Alan Farrell
Ceist:6. Deputy Alan Farrell asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence to provide an update on his engagement with PDFORRA; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22898/23]
Ceisteanna Eile - Other Questions
Defence Forces
This question is to ask the Tánaiste to provide an update on his engagement with PDFORRA and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I thank the Deputy for the question. Since taking up my role as Tánaiste and Minister for Defence last December, I have met with representatives of PDFORRA on three separate occasions to date. These were on 13 February to discuss a range of pay and conditions matters, on 27 March to update the association on the recent report of the Independent Review Group on Dignity and Equality issues in the Defence Forces, and on 2 May to seek the views of the association on that report and on draft terms of reference for a statutory inquiry, which is one of the key recommendations in the report.
I further welcomed the opportunity to attend and speak at PDFORRA's annual delegate conference on 9 May, just last week. At that conference, I addressed delegates on several key issues facing the Defence Forces. I highlighted the important service provided by the Defence Forces and the significant risk that comes with it. This risk sadly became a reality with the tragic events in the context of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, last December, which resulted in the tragic death of Private Seán Rooney and injuries being sustained by three other members of our Defence Forces.
I also used the opportunity at the conference to acknowledge the range of improvements made over the last year with regard to pay and conditions. I outlined several significant recommendations from the Commission on the Defence Forces which have been delivered, including temporary associate membership of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, for the purpose of participation in public sector pay negotiations; changes to pay and allowance structures for personnel in the first three years of service, resulting in starting pay of €37,147 in year one for a three-star private; and the delivery of a commission recommendation on extending healthcare provision for enlisted personnel.
In addition, I referred to the issue of post 1994 contracts for enlisted personnel and announced that I had secured an interim arrangement that will allow for the continuance in service to the end of 2024 for those privates and corporals recruited on or after 1 January 1994 who would be due to retire on age grounds before that date, subject to their meeting established criteria.
I also announced the delivery of a programme for Government commitment and Commission on Defence Forces recommendation on the extension of healthcare provision for enlisted personnel. Agreement has been reached in principle to allow all enlisted members of the Defence Forces to benefit from the same access to private secondary health care as officers, thanks to the co-operation and assistance of my colleague, the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, Deputy Donohoe, and colleagues in government more generally.
In addition, I referred to the recent IRG report on dignity and equality issues in the Defence Forces.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
I took the opportunity to again express my deep appreciation to all the groups, including serving and former personnel and the Women and Men of Honour, who have come forward. In conclusion, I have had a range of recent engagement with PDFORRA and I look forward to further continued constructive engagement with the Defence Forces representative associations.
I thank the Minister. I welcome that budget 2023 provided the largest amount ever for the defence sector. We are now in a very competitive employment market. The role the Defence Forces play is extremely important. When they are abroad, they provide a very good service to the UN, as well as part of an EU peacekeeping project. It is important that we provide the level of support and remuneration that they deserve.
The Reserve Defence Force provides significant service to the Defence Forces and the State. The report published by the Commission on Defence Force in 2022 made particular reference to increasing the size and scope of the reserve by integrating it into military planning and making it available for deployment overseas. What engagement has taken place in that regard? How could that part of the Defence Forces be further expanded?
On the pay front, very significant progress has been made, in particular on starting pay. As I said, the extension of private secondary health care and other allowances have been worked on. We will continue to try to improve the overall situation in terms of the remuneration package that Defence Forces personnel receive. The minimum for trained personnel comprises basic pay and military service allowances. That should not be missed in any calculations that are being made. The starting pay is now comparable, if not better, than any other areas of work in the private sector, in particular those coming out of school with the leaving certificate or a graduate on commission in the very first year.
We set up a new office of the RDF. I met the chief of staff and put a particular priority on this area. We have changed a number of procedures in terms of recruitment. There is strong interest in joining the RDF and we need to accelerate the recruitment, retention and training of reserves.
A number of people will automatically retire from the Defence Forces. Is the Minister satisfied that we will attract a sufficient number of new people into the Defence Forces over the next three to four years? It is of concern that numbers have decreased. We need to make sure that we not only maintain numbers but increase them.
