government, published its report 12 months ago.
The Tánaiste will be aware that the commission recommended a number of changes to the high-level command and control structures within the Defence Forces. One of those recommendations is on the structure of the Army, which is to be reviewed, and rearranging units across the Defence Forces is now to be considered. In that context, will the Tánaiste consider designating Custume Barracks in Athlone as the location for the proposed Army headquarters, as recommended within the commission's report?
There will be a number of representations in respect of a number of barracks that want to be the headquarters, as detailed. In the first instance, the implementation management office is working on the production of a detailed implementation plan for the remaining recommendations. The military authorities are progressing the establishment of an Army force design that will undertake the work required to give effect to the recommendations of the commission. There is still some work to be done on this and I have asked that it be expedited. Once that review is completed there will obviously be issues with the structure of the Army and how best that will be operationalised, so I am not making commitments about any specific barracks being the headquarters.
As the Tánaiste knows, the report talked about the geographic location of this, and slap bang in the middle of the country could not be a better location from that point of view. Custume Barracks is also the only headquarters that is not currently a headquarters today. It has all the infrastructure in place. I also put it to the Tánaiste that when brigade status was removed from Custume Barracks there was a clear commitment given on the maintenance of personnel numbers in the barracks that has not been achieved. Many of the personnel based in Athlone are based there in name only and are actually being deployed out of Cathal Brugha Barracks in Dublin. In light of that, will the Tánaiste give serious consideration to designating Custume Barracks with this particular status?
It would be premature to designate any barracks with headquarters status until the review of the structure of the Army is completed.
Defence Forces
John Brady
Ceist:10. Deputy John Brady asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence his Department’s response to the change in practice where the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform will no longer allow his Department to retain budget savings arising from the shortfall in the establishment figure of the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5160/23]
What is the Minister and his Department's response to the change of practice whereby the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform will no longer allow his Department to retain budget savings arising from the shortfall in the establishment figure in the Defence Forces?
Again, that was a decision taken prior to my coming into office but nonetheless it is important to point out the 2023 Revised Estimate for Defence of over €915 million includes an overall pay allocation of €546 million, which is an increase of €19 million on the Revised Estimate for 2022. This overall allocation provides, inter alia, for all costs associated with the existing Building Momentum pay deal, for the recruitment of the head of transformation and strategic HR roles in the Defence Forces and for the implementation of a range of sectoral measures that impact on Permanent Defence Force, PDF, pay and allowances, as identified and prioritised by the Commission on the Defence Forces.
Some €468 million has been provided for the pay of members of the Permanent Defence Force. In previous years, as part of a long-standing arrangement, pay funding was allocated for the PDF establishment strength of 9,500, with any unused funding arising from PDF strengths falling below establishment being utilised to address spending pressures elsewhere in the Vote group, in accordance with Government financial procedures and in agreement with the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform.
However, as the Deputy said, a revised approach was introduced as part of the 2023 Estimates with pay funding for the year being based on prevailing strength, plus an anticipated net increase of 400 personnel, with non-pay subheads of the Defence Vote increased in recognition of the change from the previous unique arrangement. Arising from this changed approach to pay funding, plus additional resources provided as part of the budget, the overall non-pay allocation on the Defence Vote has increased by over €60 million in 2023, which is a rise of 21%, with virtually all non-pay subheads benefiting from an increased allocation. Therefore, the change has been of benefit to the Defence Vote overall. There is a guarantee there that as numbers increase, there is no issue with current provision for salaries into the future. The key issue from now on is that the level of funding allocated in budget 2023 and future budgets enables the Defence Forces to deliver effectively on their key domestic and international responsibilities and facilitates the structural, HR and cultural transformation required and recommended by the Commission on the Defence Forces.
The practice that was allowed to develop over many years whereby the Department was forced to rely on the inability to reach the establishment figure was an inbuilt reliance on failure to plug gaps and shortcomings in funding for other elements and areas within the Defence Forces. It spoke of a lack of ambition and desire to address the chronic haemorrhaging of members of the Defence Forces. The Tánaiste might outline what the underspend on pay is in the context of the shortfall of 1,500 personnel versus the establishment figure. What is that real figure? While the Tánaiste is dressing this up as some sort of victory for the Defence Forces, the reality this speaks of is a continuation of failure, especially when retention primarily revolves around pay and issues around that. I ask the Tánaiste for a specific figure. What is the underspend on the payroll?
