Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 4 Oct 2022

Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces: Discussion

Chairman

Apologies have been received from Senator Craughwell.

I ask all those present in the committee room to exercise personal responsibility to protect themselves and others from the risk of contracting Covid-19.

The sole item on our agenda today is to discuss the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces with the Minister for Defence, Deputy Coveney. I welcome the Minister and his officials: Aileen Nolan, acting director and Cathal Duffy, principal officer. The format of the meeting is in the usual manner. We will hear an opening statement, followed by questions and answers with members of the committee. I ask members to be concise with their questions to allow everyone an opportunity to participate. As the Minister has indicated that he needs to be in the Seanad at 4.45 p.m., we will finish with enough time to allow him proceed to his next engagement.

I remind witnesses and members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make that person in any way identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of any person or entity. Therefore, if statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks and any such direction must be complied with. For witnesses attending remotely from outside the Leinster House campus, there are limitations to parliamentary privilege and, as such, they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as witnesses who are physically present in the room do.

Members are reminded that they are only allowed to participate in this meeting if they are physically located on the Leinster House complex. I welcome those members who have entered the committee room.

I invite the Minister to make his opening statement and thank him for joining us.

Minister for Defence (Deputy Simon Coveney)

It is great to see so many members interested in this report. I hope we will have time to go through the high-level action plan later on because I know members will have detailed questions on how we are taking things forward. I very much welcome this opportunity to engage with the members of the joint committee on matters relating to the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces, and I look forward to hearing their contributions.

The establishment of a Commission on the Defence Forces was set out in the programme for Government and was a key priority for me as Minister for Defence. When the commission’s report was published in February of this year, it recommended widespread and unprecedented changes for the Defence Forces and defence provision in Ireland. The report contained 130 recommendations in total, ranging from reform of high-level command and control structures to revitalisation of the Reserve Defence Force. However, the overarching theme was the urgent need for cultural transformation within the Defence Forces.

At the time of the report’s publication, I made a commitment to revert with a memorandum to Government detailing a proposed response to the commission’s recommendations and a high-level action plan. Since then, a significant body of work has been progressed by me, my officials and the Defence Forces culminating in the approval of the memorandum and high-level action plan on the 12 July. The Government approved a move over a six-year period to a level of Defence Forces’ capability equivalent to level of ambition 2, LOA2, as set out in the capability framework devised by the commission, which will entail funding increases to reach a defence budget of approximately €1.5 billion at January 2022 prices by 2028 through the annual Estimates process. A conservative estimate means that will be a defence budget of between €1.8 billion and €1.9 billion by 2028. This represents the largest funding increase for defence in the history of the State. This afternoon I would like to talk about the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces and the subsequent Government response, and the significant progress that has been made since publication.

As members will all know, in December 2020 the Government authorised the establishment of the commission and agreed its terms of reference and membership. The terms of reference covered the structures and size of the Defence Forces, defence capabilities, HR polices and strategies, the Reserve Defence Force, governance and high-level command and control in the Defence Forces and pay structures. The work of the commission was carried out against the backdrop of the defence policy framework set out in the White Paper 2015 and the White Paper update of 2019, both of which were developed by joint civil and military teams.

The publication of the commission’s report last February represented the culmination of 13 months of intensive and dedicated work carried out by the commission members. The report was wide-ranging, challenging and comprehensive and proposed significant changes for the Defence Forces and defence provision in Ireland. The illegal invasion of Ukraine within weeks of the publication of the report acted as a catalyst that brought defence matters to the forefront of public discourse. With the deterioration of the international security environment, nations across the world reassessed their defence capabilities and Ireland was no exception. The commission’s finding that Ireland’s Defence Forces would be unable to conduct a meaningful defence of the State from a sustained act of aggression by a military force with its current capability brought the need for investment and transformation into sharp focus.

The report made a wide range of recommendations regarding high-level command arrangements, Defence Forces structures, defence capabilities, the Reserve Defence Force, and funding with a significant proportion of the recommendations focussed on strategic HR and cultural change. The commission identified the urgent need for clarification of the levels ambition for the Defence Forces, and in the absence of such clarity they created a framework focused on three levels of ambition, LOAs, the first of which, LOA1 represents Ireland’s current capability, LOA2 represents enhanced capability, and LOA3, which represents funding on a par with similar countries across the EU. One of the key recommendations of the commission was that consideration be given to a move to LOA2 in the short term. The commission also recognised that any proposal to move to LOA3 could only be considered in the context of a step to LOA2 in the first instance, which is exactly what we are doing.

Due to the large number and wide range of the recommendations, many of which were highly complex, a period of five months was required to give the recommendations detailed consideration and to develop a high-level action plan.

Following the publication of the report, I engaged extensively with ministerial colleagues and other stakeholders, including representative associations. A civil-military team was also established to work on the response to the recommendations and the high-level action plan. This involved intensive engagement across the defence organisation, as well as with a wide range of other stakeholders and Departments, in particular the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. Following detailed analysis of the recommendations and extensive engagement with stakeholders, the high-level action plan set out a position of "accept", "accept in principle", "further evaluation" or "revert" for each of the 130 recommendations. I am very pleased to say that 103 of the 130 recommendations were either accepted or accepted in principle, with 17 subject to further evaluation. I will be reverting to the Government with proposed responses to the remaining ten recommendations at a later stage. Reverting does not mean we do not agree with them. It just means we need more work and in particular legal advice on some of the main recommendations, which will be provided by the Attorney General.

The commission’s report identified five core areas to be addressed in an implementation plan, which were captured in the high-level action plan as five strategic objectives, which are: strategic HR and cultural change to be delivered; new command and control and joint structures to be established; services to be reformed and restructured; the Reserve Defence Force to be revitalised; and a joint capability development to be implemented.

The high-level action plan set out initial implementation and oversight structures including a high-level steering board chaired by the Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach, an implementation oversight group with an independent chair and the establishment of a civil-military implementation management office. The high-level action plan also identified 38 early actions to progress a number of key recommendations from the commission’s report, which will also provide the necessary building blocks to develop an implementation plan within six months of the Government decision.

A number of key appointments were proposed in the high-level action plan to progress the implementation of the recommendations and the transformation agenda, including a civilian head of transformation, a civilian head of strategic HR and a gender adviser who will all report directly to the Chief of Staff.

