Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence díospóireacht -
Thursday, 1 Feb 2024

Vote 36 - Defence (Revised)

The purpose of this meeting is to consider the Estimates for Vote 35 - Army Pensions, and Vote 36 - Defence. On behalf of the select committee, I welcome the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Defence, Deputy Micheál Martin and his officials. I thank the Tánaiste's officials and the Department for the briefing material provided.

The format of the meeting will be that Tánaiste will give an overview of Votes 35 and 36, outlining any pressures likely to impact on the Department's performance or expenditure for the remainder of this year. I suggest that we take the Votes in reverse order. When the Tánaiste concludes his opening statement, we will open the floor for questions from members. I suggest that at about 3.15 p.m., or when we have exhausted our questions on Vote 36, we will then move to Vote 35. The Tánaiste will deal with the latter by way of a separate overview. Having regard to the fact that it is Thursday afternoon and that we might not have a full compliment of members, I suggest that we be somewhat flexible in the context of time. I understand that the team from the Department of Foreign Affairs is on standby and ready to take over as soon as the questions relating to the defence Vote have been exhausted.

Normally there would be defence personnel on standby to aid the civil power, but anyway.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make them in any way identifiable. With that, I advise the Tánaiste that we still operate a hybrid, post-Covid model insofar as it is open to members to join from their offices, should they so desire. However, I do not see any members online. In the event that I do and that they pose a question, I will alert the Tánaiste.

I invite the Tánaiste to make his opening statement.

I thank the Chair and members. I welcome this opportunity to engage with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence to consider the 2024 Revised Estimates for the defence Vote group. I have a short opening statement that sets out the overall position and updates members on some recent developments in the defence sector.

Last September, the Strategic Framework - Transformation of the Defence Forces was published. This document clearly outlines the vital work that is under way on the cultural transformation of our Defence Forces and outlines the necessary actions to be delivered by the end of this year to ensure dignity in the workplace is maintained and respected. It covers the recommendations made in the report of the independent review group, IRG, on dignity and equality issues in the Defence Forces and the Commission on the Defence Forces report, together with measures to address recruitment and retention challenges and the legislative changes needed to modernise our Defence Forces. In that context, I was very pleased to recently receive Government approval for the terms of reference for a judge-led tribunal of inquiry, as recommended by the IRG, which were further scrutinised by way of a Dáil motion last week. In that context, I wish Ms Justice Ann Power every success in her important role as chair of the tribunal.

Separately, I also want to reference the recent appointment of Mr. Kevin Duffy as the independent chair of a new working group to develop a complaints process for civilian employees and civil servants who work with the Defence Forces. Mr. Duffy has enormous experience and expertise and I want to acknowledge his acceptance of this role, which represents another significant step towards implementing the key recommendations of the IRG. These developments follow on from the establishment of an external oversight body for the Defence Forces, chaired by Professor Brian MacCraith. This body is driving the necessary levels of culture change now required throughout the Defence Forces and will enhance and improve transparency and accountability levels. This remains an essential part of the transformation of the workplace to support current serving members. To support the body in its work, a dedicated secretariat has been established and legislation is also being developed to put this body on a statutory footing as soon as possible.

It goes without saying that progressing such an ambitious programme of strategic transformation and cultural change, while also facilitating ongoing investment in defence capabilities, would require substantial investment in 2024. In that regard, and building on the Commission on the Defence Forces' commitments to increase defence funding to €1.5 billion - at 2022 prices - by 2028 through the annual Estimates process, I welcome the total allocation of €1.25 billion provided for the defence Vote group for 2024. This significant allocation, comprising €933 million for Vote 36 - Defence and €317 million for Vote 35 - Army Pensions, is the largest ever provided for defence, and represents an overall increase of €40 million on 2023. It includes a capital allocation of €176 million, an allocation that ensures that the capital budget for defence is maintained at its highest ever level.

This level of capital funding builds on capital investment progress evident over recent years, and will be focused for the ongoing replacement and upgrade of essential military equipment, necessary building and maintenance works and ICT projects, as part of a sustained programme of equipment replacement and infrastructural development. This will include, inter alia, primary radar, software-defined radio and force protection programmes along with a wide range of Defence Forces built infrastructure projects encompassing Army, Air Corps and Naval Service installations throughout the country.