As I said, the change is that the prevailing number dictates the allocation, so there will not be an underspend in that respect. It is a sensible approach. The key issue is that the largest budget increase ever experienced by the Department of Defence occurred in the 2023 Estimate. The pay increases have occurred relative to the pay agreements and the recommendations. There are other recommendations that will improve terms and conditions for personnel that we are working on. Critically, we need significant investment for capital investment and non-pay allocation of resources. The arrangement opens up opportunities while protecting the commitments made by the Government on both the ambition to get back to 9,500 personnel and up to 11,500, which is the LOA 2 objective. Therefore, there are sufficient guarantees on the pay front. I repeat there is no lack of urgency about changing the recruitment story within the Defence Forces.
Unfortunately, I must disagree with the Tánaiste again. There is a lack of urgency. I refer back to the failure of the Government to reach its own minimum targets for bringing forward the heads of a Bill on the working time directive. The Tánaiste outlined some of the positive measures that have been made on some of the allowance, but as we stand here there are many members of the Defence Forces who are still reliant on the working family payment. It is an absolute disgrace. The Tánaiste is portraying this as some sort of win-win for members of the Defence Forces but 500 of them have left since the publication of the commission's recommendations. There are still members of the Defence Forces sleeping in their cars because of an inability to afford accommodation. That is a failure of the Tánaiste and of the Government and it reflects a lack of ambition and desire to address the chronic, major crisis within the Defence Forces.
It must also be said there are many people in the Defence Forces who are pursuing very rewarding careers. It is our obligation to facilitate a rewarding and fruitful career for people, and lives for people, within our Defence Forces and there are many factors that can give rise to that. These include opportunities within the Defence Forces for progression, education, further learning, experiences in various challenging missions overseas, promotional opportunities and a good work-life balance, which does relate to the organisation of working time directive. A balancing perspective must be applied to the narrative around people working in our Defence Forces. Significant improvements have occurred in the last two years and that must be acknowledged. More is required and more improvements will occur.
There will be significant investment on an ongoing basis in our Defence Forces arising from Government decisions that were taken as a result of the Commission on the Defence Forces recommendations.
EU Meetings
Gino Kenny
Ceist:11. Deputy Gino Kenny asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if he has had engagement with his counterparts in the European Union; if he will report on those engagements; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5168/23]
One of the Tánaiste's last engagements as Taoiseach was on 15 December in relation to the EU Council. Can he report back to the House on his engagement with his counterparts in relation to the common European defence?
Yesterday we had statements in the House in relation to the EU Council meeting on 15 December and I reported formally back to the House in respect of that meeting. I have corresponded since my appointment with a number of EU counterparts and I look forward to engaging with them in-person, both bilaterally and in the format of the Foreign Affairs Council and in the Defence Ministers format also. There will be two opportunities to meet my colleagues in March. In early March, I will attend an informal meeting of EU defence ministers in Stockholm and on 20 March, EU Foreign and Defence Ministers will meet jointly to discuss the strategic compass, one year on from its adoption by EU leaders. While the agenda for the March informal has not yet been confirmed, it seems safe to assume the discussions will be dominated by the ongoing war in Ukraine and the international community's response; particularly that of the European Union. One could also imagine that such issues as the utilisation of the European peace facility, the European Union Military Assistance Mission Ukraine, EUMAM, and the progress made to date on the implementation of the strategic compass will also be on the ministers' agenda. Indeed, a number of these issues featured on the agenda of EU defence policy directors in Stockholm yesterday.
In terms of the Council meeting, the strategic compass, and common security and defence, Ireland has decided to join an EU battle group in which Germany will take the lead role. We have consistently been part of battle groups and training and preparing in such battle groups which improves our interoperability with other forces we serve with on peacekeeping missions. I think that makes sense. We also have to reflect continually on the evolution of the European Union's common security and defence policy. Given the particular interests and concerns that we have, it is important we participate in those discussions in order that Ireland's position is well understood. Bilateral engagement is a key element in ensuring this is the case.