A digital transformation officer will also be required to lead the digital transformation agenda, and will report directly to the head of transformation, who, in turn, reports to the Chief of Staff.

On 12 July of this year I brought a memorandum to Government and a high-level action plan detailing the proposed response to the Commission's report, which was approved. As I mentioned earlier, the Government approved a move over a six-year period to a level of Defence Forces' capability equivalent to level of ambition 2, LOA2, as set out in the capability framework devised by the Commission, which will entail funding increases to reach a defence budget of €1.5 billion - at January 2022 prices - by 2028 through the annual Estimates. As I stated earlier, this represents the largest increase in Defence funding in the history of the State. A number of measures relating to pay and allowance structures have also been accepted for implementation.

The move to LOA2 also entails an increase of some 2,000 personnel above the current Permanent Defence Force establishment of 9,500, of which we are more than 1,000 below at present. It is clear that a significant task lies ahead for the Defence Forces and my Department. Implementation of the recommendations requires significant resources and expertise, both internal and external. The Department has a significant role to play in enabling, supporting and overseeing progress of the transformation agenda. To do this it, too, will require additional resources.

I believe we are currently in a strong position to deliver this unprecedented transformation, thanks in no small part to the leadership and strong working relationship displayed by the Secretary General and the Chief of Staff, both of whom are working remarkably closely together. They are drivers, in some ways, and champions of the transformation agenda within the Department and the Defence Forces.

Finally, I thank the Chairman for inviting me here today. I look forward to hearing members' thoughts and views on matters relating to the Commission on the Defence Forces. I have tried to touch on a number of issues. I would be delighted to address these and any further issues of interest that the members might like, in particular, the early actions. We have made some progress on those and I could bring them up to speed on the 38 early actions. It might be a useful process for the committee, if the Chairman wants to go through that. I am happy to take questions on whatever the members want to ask questions on.

Chairman

I thank the Minister. I am going straight to members of the committee. Conscious of the fact that we are under something of a time constraint, I see seven members of the committee present. I will call Deputy Brady first and then proceed to call other members of the committee. I suggest that in order to ensure that we maximise our engagement with the Minister we insofar as possible keep ourselves to questions rather than speeches. As always, I am in the hands of the committee.

Deputy John Brady

I thank the Chair and thank the Minister for coming before us to discuss what is a really important report and something that has been a long time coming. I welcome the opportunity to engage the Minister on it.

I commend the work of the Commission and all its members and the lengthy process which they embarked upon and welcome the findings of the commission. The report is only as good as the implementation. I certainly would be eager to hear about the 38 early actions, as the Minister mentioned.

I welcome the fact that the Minister has moved on one of the more important and timely issues, namely the associate affiliation of PDFORRA to ICTU. I welcomed that at the time and merely restate that.

It is a particularly important report. We are aware of the serious challenges within the Defence Forces in the haemorrhaging of members and the challenges of recruitment. That was only highlighted again during the week by a media report where an entire class of Naval Service recruits had left the force and allegedly signed up with the private sector. It highlights the serious challenges and the need to stifle the haemorrhage in not only the Naval Service but also the Air Corps and, indeed, the Army.

To touch on the recommendations, I mentioned the 38 early actions. It would be good to get an update on those. Of the 130 overall recommendations, 103 have been agreed and 17 are subject to further evaluation. I do not expect the Minister to give details of all of them here but it would be good to get a report or note from the Minister outlining what has been agreed and what is gone for further evaluation. On the remaining ten recommendations, the report states that it is proposed to bring forward recommendations at a later stage. The Minister might elaborate on that. "A later stage", to me, suggests kicking it down the road and essentially means being put on the long finger. I would be eager to get a response on that.

From the outset, a level of ambition, certainly from my perspective, is what we should be aiming to achieve. I speak from the perspective of us being a militarily neutral nation. With that, it means investing in the Defence Forces to ensure we can defend our neutrality. Unfortunately, military neutrality has been an excuse to under-fund the Defence Forces up until that point and let this Commission report be a change in the approach to it.

Was the fact that the Department was not part of the Commission's remit an oversight and is its inclusion needed? When we are dealing with the civilian and military management, it all should be part of analysis and review. What are the Minister's views on that? Is there a plan at any stage to carry out a review of the Department and the civilian aspect of the Defence Forces as well?

Pay is a major issue within the Defence Forces and a deciding factor for so many of the excellent members of the Defence Forces to leave. There are recommendations here in terms of the seagoing allowance, the long-service increments, etc. The Minister stated in the past that these issues are still up for consideration. Can I get an update as to where we are in terms of the allowances' expansion and, indeed, reintroduction, because one of the allowances that was abolished previously, which is not recommended in the Commission report and which should be, is the specialised instructor's allowance? The Minister might give a view on the implementation of all of those allowances and also the specialised instructor's allowance.

The Reserve Defence Force is another aspect of the Defence Forces that is haemorrhaging members. It is very much on its knees. There is a recommendation in the report that there would be a regeneration plan for the RDF, with clear and specific timelines developed and published by the end of 2022 on how to reform and fund the reserves. What the Commission is talking about is ambitious. We are not only talking about building up the Reserve to what it used be in the past. The Commission is also recommending that there would be reserves within the Air Corps and an establishment figure there of 400 within the Naval Service as well. They recommend that report would be started by now and concluded by the end of this year. The Minister might tell the committee whether that is included in the early actions and whether that work has commenced.

Implementation will be key to all of this. I hear what the Minister is saying in terms of the high-level action plan in terms of the implementation oversight group with an independent chair. All of that is welcome as well.

The situation in Ukraine has focused many people's minds in terms of defence, including our own defence capabilities.

I have questioned the Minister previously on our defence capabilities, particularly at sea. The Nord Stream gas pipelines raise serious questions about our defence capabilities at sea when we have data cables going through our waters and are not able to put ships to sea. This plan speaks about a six-year timeframe. Is that realistic? Are there opportunities to move further and faster on some measures where there are gaping holes in our defence capabilities?

The implementation oversight group will be critical. What oversight will be there in terms of that group? Does the committee have a remit to call in and question the group? It will be important that such oversight be there. The Minister has a key role and the Department of the Taoiseach will be critical, but this committee should have an oversight capacity on the implementation of the recommendations.

Deputy David Stanton

I welcome the Minister and his officials and thank them for the presentation. There is a huge amount of work to be done. As Deputy Brady has said, one of the issues involved is the timescale for what will happen. It would be useful for us to have an idea of what the targets are and when. Without targets, things can slip. I am anxious to know if the Minister can provide a date as to when these actions will happen. That will really get things moving.