There are a number of measures, such as pay and so on. A new integrated multidisciplinary state-of-the-art training centre is being developed in Gormanston where all recruits, be they Air Corps, Navy or Army, will be together. We have more to do in that regard. I am confident that with the continued investment we are committed to, we can significantly improve the situation.
There is huge choice out there in the economy at the moment. The unemployment rate is below 4%. We are working with the Defence Forces and impressing upon them the need to continue to change the culture, as we increase resources through investment in capability, facilities, pay and allowances and general overall conditions to make it a very attractive proposition for young people.
Defence Forces
Cormac Devlin
Ceist:7. Deputy Cormac Devlin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence for a report on the work of the external oversight body for the Defence Forces; if membership is being expanded; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22686/23]
I have raised this issue on a number of occasions. I ask the Minister for a report on the work of the external oversight body for the Defence Forces and whether membership is being expanded. As he will be aware, following his meeting with the Women of Honour group, among others, there have been calls for that.
I thank the Deputy for raising the issue. As he will be aware, the Government agreed to establish the external oversight body of the Defence Forces on a non-statutory basis initially, in line with one of the 13 recommendations of the independent review group on dignity and equality issues in the Defence Forces published on 28 March. The Government moved quickly to establish the body, making the following appointments on 5 April: Professor Brian MacCraith as the independent chair, Ms Josephine Feehily, Ms Patricia King, Ms Julie Sinnamon, Mr. Aongus Hegarty and Ms Jacqui McCrum in her capacity as Secretary General of the Department of Defence. These six appointments are fully in line with the IRG report, which recommended eight appointments, including the Secretary General of the Department of Defence.
I am also pleased to announce that, with the agreement of Government this morning, I have today appointed Ms Sam des Forges to the body. She is the director of conduct, equity and justice in the Ministry of Defence in the United Kingdom and has very relevant experience in the areas of diversity and inclusion, transformation of defence forces' complaints system and the implementation of reforms relating to culture and unacceptable behaviours within defence forces. Her unique personal experience, expertise and insight will be of huge value to the body. I intend to make a further appointment to the body in the near future.
The immediate establishment of the external oversight body is a critical element to driving the necessary culture change throughout the Defence Forces and increasing transparency and accountability. The calibre and combined skills and experience of each member gives me every confidence that this will happen. The first task I set the body was to develop detailed terms of reference, in line with the recommendations of the report, for my approval.
I am pleased to confirm the body met for the first time on 17 April. I spoke to the chair after that meeting and I understand the meeting was professional and productive. The body met again on 4 May and I understand it is also meeting today. My expectation is that the chair will submit detailed terms of reference for my approval in the coming weeks. Once approved, the terms of reference will be published. While the body has been established on non-statutory basis, it is my firm intention to introduce legislation to put it on a statutory footing as soon as possible.
I thank the Minister. I want to acknowledge his swift action and engagement since the publication of the 13 recommendations, as well as his recent engagement with various groups. He will be aware of the opposition of the Women of Honour group and others to the IRG report recommendation that membership of the external oversight body of the Defence Forces should include the Secretary General of the Department. The Women of Honour group, in particular, stated that it believed the Secretary General of the Department should not be a member of the oversight board. It called for appointees to the independent oversight board to be vetted by the Oireachtas committee.
Following his recent meeting with the various groups in response to their calls that the Secretary General should not be a member of the oversight group, what assurances can the Minister provide to address those concerns? I commend the expansion of the oversight group he outlined, such as the appointment today and others that are due to come.
The appointment of the external oversight group was a recommendation of the IRG. We implemented it exactly in line with the recommendation of the group. The report was welcomed in the House for its shocking, but very clear, presentation of the issues facing the Defence Forces and the experiences of the many people it met. The Government has to have the capacity to move and implement recommendations, in particular in terms of a body such as this.
We were very determined, because before the report was published all the questions on defence in this House were as to whether I would implement these recommendations in full. I was asked that here before the report was even published. I said I would. No sooner do I implement the recommendations than the very action of doing so is criticised. There has to be momentum in decision-making. We are engaging with all of the groups on the terms of reference and the nature of the statutory inquiry we will have, following the work of the internal review group. However, I am determined to move on issues with regard to the suicide aspect of the report, aviation actions and so on and to get momentum behind the recommendations.