I am glad the Tánaiste touched on the issue around EU battle groups. Does he not think that Ireland's participation in these groups undermines Ireland's neutrality? That is a very straight question.
In which groups?
I refer to the EU battle groups which the Tánaiste has mentioned. Does this not erode Ireland's neutrality which has been a policy for decades? It has given huge credence to Ireland's international standing not to take part in any military exercise that is seen as, not defensive, but offensive. I read by this that any participation by Ireland in these groups in a breach of neutrality.
I have to disagree with the Deputy fundamentally because our military neutrality has always been defined based on non-membership of a military alliance. We are not members of a military alliance. We are not members of NATO. That is the definition of Ireland's military neutrality. We have never been politically neutral. We have joined the European Union and have been a member since 1973. We have been involved in battle groups since 2001 onwards. Participating in battle groups in themselves does not commit to any particular theatre of either peacekeeping, peace enforcement or any such thing. All such decisions would have to come back to this House, back to the Government and be UN mandated in terms of peacekeeping and Security Council resolutions. In no way does participation in a battle group undermine Ireland's military neutrality. When I was in Lebanon, we worked with the Polish troops, for example, and with some Hungarian troops. It makes absolute sense that there is interoperability on such missions otherwise it would be far more dangerous.
I disagree with the Tánaiste. This is a flagrant breach of Ireland's neutrality. If you look at Ireland's participation even in the Nordic battle groups, the evolution can be seen and how Ireland is being pulled into more of a European defence army. Even on the commentary in the House in relation to eroding Ireland's triple lock status, the former Minister for Defence, Deputy Coveney, has said in the past that this is open for interpretation and debate. The soundings thus far, particularly in the last year, suggest Ireland's neutrality is being eroded. It is being eroded by stealth and by actual participation in these groups. These groups are not defensive; they are offensive. Looking at Ireland's participation in these groups, they are offensive, not defensive.
They are not offensive. They are essentially a training preparation exercise. Our Army cannot be isolationist and not ever meet or engage with any other army or defence forces. That is an absurd position to adopt. Taking cybersecurity as an example, which is a huge threat to the country. Are we to be isolationist in terms of the threat of cybersecurity in this country? Are we to ignore the expertise around the world in respect of cybersecurity and in terms of hybrid threats that are increasingly a part of war? We need to have our own independent position as we go into engagement with others, certainly, and we need to have our bottom edge. Again, we discussed this earlier when Deputy Gannon raised the issue of the triple lock. The issue now and for the forseeable future is that Russia will determine whether Ireland ever again participates in a peacekeeping mission. We need to reflect on that. I would argue that this is a curtailment of our own sovereignty if we want to participate in a UN peacekeeping mission in the future. There may not be UN peacekeeping missions in the future because of that very fact and given the way Russia, and to a lesser extent, China, are currently behaving on the Security Council. We need to discuss these things openly.
Question No. 12 taken with Written Answers.
Question No. 13 taken with Question No. 8.
Defence Forces
Aindrias Moynihan
Ceist:14. Deputy Aindrias Moynihan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the priorities for 2023 with regard to the implementation of the recommendations of the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5045/23]
Brendan Smith
Ceist:27. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the status of the review by his Department and the Defence Forces of the recommendations in the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5145/23]
Brendan Howlin
Ceist:59. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the up-to-date position on the appointment of an independent chair for the oversight committee for the implementation of the Report of the Commission on Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5151/23]
Bernard Durkan
Ceist:74. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the extent of progress in recent months in implementing the reforms in the Defence Forces identified in a recent report with particular reference to all of the major recommendations, including on recruitment, pay and conditions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5171/23]
Very briefly, I ask the Tánaiste about the priorities being set out for the start of the year ahead especially towards the implementation of the various recommendations and the report for the Commission on the Defence Forces.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 14, 27, 59 and 74 together. 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 and 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 and approved on 12 July 2022. 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, which is 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. That includes an almost 25% increase in capital funding and demonstrates our commitment to supporting the transformation of the Defence Forces. The move to LOA2 will require an additional 2,000 personnel over and above the current establishment of 9,500. Work has already commenced on this with the recently announced Be More recruitment campaign.