I will focus on the Reserve. There is talk of a Reserve assistant chief of staff and that each service chief should be supported by that person. When will that person be appointed? Deputy Brady mentioned the regeneration plan for the RDF that was supposed to be published by the end of the year. Will that happen? If not, why not? Hopefully, it will. Where is the joint office of Reserve affairs with senior staff from the RDF and supporting the PDF? Will it be established pretty soon? There is an urgency to all of this. I know the Minister agrees. We want to support him in driving this forward as best we can.

There is talk of a clear and focused recruitment plan for the RDF with milestones and annual reviews. Where is that? It can take a long time from when a recruit applies to join the RDF to when he or she is attested, as there are so many steps and jumps.

What is happening with respect to safeguarding the jobs of civilian staff who join the RDF and are on service for a period so that when they want to go back to the civilian job, it is there for them and they do not suffer in any way? What can we do to ensure that? It is a major concern preventing people from getting involved and, particularly, going overseas in specialist roles if their civilian job is not safeguarded. We have had discussions about legislation coming down the track on that. Where is that at?

On diversity in the Defence Forces, will the Minister indicate his plans and those of the Department and Chief of Staff to ensure people from the many diverse backgrounds in Ireland are encouraged to join the forces at all levels? Will a policy be articulated and published on that? Deputy Brady has covered most of the other stuff I wanted to ask.

Deputy Simon Coveney

There is a whole load of issues there and it is up to the Chairman as to how much detail he wants me to go into, particularly on where we are at on the early actions, because they lead into the answers to many of the other questions.

Chairman

It was suggested by Deputy Brady and supported by Deputy Stanton that the Minister might give us a progress report in the form of a written note on the recommendations. If that was colour-coded, it would give us an idea of the implementation plan.

Deputy Simon Coveney

That is helpful. On the 38 early actions, some members will have a copy of Building for the Future - Change from Within, which is the high-level action plan for the report. On pages 16 and 17 are the 38 recommendations for early actions, which in some cases put foundations in place to do more and in others are definitive actions from which people will notice change. We have moved, for example, on the temporary association membership. That is done. On the legislative and policies objective, that process has commenced.

On pay and allowances, which people are very interested in, we have agreement in principle but are still talking to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform about removing the requirement for a three-star private or able seaman to mark time for the first three years of their rank - in other words not getting any pay increases for those three years - and ensuring all personnel, including private three-star and able seaman rank, are paid the full rate of military service allowance, MSA, applicable to that rank. The combination of those two things is worth about €6,000 per year for those impacted, which is approximately 1,500 people. For people looking for immediate and direct benefit from the work of the commission in terms of pay and allowances, there you have it.

For people starting out in the Defence Forces this change to the current system of having to mark time for up to three years and effectively having only half of an MSA payment for a period is worth a significant amount in take-home pay and we hope will be a significant incentive for people to join the Defence Forces and stay there and to retain the kind of people who have, unfortunately, been targeted by the private sector because of their skill sets and capabilities. We have to hold on to those people. That is a practical example of the pay and allowances.

We have committed to providing immediate access to the seagoing service commitment scheme to direct-entry personnel into the Navy. That is a small number of people but an important point of principle. If we bring somebody with the right skill set on a direct-entry scheme into the Naval Service, we want to make sure they can benefit from what everybody else benefits from. We have commenced further evaluation of replacing the existing seagoing allowances with a less complex seagoing duty measure. We want to simplify these payments if we can so that people understand clearly who qualifies and at what level of payment. Work is under way on that.

We are looking at the concept of a long service increment to pay scales for all ranks of enlisted personnel. That is not straightforward because it creates precedents across the public sector more generally. However, we are talking to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform about that and it was focused on in the commission report.

Those are some good examples of what we are looking at, progressing, have agreement in principle on or hopefully will make further progress on between now and the end of the year.

On recruitment strategies, we have commenced measures to enhance the visibility and wider benefits of membership of the Defence Forces in recruitment campaigns. The Be More campaign for the Defence Forces is one of the best recruitment campaigns I have seen in some time but it is in a marketplace of full employment where there is a lot of competition for the skill sets we are looking for. We need to continue to enhance that.

We are looking at recruitment and induction strategies that can deal with the volumes we need to bring into the Defence Forces. For example, we are looking to turn Gormanston into a specialist training centre for new recruits. It would be two-star training, effectively. There is much planning going on within the Defence Forces as to what that might look like but, in simple terms, we must have the capacity to train between 1,000 and 1,200 people per year to get a net increase between 400 and 600 per year, because we will lose people through retirement and other reasons for exit.

That is going to put considerable strain on the Defence Forces. We are looking to design an infrastructure that can facilitate that.

That brings to me a question Deputy Brady asked in respect of allowances for specialised training and instructors. There is a long history around this issue. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has a clear perspective on what was agreed and what was not in previous negotiations. Having said that, I have sympathy for this issue. We need to try to progress it through the commission recommendations. If we are going to put a lot more pressure on the Defence Forces to train more people and maintain high standards, we must put financial incentives in place to ensure we have enough instructors to do that work. That is not going to happen overnight. I spoke to the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers, RACO, about that issue only last week. We will work with RACO to progress something in that space.

The matters of diversity and inclusion strategies have rightly been raised by committee members. There is going to be a post for a full-time, senior-ranked position of gender adviser. That is being progressed as we speak. Gender diversity and unconscious bias training is also being included in the training programmes. Some such elements already exist in the programme and are being enhanced. I compliment the Chief of Staff on strongly pushing this agenda.

One matter that has not been raised but which I am focusing on is the programme for Government commitment to access to private healthcare for enlisted personnel. That must be progressed. It will take some time to work through those issues with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, but at the moment, officers in the Defence Forces have extremely good health cover. It is similar to a VHI-plus package, or however you want to describe it. I would like the same cover to be available to everyone in the Defence Forces, enlisted personnel and officers. The Government has committed to doing that and we hope to make progress next year with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. It is not a straightforward thing to do and it is costly. We think it will cost approximately €10 million per year. We would like to make progress in that regard. Quite a lot is being done around that issue.