I was one of the people welcoming the publication of the report, because it was eagerly awaited by all Members of the House. The Association of Retired Commissioned Officers, ARCO, while welcoming the establishment of the external oversight body, has expressed concern about the imbalance of the defence representation in its membership. ARCO says the inclusion of a civilian defence official should be balanced by the inclusion of a military professional and this body will have to have the trust and confidence of both military and civilian components of the defence community. I ask the Tánaiste to give his opinions on those calls.
It is an external oversight body in respect of the Defence Forces. It would not be appropriate to have a member of the Defence Forces there. That is not casting aspersions on anybody or any organisation. I regret the focus from the military community in respect of the fact the Secretary General of the Department is part of it. That is not fair or reasonable. There is a logic to it, by the way. As someone who has experienced this in government for quite a long time and at different times in my political career, I understand how one has to have that link with administration to deliver recommendations and make sure they happen. It is a crucial link to the oversight body to have the office of the Secretary General, irrespective of the person. Otherwise an oversight body could be batting off a haystack. There has to be accountability in terms of what is identified as change that is required and an assurance that change is being delivered. I surmise that is why the independent review group recommended the Secretary General would be on this group.
Defence Forces
Holly Cairns
Ceist:8. Deputy Holly Cairns asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the steps he is taking to address systematic sexual harassment and assaults in the Defence Forces. [19971/23]
I too will raise the report into bullying and sexual harassment in the Defence Forces. The report was damning and deeply disturbing and found that the armed forces "barely tolerates women" and that there was "a discernible pattern of rape and sexual assault". Moreover, it was a complete vindication of the Women of Honour group and all who were brave enough to speak up. What guarantees do survivors, serving members of the Defence Forces and the public have that things will change?
As I am sure the Deputy will be aware, I am currently progressing a comprehensive programme of actions to address the extremely serious issues identified in the independent review group report. As I said in my initial response to the report, a completely honest appraisal of the problems and a comprehensive plan to address them is the only way to honour the contribution of serving and retired personnel and rebuild trust. Most immediately, I obtained Government approval to establish the external oversight body, on a non-statutory basis initially, to drive the necessary culture change throughout the Defence Forces and to increase transparency and accountability. The Government has also agreed to the establishment of a statutory inquiry to investigate whether there have been serious systemic failures in the complaints system in the Defence Forces on interpersonal issues, including sexual misconduct. I have been consulting with the Attorney General in respect of its establishment.
I am also keenly aware of the importance of consultation with all stakeholders as this transformation is taken forward. I met with the various groups on 27 March to advise them that I intended to bring the report to Government on 28 March. I had a further round of meetings on 2 May with the Defence Women's Network, the Defence Forces representative associations, the Women of Honour group and the Men and Women of Honour group. In addition, the Secretary General of the Department of Defence met with the Irish Defence Forces veterans associations and with civil and civilian employee unions. At the meetings, a draft of proposed terms of reference for the forthcoming statutory inquiry were shared. I have requested the groups to provide feedback in writing to me so that their observations can be considered in preparing the terms of reference. Work has also commenced on legislative change required with an initial focus on amending the Defence Act 1954 to ensure all allegations of rape, aggravated sexual assault and sexual assault in the Defence Forces in the State are referred to An Garda Síochána for investigation. This will confirm in legislation the policy instruction issued by the Chief of Staff in relation to such complaints.
I have consistently stated that any incident of sexual abuse, whether current or historic, should be reported immediately to An Garda Síochána and I welcome the recent announcement by the Garda Commissioner, Drew Harris, that dedicated resources have been put in place to investigate such criminal allegations. I have also committed to continuing the interim supports established in October 2021 for both current and serving members of the Defence Forces affected by such behaviour, including the confidential contact person, with Raiseaconcern.
I know we all unequivocally condemn the abuses described in that report. It revealed a toxic environment which is unsafe for both women and men. The extreme malpractices were systematic and facilitated by senior offices, while predators acted with impunity. The report found "the Defence Forces is unable (or unwilling) to make the changes that are needed". The Tánaiste mentioned the new external oversight body to drive cultural change in the Defence Forces and the Women of Honour group were shocked at the appointment of the Department of Defence's Secretary General to the board of this body. The Women of Honour compared this situation to the Irish Catholic Bishops' Conference being the secretariat to investigations into the church. I know other Deputies have raised this, but it is such an important point. It speaks to the Government's position on implementing real and effective change. We see what happens when these investigations are set up, in that it is not in the way the group that is affected is asking for. Does the Tánaiste recognise the group's concerns, or what does he think about the appointment?