The overall pay allocation of €550 million under Vote 36 provides for the pay and allowances of Permanent Defence Force personnel, civilian employees - such as technicians, tradespeople, etc. - and departmental civil servants. It also provides for paid training for members of the Reserve Defence Force. This includes funding towards the cost of pay increases arising from national pay agreements in 2024.

Ongoing staffing difficulties in the Defence Forces are acknowledged and, in that context, there are a significant number of recruitment and retention measures currently under way to address these issues, including but not limited to commissioning from the ranks, the re-entry of former Permanent Defence Force personnel with specific skills, a seagoing commitment scheme for Naval Service personnel, an Air Corps service commitment scheme, the Naval Service tax credit and extending service limits for privates, corporals and sergeants. In addition, and with effect from 1 January 2024, the patrol duty allowance paid to Naval Service personnel will now be doubled after ten days at sea.

The 2024 Permanent Defence Forces pay allocation provides for a prevailing strength of 7,700, plus anticipated additional personnel of 400. As outlined in the strategic framework, a key priority for me in 2024 is to support and progress the recruitment and retention of personnel to our Defence Forces. I recognise the huge challenges attached to delivering on this objective but I want to reassure members that every effort is being made to increase the strength of our Defence Forces.

The high turnover and challenge with recruitment is being experienced worldwide. As referenced already, this Government has introduced many changes to make the Defence Forces an attractive option as a career choice and will continue to work with the Defence Forces to enhance recruitment and retention and return Permanent Defence Force strength to the levels necessary to match the levels of ambition outlined in the commission's report. The current expenditure non-pay allocation has increased significantly by €32 million to €207 million and provides mainly for essential and ongoing Defence Forces standing and operational costs including utilities, fuel, catering, maintenance, information technology and training.

The role of the Defence Forces is diverse, challenging and multifaceted and I will briefly reference some of the key outputs I expect to be delivered from the defence Vote in 2024. The 2024 allocation will allow Defence Forces personnel to meet Government commitments on our overseas peace support missions and proudly represent Ireland abroad, often in volatile situations throughout the world. As of 11 January, Ireland was contributing 530 personnel to various overseas missions in locations throughout the world. Ireland also contributes observers and staff to a range of international organisations and national representations. This level of overseas deployment reflects Ireland’s ongoing commitment to international peace and security.

I thank the Defence Forces for their bravery, professionalism and commitment to their varying overseas roles in the face of escalating worldwide tensions, particularly in the Middle East.

At this time, it is only right that we take a moment to reflect on the late Private Seán Rooney, who was tragically killed while serving in Lebanon in December 2022. Trooper Shane Kearney was seriously injured in the same incident but is, thankfully, now recovering. A number of inquiries are ongoing in an attempt to establish the facts surrounding this tragedy and I remain committed to ensuring that those responsible are held to account and justice is delivered in respect of this heinous crime.

At home, the funding provision will facilitate the continued provision of a military operational response in aid of both the civil power and civil authorities as required. This is a broad multifaceted role which is of vital importance to national security. Examples of the broad range and type of duties undertaken include explosive ordinance disposal duties, air ambulance duties, naval boardings and prisoner escorts.

On behalf of the Government, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the voluntary effort made by members of the Reserve Defence Force and to thank them for their ongoing dedication and enthusiasm, and to assure members that the ongoing regeneration and revitalisation of the Reserve Defence Force is well under way.

Throughout my statement, I have made strategic references to the Commission on the Defence Forces and the independent review group funding. However, I would also like to draw members' attention to some specific areas of funding which provide for key recommendations arising from the commission and the independent review group in 2024, such as an increased civilian support allocation to facilitate further progression of civilian recruitment and to allow for an increased spend on the essential engagement of external contractors and consultants; an increased Defence Forces medical healthcare allocation to cover the full-year costs of extended healthcare to all Defence Forces personnel; a specific provision to meet the 2024 costs of the tribunal of inquiry arising from the IRG report with scope for further related increases within future Estimates processes; and a significant increase in the advertising allocation to support and enhance the Defence Forces recruitment effort throughout 2024.

In addition, €6 million will be provide for essential training, equipment and running costs for Civil Defence, including funding for new uniforms for members of Civil Defence in 2024. Civil Defence volunteers throughout the country continue to provide support to both the front-line services and local communities in responding to emergencies, most recently in response to the flooding in Glanmire, Midleton, Louth and parts of Galway. I thank them most sincerely for this invaluable contribution.