The issue of the working time directive has been touched on and we are making good progress in that regard. We are trying to finalise the exemptions that will be required for the Defence Forces, which everybody accepts need to be there to ensure the Defence Forces can function in an emergency or in the environment they have to operate in, whether that is overseas, on the deck of a patrol ship or whatever the case may be. We are now approaching the end of that consultation and discussion process between the Chief of Staff, his team, the Department and our team, and the representative bodies to try to get agreement as to where those exemptions should apply. We hope to then be able to frame legislation quite quickly.

The Defence Forces vision statement will be in place by the end of the year.

The high-level command and control is a matter on which we have to revert to the Government. It is a good example of something we absolutely want to do and agree with but cannot pursue until we have legal advice. We want to make our Chief of Staff a chief or head of defence, CHOD. That is the international norm. To create that position, we must also create a defence headquarters. That would mean a change in command structures within the Defence Forces. It would also fundamentally change how the Defence Forces interact with the Department. We need, and are getting, legal advice from the Attorney General on the legalities around that, the legislation that would be required to underpin it and so on. We need that advice before we make a commitment. We are not going to be waiting long. We will have the advice of the Attorney General by the end of this month. That is going to be a good news story for the Defence Forces in terms of that ambition.

The positions of head of transformation and head of human resources, HR, are being advertised externally, and that is progressing. There is a technical issue around the implementation of administrative solutions and how complaints to the ombudsman are sometimes treated because there is a time limit for submissions. Some cases have been timed out and so on. We are considering changes to the legislation, where necessary, in that space.

The Army force design planning process has commenced, which will interest Deputy Berry. This is a complex piece of work for the Defence Forces to undertake and we need to keep politics out of the process, if we can. The issue is where the Army headquarters will be located in the future and how that structure connects with the new CHOD headquarters. That process has started. I expect it to take 18 months to finalise because there is a lot of work involved. As Minister for Defence, I will take advice on the basis of what is good for the military structure in respect of operations and so on. There is a lot of work involved.

In respect of the naval fleet and staffing, we have already engaged with the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA, regarding the consideration of smart metrics for patrol days, which essentially means we need to patrol in a way that is smarter, linking in with both the Air Corps and the Naval Service, which will, of course, become the Air Force and the Irish Navy. Everybody here is familiar with the pressures that the Naval Service, in particular, has been under. That is something I hope we are going to be able to reverse with double crewing, more ships and the better technology that will be coming on stream in the coming years.

Deputy Stanton always asks about the Reserve Defence Force, RDF, and he is right to do so. We have said we will have a regeneration plan by the end of the year. I hope we can meet that target. It may go a little beyond it but not far beyond it. The office for Reserve affairs is being established as we speak and it will be established in the next couple of weeks. We need that office up and running. It will then put in place the RDF regeneration plan. We are effectively putting the pieces in place to make that happen and, as I said, it is to be hoped we will get it done by the end of the year, but if not, it will be done shortly thereafter. It is about getting that right, working with the RDF to do so and ensuring its members are happy.

I am quite strong on the review of Defence Forces tasking. We have significant commitments, for example, to Portlaoise Prison, where there could be up to 50 personnel. They cover approximately 75,000 man days per year, which means, in respect of the required resourcing, it is a bit like a mission overseas but in Portlaoise Prison. While the Defence Forces do a remarkably good job in the prison, we must ask whether we need the Defence Forces there or can find other mechanisms to provide that role without requiring the Defence Forces to be there. We are starting the conversation with the Department of Justice on that issue. We are also having conversations in respect of the Central Bank and Irish Industrial Explosives, both of which have a reliance on the Defence Forces. I want, where possible, to focus the Defence Forces on what its members have signed up to do and trained for, which is defence, security, the protection of sovereignty, overseas missions, and all the other things that are core Defence Force roles, rather than having to supplement other areas because we have a good skill set and experience within the Defence Forces. That work is under way.

The capability development structure is very much under way. The capability development planning process and the permanent structure have already been established. The structure is a civil and military team that are very much working in partnership. I have already come to this committee with new permanent structured co-operation, PESCO, projects that we should be involved in for EU capability development. We are very much pushing ahead with that and have done so already.

With regard to the enhancement of Defence Forces capability, we have commenced planning for military radar capability, including primary radar. The civil-military discussion that is taking place in this area is not just about a primary radar line along our coastline, it is very much around how the Air Corps, the Naval Service and the Army, working together, can provide a much more complete operational picture in terms of radar capability and technology.

I wished to give a sense that there were some cynics who said this commission report would be another report that sits on the shelf, on the back of which nothing would really happen. However, a tonne of stuff is happening on the back of that report. We only approved it at the very end of July. The month of August is a quiet time for actions but, in the month of August and September, all of this stuff has been progressing at a pace that I have certainly never seen in the defence sector before and with a partnership between the Defence Forces and the Department which is really strong. We have much to do between now and the end of the year and we will then move on to all of the other recommendations as well. I suspect we will implement virtually all of the 130 recommendations, but some need more work before we can finalise that and some will probably need a new Government decision to move ahead.

Chairman

Thank you, Minister.

Deputy Simon Coveney

I hope that is helpful. It probably covered nearly all of the questions that I was asked. I apologise, I have not covered the organisational capability review, OCR. This issue has been raised repeatedly and I am pretty sure I have answered this question a number of times. Why did the Commission on the Defence Forces not look at the Department as well? The Department got a pretty robust assessment in parallel and the result of that OCR has been approved by the Government and will be published in the coming weeks. The Department has had a pretty comprehensive review. I have seen it and it will be up on the Department's website very shortly if it is not up already.

(Interruptions).

Deputy Simon Coveney

It is up already. I was not sure whether it was.

Deputy Gary Gannon

I thank the Minister for the comprehensive response to the incredibly comprehensive questions he was asked, which follows on from a comprehensive report from the commission. Within that, we get the scale of the challenges that face the Minister and the Department. However, behind all of that, we still have 270 personnel who have left the Defence Forces this year. This time last year, this committee visited the Haulbowline naval base. What we found there I can only describe as incredibly committed naval people at all levels. They outlined to us some incredibly grim experiences about their pay and conditions. If we visit that same naval base in 12 months, what differences would we notice? If we visit in two years' time, what differences would we notice? I could apply the same to McKee Barracks or the Curragh, but let us take Haulbowline as an example. What will we notice in a year or two?