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, 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, to which end the Department of the Taoiseach will oversee the implementation. A civil-military implementation management office, IMO, has been established to support the implementation of the overall transformation programme required to implement the recommendations. The initial focus is on the implementation of the 38 early actions as set out in the high-level action plan and as I detailed earlier, to date approximately two thirds of these 38 actions have been achieved.
I think I have already dealt with some of them.
There is a group of questions on this subject.
I am sorry; I was racing through that a bit. As I said, to date, approximately two thirds of these 38 early actions have been achieved. For example, the head of transformation and the head of strategic HR positions have been advertised externally and progressed. Implementation and governance structures have been developed and initiated, including the establishment of an implementation oversight group with Ms Julie Sinnamon appointed as an independent chair. The requirement for a three-star private able seaman to mark time for the first three years at that rank has been removed. We have ensured that all personnel of private three-star able seaman rank are paid the full rate of MSA applicable to the rank. Recruitment and induction have been developed, encompassing advertising, expanded recruitment and induction capacity. Progress has been made on the remaining early actions, with most currently at an advanced stage and due to be completed shortly. These actions include the establishment of an office of reserve affairs, the commencement of Army force design planning, and the establishment of a capability development planning process and permanent structure. I intend to publish a comprehensive written update on all 38 early actions in the coming weeks.
One of the key early actions is the development of a detailed implementation plan, which is also at an advanced stage. This detailed implementation plan will clearly set out the work that is to be progressed in implementing the commission recommendations in full. It is a priority for me that this plan is both ambitious and credible and supports the transformation of the Defence Forces and defence provision in Ireland. My focus is on ensuring we get this plan right to support the transformation of the Defence Forces and defence provision in Ireland.
I very much agree with the Tánaiste that the implementation plan needs to be credible. This is important. It was due to be published in January, as I understand it. Is there a plan for when this will be published or do we know how near it is to being published? Regarding engagement and involvement with the different representative organisations concerning advancing this endeavour, has the Tánaiste met with them? Turning to the exemptions under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, how these would be implemented for the Defence Forces is important. Is this going to happen? Is it going to apply to people? Is this part of the plan? I ask the Tánaiste to outline the situation with these matters.
The Tánaiste mentioned that the newly appointed independent chair is Ms Julie Sinnamon. She has been an exceptional public servant and I have no doubt that she will do a very good job again on behalf of the State and all its citizens.
I wish to talk about structures in the Army, with particular reference to accommodation. Unfortunately, 11 years ago the most modern army barracks in Europe, Dún Uí Néill in Cavan, was closed. It is a location centrally situated in the Border region. We have no Army facility now between Finner Barracks in south Donegal and Aiken Barracks in Dundalk. We all know the geopolitical situation has changed in Europe, with Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine and Britain's exit from the EU. An issue that needs to be considered is the number of facilities we have for our Army personnel and their location. We all want to see 10,500 people enlisted in the Permanent Defence Forces. If we do this, then we need additional accommodation. I sincerely hope that the reopening of Dún Uí Néill barracks can be given urgent, detailed and favourable consideration.
We have gone over several of the specific issues. For all of us, the issue is urgency. It is lovely to set up structures, and every report we have had has referred to new structures almost in management-speak, but there has been little by way of delivery. The objective of the commission was to modernise our Defence Forces, stop the haemorrhaging of personnel and ensure the objectives set out were achieved. Regarding reporting to this House, can the Tánaiste set out his timeline for what he expects to happen during the course of this year and how it is going to be communicated to this House? This would ensure that instead of having the same type of response on every occasion we raise this matter during parliamentary questions, we could have up-to-date reporting of achievements, as opposed to structural things that are happening. I refer to actual things in terms of recruitment, training, retention, specific equipment and so on.