The 2024 Army Pensions Vote 35 allocation of €317 million, which is demand led and non-discretionary, will provide funding for up to 13,475 Army pensioners and certain dependants. Army pension numbers are rising steadily and the increased allocation provided in 2024 will address the cost of both existing and new pensions.

In a period of unparalleled change, innovation and reform for defence, I am satisfied that the 2024 defence allocation of €1.25 billion will build on the progress already made and will enable further ongoing investment to all aspects of the Defence Forces encompassing its personnel, capabilities, infrastructure and culture. It will also allow the Defence Forces to meet all tasks assigned by Government, both at home and overseas, and will provide the momentum necessary to advance the transformation agenda of the Defence Forces concurrent with the timeframes outlined in the strategic framework.

As facilitated on the robust corporate governance structures underpinning the strategic framework, I look forward to receiving quarterly updates from the Secretary General of my Department and the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces on the ongoing delivery of related actions, both immediate and into the future, encompassing both defence policy and operational matters.

I commend both the defence and Army pensions Estimates to the committee and I look forward to some positive engagement with members on the many important issues currently impacting both the Department of Defence and, indeed, the Defence Forces.

I thank the Tánaiste. I now call on members to put their questions in respect of Vote 36 dealing with defence policy and support, military capabilities and operational output. I suggest we deal with Vote 35 after Vote 36. I call Deputy Carthy or Deputy Cronin, whichever would like to go first.

I have a number of questions, if any of the Deputies wants to cut across and come back for fairness sake.

I thank the Tánaiste and the officials for being here. I will try to deal with it in order of the document.

On PDF pay, the budget 2024 documents stated there would be additional investment of €21 million in core current funding including "An additional net 400 Defence Force personnel" but the budget 2023 documents cited funding "to support the recruitment of an additional net 400 PDF recruits". The budgetary allocations for current pay in 2023 was €564 million and the 2024 allocation is cited as €550 million. I suppose the question is, why or how do budget documents announce an increase in funding to support the recruitment of 400 personnel? When one takes into account that we lost a net 416 personnel in 2023, there should be scope within the existing allocation to recruit an additional 800. Am I reading that wrong?

It was based on 8,600 last year. The base now is 8,100. We lost people during the year. There was a net loss of people during the year.

The calculation last year was on a base of 8,600. This year, it is on a base of 8,100 because there has been a net loss in Defence Forces personnel, in other words, the number of inductions has not matched the number of people who have left.

Does the Tánaiste accept that the budget has reduced for this coming year?

The recruitment target is the same as last year.

The recruitment target is the same but it is on a lower base, unfortunately, because of the challenges around recruitment and retention. If we go above the 400, the funding will be there to meet it. There is no issue. If, say, we get 600 in net, the funding will be there to deal with it. We will simply get a Supplementary Estimate on that because we have an establishment figure that is much higher.

In the Estimate of two years ago, agreement was reached between the Department of public expenditure and the Department of Defence on setting a target. Up until then, Defence would have got the establishment figure in terms of current expenditure for the then establishment of 9,500 but there was a change two years ago that the Department would get funding for what was a reasonable estimate as to how many people were in because the establishment has been well down from 9,500 for quite a number of years.

When the Minister was getting allocations for 9,500-----

I was not there then.

I meant the Department-----

It got converted to capital.

-----was getting allocations for 9,500 and the recruitment level was steadily decreasing. What happened in those terms with the balance of the funding?

In some cases, it got converted to capital or other expenditures that would have arisen within the year.

Is it fair to say that is money that has now been removed from the Department's budget that was currently spent within it?

Not really. One could argue that.

Would I be wrong in arguing that?

No. As the Deputy can see from all the increases, we have not had an issue on it. That is the point.

On subhead A3, the output target in relation to the heading has changed. Now it is simply recorded as "PDF Strength" as opposed to the percentage of the establishment figure. Was there a particular reason for that change?

Not particularly. It flows from the earlier point that we now go on the actual strength as opposed to the establishment figure. The finances were based for a long time on the establishment figure. It is like teaching where one gets the demographic dividend automatically. That used be the row with DPER when I was in the Department of education. If pupil numbers went up, one automatically got the resource of teachers. Here, one automatically got the establishment figure funding even though one was 1,000 off it and maybe, in some cases, 1,500 off it.