Deputy Sorca Clarke

I thank the Minister and his officials for coming in today. I will focus on a number of the recommendations that Government accepted in principle, especially around the areas of cyber and intelligence. There are two intelligence recommendations, Nos. 111 and 113, which were accepted in principle, and that deal with the "overarching legal and governance framework" and into "oversight in relation to intelligence" needing to be set out in legislation. Recommendation 9 in the area of cyber that has, again, been accepted in principle, is for, "the creation of a Joint Cyber Defence Command that should manage, Defence Forces IT Services, CIS Services and Cyber Defence". Why accept these recommendations only in principle? The structure should be there at this point to be able to put them, at the very least, into the "accept" bracket and take them out of the "accepted-in-principle" bracket.

The one that the Government has earmarked for further evaluation is the national defence academy and an apprentice school to support future tech-enabled force. How does the Minister see those recommendations moving from accepted in principle to the area of further evaluation, to the delivery of the national defence academy? Does the Government intend to accept that proposed national defence academy?

I will ask further questions on gender. Recommendation 37 looked for, "a guaranteed minimum female participation rate of 35% on all command and other relevant career courses by 2025". It was, again, accepted in principle. How will the new gender adviser of whom the Minister spoke determine any future decision by the Government with regard to that 35% rate? What impact is recruitment having on attaining that rate of 35%?

The Minister spoke about Gormanston and the potential reworking of the site. Are there any other facilities that the Department has looked at or that military management has flagged as being of potential further or new use around the academy for cyber and intelligence?

Deputy Simon Coveney

They were very good questions. I thank all members for the way in which this is being approached. There has not been any party politics thrown across the floor today, which is helpful, because this is-----

(Interruptions).

Deputy Simon Coveney

We can all do that, but what we are doing here will span across multiple Governments and whoever is in government in three, four, five or ten years' time will be part of implementing these issues. I have done what I can to try to make this as factual as possible and to keep politics out of it.

I go to the naval base pretty regularly. I live very close to it. Every time I go for a run, it is generally to the naval base. I am very familiar with the infrastructure there. What I would say to everybody who is thinking of joining the Defence Forces and to the people who are currently serving in the naval base is that we understand, only too well, the pressures in the naval base but we have a capital investment plan that is worth approximately €72 million over the coming ten years for Haulbowline.

We have just opened a new accommodation unit which is probably the best accommodation unit of any, in any of the barracks or military facilities we have in the country. It is phenomenal, if people get a chance to see it. I opened it just a few weeks ago. We have opened a new jetty facility there as well, which significantly improved the capacity, both for visiting vessels and our own vessels in the naval base. We will putting a new gym facility in there. I hope we will be able to upgrade the dive unit facilities too. We are investing in a whole range of other things such as a new accommodation block and a new office block and, of course, we are reconditioning the whole island as well, with regard to the former Irish Ispat site, where the State is certainly committed to spending another €20 or €30 million, if necessary, to completely refurbish and make it safe. There is a lot going on in Haulbowline with regard to Government investment to improve the quality of life and work there.

If one is in the Naval Service in a few years' time, one's time and demands at sea will be very different to what they are now. One will be, in all likelihood, in a double-crewing arrangement, which means that ships will have two full crews, rather than one.

That means less time at sea and a quicker turnover between being at sea and being back at land training and so on. The quality-of-life issues, which we are trying to recognise and design into what the Irish navy - as opposed to the Naval Service - will look like over the next few years, are quite significant. Next year alone, there are two new ships coming in from New Zealand. That will be in the first quarter of the year, hopefully in January or February. They are smaller vessels but still modern, predominantly for the Irish Sea. We will also be developing a base on the east coast and the west coast so the voyage times for those ships getting back to base will not be so long. That is also about improving quality of life and recognising family pressures for both men and women in the Defence Forces and the Naval Service. I hope to also simplify and enhance the allowances for going to sea.

With all those things added together, the Naval Service should be a very attractive option for people leaving school and college today, and hopefully an attractive option for people who may have been in the Defence Forces or the Naval Service to come back in through some form of direct entry. The accommodation will be better, the work environment in Haulbowline will be enhanced significantly and the quality of the ships will be modernised. We have just decommissioned three ships, which were all 40 years old. We do not have any ships now in that category with regard to going to sea on an older vessel versus a more modern one. While the L.É. Niamh and the L.É. Róisín are not the newest vessels in our fleet, they are still pretty modern. There is a huge step change in the quality of accommodation on the newer ships over the older ones.

I am very positive about the future of the Naval Service. We have had a lot of challenges. There is very aggressive headhunting from the private sector because the people in our Defence Forces are good people and are a real asset to the private sector if it can get them. We have to find a way of putting a package together that makes serving in the Naval Service and the Defence Forces generally more attractive. That is a big part of what we are trying to do here. That includes women as well as men.

To answer Deputy Clarke's questions on the gender side, when the commission made that recommendation for 35%, it raised an awful lot of eyebrows. We are at 7% at the moment, which is slightly better than where we were a few years ago but not much. The commission was insistent that we need one third of our Defence Forces to be women in the future. That is the best way of dealing with a lot of the cultural issues, which have been very problematic. That is what happens when there are 95 men for every five women in the Defence Forces, or close to that. Everybody, including the commission, accepts that getting to that 35% figure is going to take quite some time.

Deputy Sorca Clarke

Participation in courses-----

Deputy Simon Coveney

Yes. That also relates to participation in courses. It is about trying to drive a priority of getting more women into the Defence Forces and also getting them higher up the scale in the Defence Forces, into positions of influence and so on. We are going to have a head of transformation who in all likelihood will be a woman and that person will also be a civilian. The head of HR will also be a civilian trying to bring in new ideas, new thinking and a fresh approach to how we grapple with these issues. Both of those people will be reporting directly to the Chief of Staff. In other words, that person will be very high up in the command and control structures in the Defence Forces. That will be quite disruptive but I think that disruption is necessary.

Regarding Gormanstown, the Chief of Staff and the team are working on a plan, which has not been finalised yet. It is about trying to increase the capacity significantly for training more people and maintaining very high standards in that training. The way to answer the challenges in the Defence Forces is not to dumb down training or reduce the thresholds that people have to pass to be accepted into the Defence Forces or to be promoted. Instead, it is about building a lot more capacity. In order to do that, we have to build purpose-built facilities and Gormanstown is going to be at the centre of that. Obviously, the Curragh will still be hugely central to everything the Defence Forces do. Three-star training and so on will probably not be in Gormanstown but two-star training certainly will be.