The points made by the previous speaker are important. We can talk about this for as long as we like and we have talked about this for a very long time. The issues are apparent to everybody. They are apparent to the Defence Forces. These are acute issues and they need to be addressed in a much shorter time. The debate has taken place and I agree entirely with the points made by the Tánaiste and the other speakers. This all depends, however, on how quickly we can implement these actions and how quickly we can put them into operation. We must nail this down once and for all. Otherwise, we will be in an area of speculating as to what might happen in future and when it should happen or if it should ever happen. We must remember that there are possibly people in some places who hope this process will never happen, and as a result it does not happen. In line with Deputy Howlin and the other speakers, therefore, I appeal to the Tánaiste to put this process in motion quickly and to take control of this endeavour himself.
I thank the Deputies for their comments. I am in office for just over a month, and I am determined to get beyond the management-speak and to get stuff implemented. I have reflected on the presentations I have received so far. Some progress has been made in some areas, but not fast enough in others. We have discussed the Organisation of Working Time directive. This is not simple. From my previous experience in different Departments, even when that came in originally, it was a very complex piece of work and there was much resistance in different organisations to the concept. Deputy Howlin will recall that in earlier times, and Deputy Aindrias Moynihan has raised this specific point, people felt the world was going to collapse in various professions, not least the health service.
We have done it for An Garda Síochána.
We have done it across the board and we are going to do it for the Defence Forces. I have asked that this work be expedited to get it completed, and that work continue on the terms and conditions and the overall environment within which people are working.
There are six contributors this time, so I am going back to Deputy Ó Muineacháin.
I thank the Tánaiste for outlining his intention to implement that directive. The commission believes it is important in that it would improve retention, well-being and productivity in the Defence Forces. There are derogations in this regard, but these should only be there in exceptional or extraordinary situations. There is concern that many of these exemptions would be too wide-ranging. It is important therefore that any derogations, if they are needed, would be intended for narrow and exceptional situations so that we do not end up with the ridiculous situation like the one we have in the prison in Portlaoise. Prison officers there qualify under the provisions of the Act but Defence Forces' personnel do not. I ask that any exemptions that would be there would be exceptional and extraordinary, as advised by the commission.
I thank the Tánaiste for his reply. As he is aware, Cavan had a proud Army tradition over the years. Generations of families joined and were proud to serve our country at home and abroad. I am sure Deputy Berry and others in the House would agree with me that there was always greater recruitment in areas where there were substantial Army barracks, such as in Cavan, Kildare and other noteworthy places. Again, therefore, I appeal for the needs of the Border region to be considered in the context of the possibility of having Dún Uí Néill barracks reopened.
In Lebanon recently, the Minister met members of the Defence Forces from my county of Cavan and they spoke to him about their family connections. He knew some of those families as well. I do not think, therefore, that we should ever underestimate the continuity in family tradition and recruitment in areas where there has been a substantial Army presence over the years.
In this supplementary question I wish to ask about the non-pay Vote. Something in the order of €60 million in non-pay additional funding seems to be very little in terms of the equipment requirements laid out, if we are going to do anything. The cost of the replacement of the two maritime aircraft would gobble up that amount. Would consideration be given to going down the road of setting a capital sum aside, as Germany has done?
There was a €5 billion surplus last year. A once-off capital sum could be put aside for infrastructure and equipment needs. We are talking about recruiting personnel, which is important, but we have to give them the best infrastructure and equipment to do their job.
I agree with the previous speaker on the salient issues. The Minister is in the best position to identify those, drive them forward and achieve results in the short term. Morale is affected throughout the Defence Forces due to the length of time we have discussed these issues without any marked degree of success, although that is not his fault. The salient issues can be dealt with shortly and quickly. I echo the words of my colleague in that regard, particularly in relation to traditional military constituencies.
The Minister has come in here and said he is only a month in the job. I hate to remind him that he has been Taoiseach over the past two years. That speaks to the lack of urgency and seriousness the Government has given the major crisis within the Defence Forces. The Minister's comments hit the nail on the head. He said that of the 38 early actions, two thirds have been implemented, as if that is some sort of major achievement. The reality is that one third have not been implemented within the Government's own timeframe. These were supposed to be implemented within the first six months of the Government giving its response, which it did in July. It has missed its own targets. We do not need an implementation body. The implementation of these early actions that the Government identified is in its hands, not those of an implementation body. When are the remaining one third of the early actions the Government identified going to be fully implemented?