Before the report of the independent review group was published, the Opposition in this House and people were asking me whether I would implement the recommendations in full. I have not deviated from the recommendation in respect of the oversight group. The criticisms are unfair. They are not reasonable and are very unfair on the Secretary General. To compare it to the situation of the bishop in a diocese is especially unfair and does not bear comparison. I have engaged with the Women of Honour group on this and I do not accept some of the criticisms that have been levelled at the approach being taken by the Department. I am not clear which Department is in question. If it is the view of the Women of Honour that the Department of Defence should have nothing to do with the inquiry, which is a growing or an evolving position, it will create a real capacity issue in terms of who, from an administrative perspective, develops the proposals for a statutory inquiry. We are open to consultation on the draft terms of reference. We have to get movement on this. There is very little point in all of us condemning and being shocked, if we are prepared to prolong the implementation of the most basic of recommendations. Looking at the calibre of the people appointed, I ask anybody to question their calibre or indeed their independence from the Government.
I cannot speak for the Women of Honour, but I suspect it is not anything personal. I think it is just a view the group has, because it wants an independent review done of this and does not want any institutional aversion to change or to calling out what has been systematic. The systems involved include oversight of the whole Defence Forces. I do not think the group is coming from the place the Tánaiste is describing but, like I said, I cannot speak for the group.
It is not just the Women of Honour.
However, the oversight body is not the only part of the Government's response about which the Women of Honour group has raised concerns, both publicly and with me directly. The group has expressed its disappointment that the Tánaiste and the Department are seeking to design draft terms of reference without any consultations with it and the group feels the Government seeks to railroad through it and others, without any courtesy or respect. The group has rightly called for a full and rigorous statutory inquiry and, crucially, the group should have a meaningful role in determining those terms of reference. Consultation is key with regard to these things. We know that. We have seen it go badly wrong without such consultation. To date, the group has been sceptical of the process.
These women, who have exhibited such bravery and determination, were left disappointed after meeting with the Minister and the Department. On that basis alone, the Minister needs to do things differently. I can only hope that he is listening to them and that he is developing a new approach.
There was consultation, and the consultation is ongoing. When we had a meeting, on the terms of reference, we presented a basic draft - I emphasise "draft" - terms of reference, which is reasonable as a starting point in terms of discussions with group.
The meeting was quite amicable. The press statement afterwards surprised me given the nature of the discussion we had. I have tremendous respect for the Women of Honour and those who courageously came forward.
With regard to the establishment of a statutory inquiry, we have consulted with all the groups, presented draft terms of reference and asked for feedback, amendments and change so that we can engage further. That is all that has happened. I do not know why that is shocking or why that, in itself, is condemned. It is open to other groups to come back to us and say that they do not like our draft terms of reference and then we will consider all of that, as will, of course, with the Attorney General's office, which, from a legal perspective, will help the drafting in consultation with the groups.
Defence Forces
Réada Cronin
Ceist:9. Deputy Réada Cronin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if his Department is preparing a plan to assist with the urgent housing of members of the Defence Forces in military accommodation that is available; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22808/23]
Colm Burke
Ceist:10. Deputy Colm Burke asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if his Department has set out a five year-plan to acquire or build apartments or houses that would accommodate members of the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21031/23]
Is the Department preparing a plan to assist with the urgent housing of members of the Defence Forces in military accommodation that is already available?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 10 together.
As the Deputies will be aware, the Permanent Defence Force provides a significant level of single living accommodation for serving personnel, where this accommodation is required by personnel for training and operations duties. There are in excess of 4,500 places currently within all the military installations.
I am pleased to be able to update the Deputies on the significant investments we are making in improving the Defence Forces built infrastructure, particularly on how we have prioritised the expansion of such accommodation in recent years.