On the difference between something being accepted in principle and accepted, I asked the same question when looking at how we were categorising things. The only difference between those two things is that accepted means the recommendation is accepted for implementation. In other words, we are accepting it and we know how we are going to deliver it. Accepted in principle means that further consideration is required on the optimal approach to meeting the intent of the commission. In other words, we agree it has to be done but we need to do some work on how we actually implement that in the optimal way. That normally means the Defence Forces themselves, if it is a Defence Forces recommendation, have to go away and put a plan together and come back and get approval, or the Department needs to do it if it is the Department's side.

In most cases there is a civil-military team looking at how to implement what we all agree needs to be done but sometimes we need to get external expertise, or even international expertise, to make sure we have a plan that makes sense. There is not really any question about the recommendations. Once we accept something in principle, we are not going back. It is just a question of how we get it done. That is kind of the same for further evaluation or reverting as well. There are not really any recommendations in the commission report, that I can think of, that we do not want to implement. I am not aware of any. It is just a question of being realistic. If I recommend something, the Deputy will rightly ask when it will be done, what it will cost and how I am going to do it. If I do not have those answers, then I cannot put it into the "accepted" box. It has to be categorised as either further evaluation needed, accepted in principle or revert. Once we move something into full acceptance, I need to be able to answer those questions of how, when, with whom and so on.

Deputy Sorca Clarke

I respectfully request that, as part of the update on the recommendations the Minister is providing the committee, he includes an update on the national defence academy and apprentice school for a future tech-enabled force.

Deputy Simon Coveney

We can absolutely come back with that. There is no issue there.

Deputy Cathal Berry

I thank the Minister and welcome him and his team. I am conscious of the clock as my other colleagues have to get in as well. Does the Government intend scheduling some time in the Dáil Chamber on this matter? The Minister is going to the Seanad after this but if we had an opportunity to debate the commission or at least give statements in the next couple of weeks that would be very helpful.

I thank the Minister for his opening statement and for clarifying the funding issue. It is €1.5 billion by 2028 at 2022 prices, which is good.

Deputy Simon Coveney

They are January 2022 prices, so they are actually closer to 2021 prices.

Deputy Cathal Berry

I welcome the Minister's statement that it will be around €1.8 billion or €1.9 billion by 2028. That is still only half the EU average but it is half a step forward from our point of view. Is there a table available, particularly for the next two budgets, which are the remaining budgets of the Thirty-third Dáil? Does the Minister have any idea where he would like to be with the 2024 and 2025 budgets? I would just like some visibility on that. I know it might be hard but the Minister might have a ballpark figure.

Deputy Simon Coveney

We have only just gotten one across the line but I will try to answer that.

Deputy Cathal Berry

On the subject of the one just across the line, the €67 million in the budget is quite a small figure in light of what is needed. The Minister said that does not include the Building Momentum pay deal that is currently being balloted on. We obviously do not want to prejudge what the trade unions are going to say or do. Perhaps the Minister might use this opportunity to state clearly that there will be additional money on the table through the Finance Bill if the Building Momentum pay deal is passed. That would be very useful.

A big concern of mine, which I think is shared by all members of the committee, is the situation in Ukraine and how Ireland does not really have a big say in how that situation is going to develop. The trajectory we are on at the moment is not reassuring.

There is a risk that the conflict could spread and could do so rapidly and very seriously. Is there provision for additional funding if we need to scale up our Defence Forces at very short notice? That is it on the funding side.

I welcome the general thrust of the opening statement. I agree with 99% of it. I highlight the last sentence of the second paragraph, which states: "However, the overarching theme was the urgent need for cultural transformation within the Defence Forces." I agree that cultural transformation is a component that needs to be addressed, but for me the overarching theme of the report is Ireland's lack of military capability as a result of years of under-investment. That is where the levels of ambition 1, 2 and 3 came from in the first place.

The implementation piece was correctly mentioned by my colleagues. It was suggested that an independent chairperson would chair the implementation oversight group. Do we have any idea who that person will be or when he or she will be appointed?

I thank the Minister for highlighting what the pay proposals are. They are significant for people with less than three years' service. A pay increase of €5,000 to €6,000 a year is significant. I suspect everyone here would have confidence that if there is a central national wage agreement, it would be paid very quickly, but people in the Defence Forces do not have much trust in the sector-specific agreements. I use the example of the €1,000 pandemic bonus that was announced in January but still has not been paid. What is the likelihood that these improvements for people with less than three years' service will come in before Christmas? That is a realistic timetable and if it was delivered before Christmas, it would certainly assist from a morale point of view.

My final question is about the working time directive. To clarify, will it be done by regulation or legislation? The temptation here is to have a blanket exemption for everything. Everybody accepts that the Defence Forces are different from other public servants, but a distinction should be made between what is an emergency or wartime period and what is normal peacetime. We are trying to get people to join and stay in the Defence Forces, in particular from a gender-balance point of view. The only way to do that is to make sure there is an appropriate work-life balance.

Deputy Barry Cowen

I will be brief given the level and detail of many of the questions so far. The commission report was a commitment in the programme for Government. We should not be shy about acknowledging that the commitment has been honoured. Like all reports and recommendations, it is now about the implementation. I hear what the Minister has said about the 130 recommendations and I support the Chair's request for him to provide an update to us in a colour-coded or other format on the recommendations that have been accepted, those that require further evaluation and the ten that are outstanding.

I welcome much of what the Minister stated about the work that is already progressing on foot of the report on areas from HR to facilities and equipment, as well as the issues mentioned by Deputy Berry. The Minister also stated that on foot of the report being accepted and approved by the Government with regard to the commitment to level of ambition 2 over six years, moving on to level of ambition 3, which relates to the aim to have achieved a level comparable with the defence forces in similar-sized European countries, a steering group will be put in place. This will be headed by the Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach and will devise an implementation plan within six months. That will be the roadmap that will set about delivering the changes on an annual basis, not only in the next two budgets but the four following budgets, as contained in the plan approved by the Government initially. When does the Minister envisage the implementation plan being agreed by the group headed by the Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach, and being open to evaluation, question and delivery by us and others?