We are much further off it.

Yes. We are 2,000 out.

Am I correct in saying that it is the Tánaiste's view that there will be no cap on the number of inductions in 2024?

That will be based on him securing a Supplementary Estimate during the course of the year.

The cap will be the establishment figure. I have made that clear to the Minister for public expenditure.

There is no one in any doubt that we will not reach that in 2024.

Exactly, but as far as I am concerned-----

It is not provided for in the budget. That is the point I am making.

It does not have to be. As the Deputy said, we are unlikely to get there. I accept the position of the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform reluctantly, in the sense that it was prior to my time, but I get the point that we need to be as realistic as possible in our Estimates, both current and capital. The other side of the coin is that we are full steam ahead on our capital investment. We have made it clear to the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform that, if a project comes in, we will pay for it, and I have made it clear to the Defence Forces that they must keep driving the range of infrastructural investments in barracks and elsewhere across the system.

Something I noted in the documents was that the percentage of PDF personnel who served overseas was maintained at 19% between 2020 and 2022 but the number of personnel who actually served overseas reduced from 1,607 to 1,550. If we are meeting our obligations overseas but sending fewer people, is it fair to say that our obligations overseas have been decreasing?

No, not necessarily. I would not think so. We are proposing-----

According to the documents, we are reaching 100% of our target in meeting Government requirements for overseas peace support and crisis management. This target is listed as having been met 100% in 2022 and 2023, but in that time, the number of personnel who actually served overseas decreased. If we are meeting our obligations 100% but the numbers involved are reducing, does that mean that our obligations are reducing?

I get the point, but the Deputy is talking about marginal numbers - 1,576 in 2021 to 1,550. That is only 26 people.

I am referring to the 57 people-----

Yes, 1,550 from 1,607. I am sorry, as I do not have the 2023 figures with me, but the Deputy is referring to marginal changes. In fact, we will potentially increase our obligation to UNIFIL this year. At the end of the year, we will be coming back from UNDOF, but we will be increasing our UNIFIL presence.

Another way of looking at this is via subhead A4 in terms of the-----

I can check for the Deputy, but apart from the large missions like UNIFIL and UNDOF, we have a range of smaller overseas deployments. Every now and then, two, three or four people return from those. I have the list with me. We have 329 with UNIFIL, 134 with UNDOF and 11 in UNTSO, which is another mission in the Middle East but is more based in the community. Four personnel are deployed with EUFOR, 13 with KFOR, four with EUNAVOR MED IRINI, one with UNMAS, four with EUMAM, one with the OSCE, eight with the EUMS in Brussels, nine with the EU battle group in Germany and 12 as military representatives at various overseas military locations. We also have the battle group that we will enter into in 2025. We have pulled back from Mali because of circumstances there in terms of its Government and-----

The Tánaiste has started addressing my next point, which is on PDF allowances. There is a reduction of €2.2 million in that budget, which is attributed to the withdrawal from UNDOF. Would that not be supplanted by allowances relating to the battle group? Is it the correct to say that there will be no such allowances in 2024 because participation will only begin in 2025?

Historically, there has never been any allowance for the battle groups, but as the Deputy correctly said, I have negotiated an improvement in the general allowance situation for those on the battle group. I can get the Deputy the details of that, but it is a first in terms of security duty allowances for those on the battle group in lieu of other opportunities that they might not be able to avail of by virtue of that participation.

Just being on the battle group will be enough to secure it, regardless of whether they are actually deployed.

It is not the same allowance as the overseas allowance. It is a tweaking of existing allowances, but it is a help and a new development. I indicated this when people were returning from UNDOF. We accept that the overseas allowance is a valuable one for many members. On top of gaining experience working overseas, the allowance can be a significant additional assistance to members. When we pull out of UNDOF, we are reducing opportunities for overseas experience and allowance accrual. The battle group has never provided any additionality in that respect because it is a different type of operation. In fact, personnel will be training in Ireland for the first year. For the second year, they will be on standby with the battle group. There is a fundamental difference.

How many members of the Defence Forces are expected to be assigned to the battle group?

Approximately 182 personnel,-----

How many have volunteered to date?