As part of the implementation of the Defence Forces infrastructure plan we have to date provided 365 bed spaces at various locations, most notably the complete renovation of the derelict block 8 in Haulbowline and the upgrading of accommodation in Cathal Brugha Barracks, Baldonnel and the Curragh Camp.
We are, I am also glad to report, increasing the delivery of such infrastructure. This year alone, we have provided €55 million to the improving and maintaining of the building infrastructure. Notable new accommodation projects under way this year include: the upgrade of the current derelict block 4 in Haulbowline; new accommodation blocks in Collins Barrack and at the Gormanston training centre; and the upgrade of the former university service army complement, USAC, building in Galway.
Taken together, the infrastructure plan will entail the provision of 900 bed spaces and represents a significant investment in our personnel. I am satisfied it will substantially meet the needs of the Defence Forces.
That being said, I am aware that there is residual and historic housing stock remaining in some installations. While much of this stock is unoccupied and built before modern accommodation standards, on taking office I immediately instructed that some housing stock in the Curragh Camp marked down for demolition was to be renovated and modernised for single living accommodation purposes. In addition, I instructed that an assessment be carried out of all other housing stock under my Department's control to determine how they can be best utilised for our personnel.
I reassure the Deputies that accommodation for the purposes of single living is provided in all military installations for operational and training purposes.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Tánaiste.
The situation in the Curragh Camp has been brought up by my comrade, an Teachta Patricia Ryan, on several occasions but since I was appointed junior spokesperson for defence, wives and partners have come to me with some truly heartbreaking stories. The basic needs of safe housing of these families' men and women who have served us so proudly are not being met. It really is a shame when we have, as the Minister said, accommodation on the Curragh Camp.
I am pleased that he has stopped the demolition of those houses. There are more than 60 vacant houses. Has he a timeline for when he expects them to be ready?
Significant investment is under way in the accommodation. On the precise use of that accommodation, currently it is, for training and operational reasons, tied to work, etc. Historically, there was what we would call "tied" housing within the military where housing was provided. It was known then as tied housing provision. In the early 1990s, the discontinuance of that started for a number of reasons and it was done on a gradual basis to minimise disruption to families, personnel, etc. Since then, the focus has been on training and operational activities. We are concentrating on renovation and upgrading existing accommodation facilities. I have given instructions that I do not want anything demolished, either on the Curragh or elsewhere.
On the next stage of that and the policy question as to whether we start building houses again, we have to take on board the broader community environment, crèches, etc. It is not only about building houses anymore. There is the desirability of that within barracks, etc. That is a bigger question. On the timelines, I can get those for the Deputy in respect of the projects that are under way.
The Minister mentioned the availability of 4,500 bed places. I wonder how many of those are currently occupied because in many cases, as he outlined earlier, accommodation was left not maintained over the years and not improved and brought up to modern-day standards.
In my question, I asked had the Department put in place a five-year plan setting out clear goals annually for the next five years. The Defence Forces are crucial to us as a country. It is extremely important that we provide standard accommodation for personnel so that they are not under the pressure of trying to be out in the rented market and having to get accommodation if they are moved from one area to another. It is extremely important that we have a five-year plan and I would ask that this would be considered.
There is such a plan. There is a yearly programme. For example, the following accommodation projects at a cost of €37 million will progress during 2023 and 2024 providing 365 beds: Collins Barracks, a new accommodation block; the upgrade of the former USAC building in Renmore; the refurbishment of block 4, Haulbowline; the refurbishment of block 1, Collins Barracks; the refurbishment of Stephens' block C, Kilkenny; and Gormanston Camp, new accommodation block.
Since the infrastructure development plan, IDP, in January of 2020, the following accommodation projects at a cost of €22 million have been completed: the refurbishment of block H, McKee Barracks, 34 beds; the refurbishment of block 8, Haulbowline, 70 beds; the refurbishment of blocks B and D of Pearse Barracks, 48 beds; the refurbishment of Plunkett block 7, Defence Forces training centre, DFTC, 58 beds; blocks 1 and 2, Cathal Brugha Barracks refurbished, 80 beds; and refurbishment of the apprentice hostel, Casement Aerodrome, 75 beds.