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile

The issue of recruitment and retention permeates all the matters raised. While it is perhaps somewhat separate from the recommendations in the report, I would like to get the Minister's view on recruitment strategies and campaigns. While I appreciate that he does not draw up or develop the campaigns, how important does the Minister believe it is that we ensure the campaigns are all-Ireland in nature? Without being reductive on this issue, the bigger pond we fish in, the more chance there is of getting greater numbers. In recent weeks, we had the freshers' fair at Queen's University Belfast and Ulster University and there were also visits to Belfast and Derry by some of the Naval Service vessels. Should there not be an aspect of those events that incorporates a recruitment campaign that is targeted and directed across the Thirty-two Counties? Many people from the North have served in the Defence Forces over long careers. While I agree the Be More campaign is a very slick and professional marketing strategy, I am not sure how many members of the Defence Forces would agree it is reflective of their lived experience. I have seen it on RTÉ, but I have not seen it on UTV. Does the Minister agree that we need to target such campaigns in order to ensure we get the highest number of men and women recruited across the entire country? Sin an méid.

Chairperson

A number of questions have been asked. Just in case we do not get an opportunity for a further round, and having regard to the clock, I add my appreciation and thanks to those involved in the preparation and publication of this report. Chapter 6, Capability Requirements for a 21st Century Defence Force, lays bare in very stark and certain terms very serious inadequacies in our Defence Forces. The publication of the report was just prior to the unlawful invasion by Russia of Ukraine. Hence, it appears to me to suggest a sense of urgency involved here. I acknowledge the significant increase in expenditure that the Minister managed to secure in the recent budget, which all members very much welcome. Could he share with us how vulnerable he believes Ireland is in the context of certain issues that are germane to current world affairs? We saw what happened last week in respect of the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline. Russia stands accused of being responsible for four explosions in the Baltic Sea. We discussed with the Minister earlier this year the situation in the Atlantic, not too far from our territorial waters. How best does the Minister feel he can address issues of urgency? In other words, do we know the purpose of the Russian naval exercises earlier this year? Does the Minister acknowledge the fact that Ireland is particularly vulnerable? Do we or will we have the capacity to monitor the cables? Do we acknowledge that we do not have the capacity at times to know what is going on in close proximity to our territorial waters? I accept the reliance that we have on our allies but at some stage in the future, will we be in a position to set our own strategic objectives? In terms of timescale and investment to deal with the matter of maritime capacity, how soon will we be in a position to guard and protect the strategic cables within our territorial waters? Will current global uncertainties in many ways hasten the type of investment all of us on this committee and the Minister himself would like to see take place?

Deputy Simon Coveney

I will try to answer every question if I can. I will answer Deputy Berry's eight questions first. I certainly hope we will have time to debate this in the Dáil. As Minister for Defence, the more we can debate defence issues, the better. We have to ensure that there is a realistic understanding of why defence matters, why we need to resource it properly, why the work of the commission is arguably the most strategic report that has been produced for the defence sector since independence and why we need to implement it in full and, therefore, the answer to the Deputy's first question is "Yes".

The funding will be €1.5 billion at 2022 prices. I insisted on defence budgets being effectively linked to inflation. Given what is happening in Ukraine and other parts of the world, we will see significant increases in the cost of defence equipment. The Deputy will know that only too well. Virtually every country in the EU is increasing defence budgets significantly. Many of them have shared defence equipment, weapons and ammunition with Ukraine and they will want to rebuild stocks. The last thing I wanted to sign up for was to have funding of €1.5 billion by 2028 and to find that it was lower than what we have today in real value. We have agreed with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform that we will take the prices before the Ukraine war started and before the commission reported, which was in January 2022. We will use the defence procurement prices in January 2022 as a benchmark. We have agreed the defence budget will be €1.5 billion in those prices.

I will give the Deputy an educated guesstimate. Even with a modest figure of 4% to 6% inflation, though I think it will be higher than that, then we will need to spend between €1.8 billion and €2 billion on defence budgets by 2028. It may be even higher, though we will have to wait and see. That will be determined by circumstance, inflation and so on. We have pegged it clearly to a point in time when we knew the prices. That protects the defence budget in a way that is helpful.

The Deputy asked about tabling what the budgets would look like. It would have been unreasonable for me to ask the Government, particularly the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, to agree exact figures for each year over the next six years. The Government would not agree to that precedent because many other Departments would demand the same. We have a clear commitment regarding where we need to be by 2028 and we need incremental steps to get there. When what I hope and expect will be an accepted pay deal is added, it will be worth €47 million or maybe slightly higher or lower. It has to be finalised with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform but that will be the approximate impact of the agreement on both pay and pensions. Adding the €67 million of extra expenditure comes to a total of approximately €115 million extra in one year. There has never been such an increase in the defence budget that I can point to.

There is a capacity issue in the first couple of years of getting the numbers to where we need them to be, according to the commission's report, in recruitment and in the capacity to deliver capital investment, whether it is for new ships, airplanes, APC fleets, or anything else. The procurement lead-in times will mean that some capital investment will be towards the end of that six-year period rather than the front. Given that, increasing our overall spending on defence by more than €100 million in the first year is not a bad start. I would have taken more if I could. It signals that we are trying to address the commission's report seriously.

The detailed reports that I get about what is happening in Ukraine are depressing. The loss of life there has been extraordinary. The resilience, courage and success of the Ukrainian military in recent weeks has been extraordinary. The Ukrainians are on the front foot. They are gaining ground and retaking parts of Ukraine that were lost to Russia. They are, unfortunately, uncovering atrocities as they do that. We will continue to support Ukraine's efforts in that regard. I hope Russia is not willing to use weapons that many of us regard as completely unacceptable and off-limits to ever use, in an effort to save face or try to change momentum on the battlefield. The world would respond to that in a significant way should Russia do that. I hope we will not see the Kremlin making such decisions.

Regarding cultural transformation, the Deputy made a distinction regarding the overarching theme. I know he read the commission's report. There are three or four chapters dealing with human resource management in the Defence Forces. That is not an accident, but because we are not managing people as well as need to, first, to keep them in the Defence Forces and, second, to get the diversity that we want and need in the Defence Forces. In particular, we need to increase the number of women to a double digit percentage and then beyond that. Human resource management, how people are paid, how complaints are dealt with, how allowances are applied, the structure of recruitment and retention campaigns, promotions and transparency about them, and linking that in with a command and control structure, since this has to function as a military, is a significant challenge. That is why cultural transformation and how we manage people is such a big theme.