------comprising a mechanised infantry company of 138, a national support element of 34 persons and staff postings of ten personnel to the force headquarters. The stand-up phase of the battle group in 2025 will take place between 1 January and 31 December 2024, followed by a standby phase from 1 January to 31 December 2025.

At this stage, how many have volunteered for the battle group? There are media reports that it is undersubscribed.

I do not have the exact numbers with me, but I have made it clear to the Chief of Staff that this must be fully subscribed to. This is a commitment made by the Government, which the Chief of Staff has clearly stated will be met. We brought-----

It may be met by mandatory deployments. Is that correct?

We will see. An additional allowance has now been provided for,-----

That is why I am asking whether we have a sense of the percentages.

-----but I do not have the figures with me.

Does anyone have an idea? Have we met more than half of the requirement yet?

I will get those figures for the Deputy and revert to him.

Okay. I have seen the mandatory deployment. Let us say that UNDOF or UNIFIL-----

This is training in Ireland for a year and then being on standby.

I am not making a judgment at this stage. I am only asking about people volunteering for it and whether there will be a need for mandatory deployments. Regardless of allowances, overseas missions are much more disruptive of people’s lives, notwithstanding the great opportunities they provide members. Will we ever have to deploy people mandatorily on overseas UN peacekeeping missions?

There has been mandatory deployment in the past. My understanding is that it primarily occurred in specialist areas. Overwhelmingly, though, deployment is voluntary. We believe that the recall of UNDOF and the consolidation give us a much stronger capacity in terms of the voluntary dimension. In other words, deployments to missions, in particular UNIFIL, will all be voluntary.

The Reserve Defence Force is a matter of great frustration for this committee. We have met its representative group. I do not know about the Tánaiste, but I am not aware of whether there is another reserve army in Europe whose numbers are a fraction of the permanent army’s. In most cases, they are usually multiples. What is the current strength of our reserves and is there a target figure for 2024?

Other countries have different models. Some have mandatory conscription. “Conscription” might be the wrong term, but young people have to join in Finland and so on.

I can confirm that that is not our party policy.

Nor was I suggesting the Deputy was advocating that, but when we make comparisons, we have to be aware that other countries may have different systems. In any event, I take his point. I am very keen that we would significantly increase the strength of the RDF. It is currently at 1,407. The Army Reserve was at 1,323 at the end of last year, while the Naval Service Reserve was at 84. The strength of the First Line Reserve was 282. A total of 178 female personnel were serving in the Reserve and 65 additional members were inducted in 2023, comprising 59 into the Army Reserve and six into the Naval Service Reserve.

I brought in the Chief of Staff and his team because I was not happy with where we were on the Reserve Defence Forces. A new office of Reserve affairs has been established by the Chief of Staff following the recommendations of the Commission on the Defence Forces, and there has been the development of a regeneration plan for the Reserve. That office, comprising seven members, is developing the regeneration plan and, meanwhile, I am asking for accelerated action on this. I was not happy with where we were when I came into my position. There were issues with medical assessments, which were taking too long, and I have asked the office to look at outsourcing some of that, which it has done, to get faster throughput. Plenty of people are applying but there is an issue with the conversion of people who express interest and with the timelines between people expressing interest and being recruited.

The office gives us capacity. It is now working on the plan but, parallel to working on the regeneration plan, it needs to see action in the form of actually getting people in this year. The legislation that has been passed has put the office in a statutory basis. It will update the use of the RDF on a voluntary basis, in respect of both the island and overseas.

Is the Tánaiste referring to the defence Bill we are dealing with in pre-legislative scrutiny at the moment?

I am referring to the amendment Act of 2021. Only one member of the RDF served overseas as part of a PDF operation in 2023. I would like to see more of that.

Are there plans for that to happen this year?

Yes, I would hope so.

Turning to capability development, I was interested in the language used by the Minister for public expenditure during the Budget Statement. He referred to "an additional €34 million in capital expenditure, compared to the original plan, to further progress the priority recommendations of the Commission on the Defence Forces and the independent review group, as well as funding the first year of the tribunal of inquiry." The actual capital allocation on this line, however, is the exact same euro for euro. Does that mean the original plan was to cut capital expenditure? The language the Minister used was interesting. He did not say it was an additional €34 million, but an additional €34 million compared with the original plan. In fact, there is no increase at all and------

There is. What happened was the original NDP allocation was much lower and spending has driven on. We have made this point. In fact, we are still in negotiations even to go above this figure because an element has been added to the NDP on which Departments are in discussion with the Minister for public expenditure. We should bear in mind that €142 million was the original figure in the NDP, but we went way ahead of that, to €176 million. If we were to put the original NDP into this figure, it would be much lower than €176 million.