There are approximately 77 vacant residential-type properties under the remit of my Department. Ten are in Cork, five in Dublin and 62 properties are in Kildare. None of them can be occupied without considerable refurbishment. They were built before building regulations, etc. I have asked that those would be renovated.
Could I ask-----
The Deputy will get another opportunity.
I appreciate the Minister's answer. This goes to the wider issue of how the Defence Forces are treated and valued. We talk about recruitment and retention. We really have to start at retention. We have to retain the members who are working in the Defence Forces. They are trained already. The priority has to be keeping them.
This could be an indication to the committed members of our Defence Forces, who obey orders and take their commands to protect the State, that the State has their backs as well. I would appreciate if the Minister would send a copy of the plans to me.
I would be happy to do so. I outlined quite a number of the plans already. We are looking at about 588 beds between what has happened and the following projects, which are at various stages of design development. In Cork there will be 186 beds between Collins Barracks and Haulbowline. Those are on their way at the moment. I have seen the work myself. There will be 48 beds in Kilkenny, 100 beds in Gormanston, 172 in the Defence Forces Training Centre, DFTC, 13 in Cathal Brugha Barracks and 69 in Renmore. If any personnel within the Defence Forces are in difficulties we ask them to contact the personnel support services to see what assistance can be given. I will get the programme for the Deputy.
I very much welcome what the Tánaiste has outlined with regard to projects that are up and running at the moment, particularly for Haulbowline and Collins Barracks in my constituency. I know the Tánaiste has set out what is planned for Collins Barracks and what is going ahead but is that going to be added to over the next number of years? Is there a plan to add to that? It is a major centre for the Defence Forces and a large number of Defence Forces members are based there. Will it be further expanded?
That is the intention. We have to get this project up and running first but it is going well. I have also asked for more single en-suite provision, although not in all cases. We will upgrade the quality of the facilities that are being provided. The Haulbowline facilities are worth a visit but again there could have been some improvements there and full equality from a gender perspective in terms of what is provided. There is constant upgrading of the quality of the accommodation going on but I stress that in the immediate term we are looking to upgrade what is there for training and operational purposes and to make sure that any accommodation there, no matter how poor it is at the moment, is upgraded to the point where it can be to be used for accommodation purposes.
Military Neutrality
Pádraig O'Sullivan
Ceist:11. Deputy Pádraig O'Sullivan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence for a report on the planned consultative forums on security and defence; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22628/23]
Peadar Tóibín
Ceist:34. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence for an update on the consultative forum on international security policy. [22661/23]
Paul Murphy
Ceist:35. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the rationale and criteria for the selection of the chairperson of the forthcoming series of public consultations on defence policy and neutrality; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20678/23]
I ask the Tánaiste to furnish the House with a report on the planned consultative forum on security and defence.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11, 34 and 35 together.
The consultative forum will take place in three different locations over four days at the end of June, on 22 June at University College Cork, on 23 June at the University of Galway, and on 26 and 27 June at Dublin Castle. In line with similar national processes, an independent chairperson was selected to chair the consultative forum on international security policy. The chair was appointed having regard to the remit of the consultative forum and, consequently, to the competencies, skills and experience required to conduct same. The consultative forum adopted the same approach to the appointment and remuneration of the chairperson as for the citizens’ assemblies.
Louise Richardson DBE, the highly respected president of the Carnegie Corporation and former vice-chancellor of the University of Oxford, has agreed to take on the important role. I am confident that Ms Richardson, who is a native of County Waterford and a distinguished political scientist with a strong expertise in security policy in her own right, will play a hugely positive role in chairing and overseeing the discussions.
The forum will be a broad discussion, examining issues such as Ireland’s work to protect the rules-based international order through our engagement in peacekeeping, conflict prevention and peace-building, and arms control and disarmament. It will look at new and emerging threats including cyber, hybrid, disinformation and threats to critical infrastructure. The forum will also examine our current and future engagement in the EU Common Security and Defence Policy, as well as our existing relationship with NATO through the Partnership for Peace.