I take the point that capability was a significant exposure. It was not a big surprise for me; I suspect it was not a surprise for other people who follow defence issues. Having capacity constraints and gaps pointed out in such a blunt, clear and stark manner, as the Chairman said, has been helpful for me in getting the Government and Cabinet to sign off on an investment plan which will change much of that.

We have approached a number of people about the role of an independent chair but they have not been able to do it because of other commitments. I hope to have that position filled soon. I have a number of people in mind. It is an important position. I need to ensure that the Defence Forces and many others, including the Department, will trust that the chair is genuinely independent of the system and able to assess progress in delivering on the goals we are setting ourselves in a fair and blunt manner. I hope to have that position filled in the next few weeks. That independent group has met on a temporary basis, chaired by the Chief of Staff and the Secretary General, but that is just a temporary situation.

I do not want to give the Deputy an exact date for changes to pay and pay allowances. We are making some progress with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. As the Deputy will be aware, the Minister for Defence cannot just decide to change allowances even when a commission report recommends it.

We have to get agreement from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. As I said, we are making some good progress on some of those areas, particularly around the military service allowance and so on. Hopefully, people who have entered the Defence Forces in their first few years will see the benefit of that soon.

By the way, I will just say that I share the frustration about the pandemic bonus payment. To promise that in February and still not have it delivered for some people who will clearly qualify for it at the start of October is really not where we need to be.

Deputy Cathal Berry

I wish to make a suggestion if that is possible. What would the Minister think about the Department of Defence paying this, recognising that the Department of Health is supposed to do so? Could the Department of Defence actually front-load the payment and ask the Department of Health to reimburse it? The Department of Defence would take ownership of this to pay its own people and then get reimbursed thereafter.

Deputy Simon Coveney

All I will say to the committee is that we are working on this. I spoke to the Minister for Health about it as recently as last week and he also understands the urgency of the situation. It is not just the Defence Forces, by the way; other people are waiting for this and it needs to be paid soon. To be fair, the Minister, Deputy Stephen Donnelly, is very much on the same page in wanting to move this on.

The working time directive will require legislation. It will not be through statutory instruments; it will require legislation. Some exemptions are needed to make sure the military can do what it needs to do in the environments in which its personnel work. As far as I am concerned, however, where work can be scheduled in terms of training programmes and so on, we should be consistent with the working time directive in as many areas as we possibly can while, at the same time, ensuring that the Chief of Staff and his team are happy that they can deliver for the State in the areas in which they are expected to deliver from a defence and security perspective.

In terms of Deputy Cowen's questions, this was very much a joint commitment in the programme for Government. It has been transformative for the Defence Forces and now we need to deliver it and accelerate its implementation. In my view as Minister for Defence, when we get to level of ambition 2, we should not be stopping there. I would like to see a future Government make a decision to go beyond level of ambition 2 because I think we need to. As an international non-military aligned neutral country, capacity probably needs to in time go beyond level of ambition 2. We have to get there first as a staging point, however. That is what the Government has made a decision on. Between now and 2028, we get to level of ambition 2 and then we build from there if a future Government decides that is the right thing to do. We will have done much of the work in advance of that to actually prepare for that decision if we want to go beyond level of ambition 2 at that point. As the commission said, however, we cannot get to level of ambition 3 unless we put the foundations and platform in place that is level of ambition 2, which is where we are heading.

On when the implementation plan will be agreed, first of all, we have agreed much implementation already in the 38 areas in which there are early actions under way. If members look at the high-level implementation plan that is in place already, each action has next to it a label of "Further Evaluation", "Accept in Principle", "Accept" or "Revert". Therefore, members can see exactly what we have committed to do on all of the 130 areas. What we do not have yet is a timeline in terms of the delivery of each of them and that is what we will have to develop in terms of the civil military co-operation that is going on at the moment. The implementation of that, of course, will be overseen by the oversight group, which will have an independent chair. It is really important that we have an independent chair who is outside the public and Department systems, as well as the Defence Forces system and that he or she is seen as genuinely independent and, obviously, competent to do it.

Chairman

Okay. I hesitate to interrupt the Minister but the lights have come on in the Seanad and I can see the Leas-Chathaoirleach. The Minister is due in the Seanad Chamber.

Deputy Simon Coveney

Can the Chairman give me ten seconds to respond to Senator Ó Donnghaile? It was noted by the commission that when its representatives visited both Finner Camp and Dundalk, there were a particularly high number of people in the Defence Forces from north of the Border. It is a fair point that we should ensure that our recruitment campaigns are all-island. So far, that has not been the case but I believe there is a real appetite in Northern Ireland to join the Irish Defence Forces and we should take advantage of that. It is a fair point.

I am not avoiding that question on vulnerability. We could spend much time talking about Nord Stream 1 and 2 and sabotage and so on. All I can say is that we are having, and already had, meetings with the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications. We also had meetings with that Department, Gas Networks Ireland and EirGrid to look at infrastructure offshore. We are currently agreeing with the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications how we might respond to that in terms of increasing the number of patrols in those areas, both from the Naval Service and the Air Corps. The owners of that infrastructure also have responsibility. For example, EirGrid has a private sector global company monitoring cables under the sea. It is important to also say that most of that infrastructure, particularly the pipelines, is actually encased in concrete and under the seabed. There are, therefore, already pretty secure pieces of infrastructure. As members would expect, however, we are reviewing that at the moment. I think we will see increased Naval Service and Air Corps presence in the parts of the sea where infrastructure is under the seabed. There is also an equipment issue that we obviously need to review and look at to see whether we need to factor it into the capital investment programme we have.

Chairman

I thank the Minister for his engagement this afternoon, which was quite comprehensive in terms of his replies to members' questions and observations. We will undoubtedly return to this issue again. The Minister agreed to let us have in writing details of the implementation plan and costings. When we receive that, we will have a look at it and hopefully have a further engagement with the Minister.

This is a really important report. I acknowledge the work in the report, particularly by all 16 members of the Commission on the Defence Forces, who worked for more than a year. Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll, the chair of the Commission on the Defence Forces, ensured that it was delivered in a comprehensive manner. Mr. Cathal Duffy, the head of the secretariat, is with us this afternoon. I thank him for all his work and commend everybody associated with what is a blueprint for the future. We will go into private session as the Minister departs for the Seanad.

The joint committee went into private session at 4.48 p.m. and adjourned at 4.57 p.m. until 3.15 p.m. on Tuesday, 18 October 2022.