We are still far short, however, of the €246 million that was set out by the commission in the second level of ambition requirements, but the actual-----

Hold on. First, I said we are not yet finished, and part of the issue in the coming years will be the pace at which the procurement of the heavy projects, such as primary radar and so on, come through. We think the strategic airlift capacity, C295, will come in next year. One of the concerns coming out of the commission related to the need to significantly ramp up procurement capacity within the Department and the system more generally.

I am just dealing with the actual allocations, so-----

I am confident that if additional expenditure comes in by dint of, say, a project having been completed earlier, we will manage it and there will not be an issue for us.

The provisional outturn for 2023, as it is cited, is €207 million, which is short of the target, but this year there is an allocation of €176 million.

That is because the Minister has not allocated the additional NDP capital, as he made clear in the summer economic statement. He is putting an additional €250 million into capital but he did not allocate that at the time of the budget. Discussions are now going on between Departments in respect of that. We made clear at the time of the €176 million announcement that that would not suffice and that we certainly needed to be in and around the levels we spent last year.

I am beginning to wonder what the point of the budget is. In the case of pay, we are saying the figure does not really matter and that if we recruit more people than are budgeted for, we will be able to get that. As for capital, likewise, if we are able to spend more money, we will get that. It is a good position for a Minister to be in. I do not think many Ministers are in that position where they are able just to say that if they need something, they will get it.

The point is the NDP is there. We were happy with the €176 million and that is the baseline. We have told the Defence Forces to keep going with the infrastructural projects on the campuses. We want projects to go through the system and be designed. Relatively speaking, the capital allocation for defence, compared with that for other high-spending Departments, is not huge. In the context of a multi-billion euro NDP, it is not huge. We have to have allocations, but the Minister took a decision not to allocate the additional NDP money at the time of the budget and indicated he wanted to deal with in January or February, which he is doing. We are negotiating that as well, on top of the baseline figure of €176 million.

On the issue of primary radar, I received a very lengthy response from the Tánaiste to a parliamentary question last week. Nobody is suggesting these matters are simple but there is a lot of frustration with the apparent delays. There is also frustration, I would imagine, on the part of a number of Members of the House that when we ask questions, there may be lengthy responses but the core information is scant compared with media reports we read, which set out the estimated cost to companies that supposedly have the contract sewn up. There have been a number of media reports about the progress on a primary radar system but that information is not included in departmental responses. Is there any basis in fact for what the media have been reporting?

Someone, therefore, is just making it up.

They could be or it could be loose talk, but there is no way they could identify a company because we are nowhere near procurement. This is very complex and it is not something the Defence Forces have gone at previously. In fact, we may work with other countries that have done this previously and could tell us the mistakes they made or advise us not to go down a given route. We are going to seek advice from others who have gone down this route, because we cannot get it wrong. There were suggestions that we might have one system for land and another for air, but we want one overall, national system. This will be a big expenditure item.

We gave timelines in the strategic framework. The needs phase is due to be completed in the second quarter of this year, while the requirements phase will build on the work carried out during the needs phase to further develop the business case and complete the project, design and planning . That will continue until the fourth quarter of this year. The acquisition phase, or procurement process, is estimated to continue until the third quarter of 2025 and the contract delivery phase will commence thereafter, with an estimated completion timeframe of 2028. By the time we put out the tender and so on, we will be looking at three years or more to deliver a primary radar system.

I do not want to accuse the media or other sources of making things up, but perhaps people are speculating about there being only a certain number of companies in the field. People can speculate away. We are not even at the procurement stage and will not be there until the third quarter of next year.

The Tánaiste has seen nothing in the media, therefore, that would make him think there is a leak in the Department.

I have not seen the reports the Deputy has seen.

Does the Tánaiste not have a media monitor within the Department?

I will put it this way. We might get a phone call to say there is something in the Examiner again. That is my own newspaper.

I presume the Minister does not mean he has shares in it and he is referring to the-----

I jest. It is a Corkonian expression, although they put the word "Irish" before "Examiner", but that is a long story. No, seriously, people speculate all the time.