Attendance at the forum will consist of invited guests, from Ireland and internationally, with expertise and practical experience in the areas to be discussed. I anticipate that those attending will also include various non-governmental organisations and, very importantly, members of the general public, for whom spaces will be reserved. Discussions will be livestreamed and there will be an option for online submissions. The objective of the forum is to initiate an open and evidence-based discussion on the State’s foreign and security policy. Anyone interested in engaging in the process will be able to do so. Full details of the programme over the four days, the arrangements for registration, livestreaming and the making of submissions will be published by the Departments of Defence and Foreign Affairs in the coming weeks.
Importantly, there are no predetermined or preconceived outcomes from discussions at the forum and participants will be free to raise any relevant issues during deliberations. The chair’s report will outline what transpired over the four days but will not include recommendations. Once it has been presented to me, I will consider its findings and decide whether to make recommendations to the Government.
While the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces predates the Russian invasion of Ukraine it does mention the threat Russia poses. It states, "Ireland’s global geostrategic environment, looking out to 2030, will be characterised by intensified great power competition." In an era of intensified great power competition, the commission report states that Ireland can expect, among other things, "A growing ambition of the EU and some of its Member States to pursue strategic autonomy and for the EU to continue aiming to become a credible security actor on the global stage." How does the Tánaiste view this? When he attends meetings of the EU Foreign Affairs Council with regard to defence, does he get the sense that this is true? What is his response to that? The French ambassador made some comments in an interview with the Irish Examiner yesterday. I would like to hear the Tánaiste's thoughts on his comments that Ireland, among other EU countries, needs to pull its weight when it comes to increasing defence capabilities.
Ireland has been part of the Common Security and Defence Policy for well over 20 years. We always opted in; we did not opt out. Denmark recently had a referendum to opt in, having stayed out for over two decades. We have been a partner for peace with NATO since 1999 and have been involved in a number of projects in that context. That is an individually tailored programme where given states that are not members of NATO may seek expertise and support in some areas. We have been members of the permanent structured co-operation, PESCO, as well. That is the context.
The Deputy asked about the commission's report and the future, particularly in the European context. There are limits to European military capability, relative to the superpowers, that will not disappear anytime soon. We are looking at increased global polarisation, unfortunately. The Russian invasion of Ukraine represents a strike at the heart of the international rules-based order. Of that there is no doubt. It was a shocking violation of the integrity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and it really strikes at the heart of the international rules-based order, which is Ireland's touchstone in respect of our foreign policy and security policy.
It has not been two months since the Tánaiste, then Taoiseach, suggested a citizens' assembly to deal with the question of neutrality. Why did the Tánaiste abandon the idea of a citizens' assembly? Was it the notion of the citizens that was offensive to him, given citizens' very positive view of neutrality?
If the Government wanted to have at last the pretence of not having a predetermined outcome and having a genuine consultation, why on earth did it select as a chairperson a Dame of the British Empire who is on record repeatedly as supporting the aims of US militarism? She has supported in writing the US invasion of Afghanistan, has written that the United States had very good reasons to object to the Governments of Chile, Cuba and Nicaragua and wrote to support coups and attempted coups pursued by US imperialism in Latin America in the 1970s and 1980s. How on earth is that in any way compatible with the idea of a genuinely open, non-prescriptive discussion process?
When I suggested a citizens' assembly, Deputy Murphy was against it.
No, I was not.
Oh yes you were.
I was-----
You were. Through the Chair, the Deputy was against any discussion about this.
Check the record. I am for it.
Through the Chair, the Deputy was against any discussion about this because his view and that of Deputies Barry and Boyd Barrett is to have no discussion.
I was for it.
They labelled everything I said about this as some attempt or strategy to end military neutrality. They immediately knee-jerked-----
That is what the Minister does.
-----their way into saying that is what I am about. The reason I recommended this format to the Government and to the Oireachtas is because, while Deputy Murphy has his views on neutrality and Irish foreign policy, I have views on Irish foreign policy, as does the party opposite and as do others. I believe this is a better forum because parties themselves might want to make submissions in line with their esprit de corps on foreign policy. It is a better format than a citizens' assembly for something so fundamental as that which defines the State on an international level. Politicians too and people who have divergent positions can make submissions. The problem with Deputy Murphy, through the Chair-----
Through the Chair.
Yes. Deputy Murphy does not like debate-----
I love debate.
-----that is not on his terms and he lambasts anybody who suggests an open, transparent forum for a discussion on Irish foreign policy and an analysis of the security threats.