I want to speak to the point my colleague, Deputy Smith, made. Soldiers, men and women, are very much willing to rough it and tough it but they want to come home to a home environment as well. Accommodation is something that needs to be addressed. In Meelick, County Clare, which is my home village, a housing scheme was built in the 1980s in partnership with Father Harry Bohan. It was affordable housing for its time. To this day, more than half of the families in Elton Court, which is a fabulous housing estate, are current or former members of the Defence Forces. Such a scheme would be fantastic if we could do it again. Maybe the Minister could partner with his colleague, the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, to give these people a roof over their heads where families can be reared in the community close to the barracks.
I thank the Deputies for their constructive suggestions. I am very much taken by Deputy Smith's point. When talking to military personnel, including those in the Naval Service, Air Corps or Army, there is a strong link back to geography and where barracks were present. Of that there is no doubt. The focus of capital investment at the moment is on upgrading existing facilities but I will talk to the Deputy further in respect of the issue he has raised.
The issues raised by Deputy Moynihan have to be sorted in the context of the working time directive in locations such as Portlaoise. Historically, a dependence built up on the Army in such places, which in itself must be looked at and reflected on with regard to the appropriateness of some of the duties that are still asked of the military on the civil side in the modern day. That is a matter of ongoing review.
On Deputy Howlin's point, there has been a commitment within government, in terms of the commission and the implementation of the plan, to a progressive increase in capital.
A modest one.
As the Deputy knows, with procurement you do not spend a whole lot in the early years. To take a radar facility for example, or any building that is planned, it is in the latter stages of the completion that the drawdown happens in respect of capital expenditure, so there can be a progressive increase in capital expenditure over the lifetime of the plan.
Deputy Brady and I will have to agree to disagree. We have implemented a lot and a lot of progress has been made. Significant additional resources have been allocated to this.
I take Deputy Crowe's point about accommodation. In Gormanstown, for example, there will be accommodation in the training facility. There has been some significant investment in Haulbowline in respect of accommodation. I understand the point the Deputy is making and there is merit in it.
Do not forget the salient issues as well.
Deputy Durkan made similar points about the tradition and those areas, similar to what Deputy Smith referenced.
Air Corps
Cathal Crowe
Ceist:15. Deputy Cathal Crowe asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the plans that are in place regarding the Government jet; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4738/23]
The Government Learjet, LJ, 45 was bought for €8 million in 2004. I understand it is now in a pretty poor state of repair and that officials in the Department have recommended that it be replaced. I would like an update on where that situation is at.
I thank the Deputy for his helpful question. The ministerial air transport service, MATS, is delivered primarily by use of the Learjet 45 aircraft, which came into operation in 2004. Where it is unavailable, the CASA and-or other Air Corps aircraft may be used. The Learjet is currently approaching its natural end of life. Based on current serviceability issues, discontinuation of manufacturer support and limited part availability for this type of older aircraft, the Air Corps estimates that the aircraft will require replacement by 2024 at the latest. As such, in line with the public spending code, an interdepartmental high-level group of officials, the MATS review group, chaired by my Department, was established in 2021 to examine options for delivery of the ministerial air transport service. The capability of this service to carry out a broader utility role for the State, in terms of tasks and reach beyond Europe, was also examined. In situations like what happened in Afghanistan last year, there is a need for the State to have strategic reach.
During 2022, the MATS review group produced both an agreed strategic assessment report and a preliminary business case, the latter of which contained a detailed financial appraisal and economic assessment conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers. These reports were supplemented by the inclusion of additional market research on suitable options for the acquisition of a second-hand aircraft, with the assistance of an independent aviation consultant. I have reviewed the various strands of work conducted to date and have approved the recommendation made by my officials. Ultimately, the State needs a replacement aircraft that provides a broad utility role, including strategic reach in crisis situations and medical evacuation, as well as ministerial air transport. My officials will now move to progress to procurement phase. A project team is currently being established and planning for a procurement competition for replacement capability will commence shortly. The procurement will consider both new and second-hand replacement capability. The outcome of any procurement competition will be subject to further deliberation and consideration in line with the public spending code.