I have to say, the Irish Examiner gained at least one additional Monaghan reader in recent years because some of the information around this portfolio can be very useful.

In terms of-----

I think this is important, though. There is no delay on our side in terms of resources or anything like that. I do get the sense in the Department, however, that this is a seriously challenging project. The military has to gear up. Our Defence Forces have to gear up. Our Department has to gear up in terms of capacity. We have to talk to other countries that have gone down this road just to get the pros and cons and what to watch out for. The key will be that we get the design right because once we get beyond procurement, that is it. That is what I have been advised in respect of it.

What happens at the minute?

We are very-----

Is there anybody who has a radar-----

We have various-----

-----or who is monitoring our skies and seas with by radar?

We have Air Corp surveillance. We have the new C295 maritime patrol aircraft and they do maritime surveillance. However, we do not have radar.

That is what I am asking. Is there another-----

It is a huge vulnerability. It is a very significant vulnerability.

Are there any other states that are monitoring our skies and seas by radar?

No. I am sorry; I mean that is a matter for other countries. All of the speculation on that was erroneous, too, by the way, and wrong in terms of what was alleged about the Royal Air Force, RAF, and so on, so no. What happens in terms of maritime surveillance is-----

How would we know?

How would we know that someone else is not monitoring through radar?

The world is monitoring the world, Deputy.

We are not monitoring ourselves never mind anywhere else.

Everybody is watching everybody. It is-----

We are not watching ourselves, so we are-----

I cannot tell the Deputy. I do not know the depths of the intelligence system of any particular country or what they are up to. However, this is what routinely happens. If, for example, we take the maritime traffic through our seas or exclusive economic zone, we might spot stuff and alert the French or say it to the British or somebody else. This is a routine that goes on. Countries alert each other to a particular vessel or trawler that is in a particular location for maybe good, benign or innocent reasons or not so innocent reasons. There is that kind of collective effort where people will alert people. Likewise, in the context of drugs and so on, there is obviously Interpol and forces that combine. I was in Colombia recently. We have a superintendent in Colombia attached to our embassy who works with the Colombian authorities. Collectively, therefore, countries work on drug trafficking and narcotics and much of it is intelligence led and intelligence driven.

That said, there is a vulnerability here. We do not have a comprehensive primary radar system. We need to put one in place. The commission has identified it. We are about that work. I take the Deputy's point, but timelines are as they are. It seems to me that this is the first time we have ever seriously gone about doing this. The Estimates contain significant allocations in terms of additional personnel within the Department across a number of fronts from the Commission on the Defence Forces and also to embed some key civilian posts within the Defence Forces themselves in terms of human resource and recruitment and so forth.

There is a subhead under A8 that relates to defensive equipment, aircraft, naval vessels and ammunition. From what I can see, it is reducing to less than 2022 levels, which were actually the levels before the Commission on the Defence Forces. From what I can read, it is a reduction of over €27 million, which is almost 20%. Is there a reason for that? Has that been allocated to another line?

That is case headings, again, because of the reduced numbers.

The outturn in 2022 was €117 million and the Estimate was €112 million last year.

This is capital expenditure, is it not? How would-----

It is capability development more generally. The price for the purchase of defensive equipment, aircraft, naval vessels and ammunition takes in the contractual commitments to multiannual contracts.

With individuals or with companies?

Companies, obviously. As I said earlier, if a company is providing an aircraft and if the aircraft comes in in a given year and we have paid the invoice, we will get a bump up. This represents the €50 million that was converted from current to capital expenditure.

From previous years. Okay. I am happy to allow others to come in if the Cathaoirleach can let me back in.

I will let the Deputy back in to continue.

In our discussions with the Department of public expenditure, the idea of converting is a model we are trying to avoid into the future. It is not an ideal way to fund capital into the future. That is the point we have been making in terms of the Estimate. The NDP base was not strong enough. The current allocation came into primer up on previous years. We are saying we just want a straight capital allocation for the future.

I am going to call Deputies Stanton and Cronin, but I will come back to Deputy Carthy.