Let the citizens decide. Let us have a referendum.
I have two more supplementary questions. Other nations in the EU, such as Finland and Sweden, have decided to join NATO. Will the Tánaiste tell us his thoughts on other neutral nations such as Austria, Cyprus and Malta and any other neutral nation he might want to refer to, with regard to how the question is being debated in their own parliaments and countries? I am trying to ascertain if it is similar to what is happening here.
While NATO has been united since President Biden took office, what does the Tánaiste think would happen in the event of an isolationist US President potentially withdrawing from NATO and EU defence? What might that bring and what consequences would there be for Ireland?
I will address Finland and Sweden first. The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the manner in which that took place shocked Finland, which has navigated the relationship with Russia and the Soviet Union before it with great dexterity ever since its foundation, but it shook Finland to the core. I remember Finland's Prime Minister saying to me that everything they were taught in school and which they were taught to be afraid of had happened with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I met President Sauli Niinistö, a distinguished man in his own right. He had engaged with President Putin at different times and felt betrayed by what had happened. Finland felt there was no option. The public galvanised the Government of Finland towards joining NATO. The same happened in Sweden because of its geographic position.
Austria, Cyprus, Malta and Ireland have taken a different approach. I have put forward the idea of a consultative forum with no preconceived outcomes. People are entitled to express their views. I have had discussions with the three countries the Deputy referred to about the unfolding situation. We have managed, with Austria and others, to facilitate constructive abstention from the peacekeeping facility, whereby lethal aid from Ireland does not go to Ukraine. That is the way forward in navigating military neutrality, which is basically military non-alignment.
We would welcome a citizens' assembly on neutrality. We did not oppose it. I checked the record there. The Minister might correct the record of the House. We would welcome a debate now in a citizens' assembly. Ultimately, we think there should be a referendum. This should be put to the people to decide as opposed to the Minister and his Government leading us step by step towards the erosion of everything that is left of neutrality. That is both in actions, with the latest thing the Government is signing up to the NATO project for the so-called protection of underseas cables, and then this process.
How is it possible to have even a veneer of impartiality when one is a Dame of the British Empire and is on record as repeatedly supporting the aims of US militarism? How is that in any way compatible with being a chair of a neutral process designed to discuss the process of neutrality? Defend that appointment. I heard the Minister saying to Deputy Barry earlier that he would attack whoever the Government appointed. The Minister might at least have appointed someone who was not repeatedly on the record as supporting the actions of the US military. It really gives the game away regarding what this is about.
I predicted this would happen. It is a nasty tactic of the far left, best exemplified by the Deputy here, to assassinate the person who is appointed. It is reprehensible behaviour but the Deputy does it all the time. His movement does it all the time. They attack the person who is appointed.
She supports the actual assassination of people.
That person has a distinguished academic record. She was born in Waterford and rose to the top in the academic world in Oxford and the UK. She has a record in her own right as a political scientist. She is a person who will chair this consultative forum in an admirable, objective way. It speaks to the Deputy's hostility to anything this side of the House might suggest in respect of defence and security. He talks about subsea cables. Subsea cables are important to this country. They are important to many countries across Europe and the free world, which is the world for which the Deputy has great disdain. The economic well-being of Irish citizens depends on the protection of subsea cables. The livelihoods of thousands and thousands of workers who the Deputy claims to represent depend on the security of subsea cables. There is nothing wrong with Ireland asking for assistance or being a party, with non-NATO countries-----
It is a NATO-led alliance.
-----with some countries which are in NATO.
It is a NATO-led alliance.
There is nothing wrong. I will repeat what I am saying, just as there is nothing wrong with collaboration on cybersecurity. Look at what happened to our health service two years ago.
That is a public service.
Look at what happened to our health-----
The Minister is responsible for that. He was Minister for Health. He did not-----
What is the Deputy saying about subsea security? Is it because it is not a public service?
It is not about the Army protecting-----
For God's sake. I think the Deputy's entire approach is ridiculous, shallow and superficial.
Investment in security.
It needs to be taken head on.
Let us have a referendum.
The Deputy's approach is about distortion and deliberately trying to obfuscate and undermine decent debate.
Let us have a referendum. Let us let the people decide.