I thank the Minister for the update. The Government is taking a sensible approach. In November 2008, the Mexican Government, which also flies LJ45s, had a major crash above Mexico City. The very same plane the Government uses-----
Just to cheer you up.
If I can continue the point, please.
Sorry.
That plane crashed that night. All nine passengers on board, including Mexico's interior minister, were killed, as well as seven people on the ground, which was 16 people killed in total. It is very important that technology is kept up to date and kept safe. Many years ago I used to pilot planes myself. Pilots do not like taking to a plane that is unsafe or may not be fully up to spec in its equipment or maintenance. It is important not just for government purposes, although that is what everyone will hone in on here, but for humanitarian missions and medical evacuations. I know people in my constituency who have been taken to life-saving surgeries in other countries. This is so important for our country. We cannot expect members of the Government to be going around in rickshaws and we cannot just magic children who are overseas or Irish people who need to be repatriated home. We need a way of getting them home safely and I think this is a sensible decision.
I appreciate the Deputy's contribution. His insights are valuable. I did not realise he was a pilot at one stage.
Out of many talents.
I take the point. The Deputy referred to the Mexican Government crash. That was a shocking crash and a shocking loss of life. There have been issues with the Learjet. There is no point in saying otherwise. There have been serious issues with it. I am not prepared to stand over it. A replacement jet is required. In Afghanistan, we essentially had to depend on other governments to get places on planes for Irish citizens we needed to evacuate quickly. That strategic reach is important. As the Deputy said, medical transport and evacuation is also important, plus the numerous duties and ministerial obligations, for European meetings in particular, are such that we need to deal with this once and for all.
It is very important in projecting Ireland to the world but also getting Irish people back home safely when required. It is a sensible decision and I am glad the Government is moving on it.
I will ask one question in my final few seconds. Now that we are in the decade of centenaries and the Civil War is being commemorated, I am seeing photographs pop up every weekend. There was one of Youghal, County Cork the other day where Sinn Féin Deputies were walking down the street with people in paramilitary uniforms.
Does the Minister think it is right that a member of the Opposition, who purports to be the shadow Minister for Defence, should march and walk in step with people who do not wear the uniform of our Defence Forces but who wear black berets and sunglasses walking our streets? Is that not wrong? Is it not insulting to the men and women who protect our country, who don that uniform, some of whom have even lost their lives defending Ireland? There is only one Army in Ireland. I ask that during his tenure, the Minister might consider imposing an outright ban on the wearing of paramilitary uniforms at such events. It totally rewrites and distorts what is a proud and sometimes divisive history in our land, but it is wrong. We must call it out as well. If Deputy Brady is Opposition spokesperson on defence, he cannot talk for one Army yet stand and march down the street with another.
It will be future governments that benefit from a replacement jet because the procurement process is such that it will take a bit of time. I do believe it was time to commence the process because an inordinate time was taken to consider it. My view is that we should move ahead on that front. Future governments and the people, in terms of our capacity, will benefit.
I have always been of the view that there is only one Óglaigh na hÉireann and that is the Irish Defence Forces. Everybody should honour that and accept that reality. We should be very clear about the avoidance of any alternative military paraphernalia, parades and the like. There can be occasions when people are re-enacting historic moments, for example schools or commemorative ceremonies, but that is different to what Deputy Crowe references. There is only one Óglaigh na hÉireann.
I thank the Minister.
There is only slightly more than one minute remaining, so we might come to a conclusion at this stage, depending on what Members want, but there will not be time for an answer.
Could I ask a brief question?
The Deputy has 30 seconds.
That will do. There is an issue with the pandemic bonus being paid to retired members of the Defence Forces. I spoke to one medic who had carried out his duties in vaccination centres and swab testing centres who retired during the Covid pandemic. He has yet to receive the bonus. I would appreciate if the Minister could come back to me with what the plan is to address this. The Defence Forces cannot process it as he is no longer on their payroll.
I will follow that up.