I welcome the Minister and his officials. I thank them for the briefing and for the work they are doing. I also want to join with the Minister in acknowledging the work the Defence Forces and Civil Defence did during the flooding in my part of the country when they came down and helped out with sand bags and took people in boats out of houses and all that kind of stuff. As the Minister knows, it was horrific at the time. I want to thank them, through the Minister, for the work they did at that time and in previous years when it happened. They came down and helped out in the past when we had other flooding issues. As I said today in the Chamber, hopefully, we will have fine weather and longer days and we will not be seeing that this year again, but who knows?

On the Civil Defence, the Minister wrote to me on 5 May last on the privileging of paramedics and advanced paramedics. It was an issue I brought up when we talked about this in the select committee at the time. Has there been any movement on that? Some of the paramedics and advanced paramedics were not privileged to handle certain controlled drugs. Even though they had that right in their civilian jobs, when they joined the Civil Defence, it was not possible. There was an issue ongoing between the local authorities, trade unions and the regulator. The Department was also keeping an eye on it. The Minister might not have that information now but if not, he might come back to me at a later stage on whether that issue has been resolved or not. It was causing a certain amount of angst for those small number of highly skilled advanced paramedics who could not actually do the job they were expected to do.

This is while they were in the Civil Defence and on a Civil Defence mission.

I will check that out then.

Yes, well, the Minister's own-----

That is something that should be provided for. The Deputy and I both know that the jurisdictional issues. I surmise-----

I got a letter-----

There are also the domain protections that people go on with that we should be using.

Anyway, I will come back to the Deputy on that.

I got a letter from the Minister on it last May and it was ongoing at that stage, so I am wondering whether it is maybe-----

It is still ongoing.

Okay. The other issue I have been raising consistently is that of psychometric testing and recruitment. I understand that the Minister asked that it not happen in the Naval Service-----

-----and it is ongoing. Are there numbers with respect to how many people fail the psychometric tests in the Permanent Defence Force, PDF, and the Army, in particular, and has that had any impact in recruitment into the Naval Service? It was a fence that many people could not jump over and they failed at that time.

The other thing I am interested in is how many people would have failed medical and physical examinations. Physical examinations, in particular, are something in which I would be interested. Again, the Minister might not have those figures to hand now, but he might provide them at some stage.

There is a review under way now on what the impact has been on recruitment to the Naval Service because of the decision to waive the psychometric test. It was felt that it was a bit early to do it a couple of months after its introduction. The concern I had, and the concern we still have, is that quite a significant number of people apply to join the Defence Forces. Okay, we might say that people online indicate an interest in joining, but one cannot expect 100% to follow through. However, the conversion rate of those who indicate an interest in joining and the actual numbers who join is too low in our view. I made this point to the military leadership. The Department of Defence was working on this. We brought in a media consultancy group to look at the entire recruitment processes within our Defence Forces.

The group came forward with strong recommendations to significantly change how we recruit into the Defence Forces.

On the physical training, the chief told me they have changed that somewhat whereby they give latitude to somebody to come up to a standard-----

-----as opposed to having to meet the standard on day one, which is a sensible and welcome change. The Chief of Staff and his team are very alert to this and I have certainly articulated the kind of points articulated by the Deputy to them. Objectively, and as lay people watching, we have to be conscious of the wider field of recruitment out there with full employment. The idea of bringing someone up to a standard as opposed to saying to them, "You are not at the standard, so you are not even going to get considered", is a step forward.

Some people swear by psychometric testing as being key - Deputy Berry might enlighten us on that later - but others do not. Psychometric testing for the Naval Service paused in June 2023 on a pilot basis for six months and that was subsequently extended for a further six months. We increased the maximum age to 29 for general service recruits. We have to shift to a model that brings people in and tries to get them battle-ready then, so to speak. That is my view.

We have more or less done most of the changes people were looking for in terms of income and so on. The next piece will be retention and I expect news on that shortly from the Minister with responsibility for public expenditure. This will be critical in terms of retirement issues and so on.

On the reserve, the Tánaiste mentioned the current strength of the reserve is 1,407.

Some 59 people were recruited this year, to date, to the Army Reserve and six into the Naval Service Reserve. I served for 23 years in the Reserve and there was a time when we would take that number in during an afternoon. There was such a demand for it and it was so popular and useful to young people, to actually develop character, discipline and everything else. To have the numbers so low and to have the Reserve fading away is a missed opportunity in all kinds of ways. I would support the Tánaiste in any work he would do to increase the numbers. It is a hugely important, character building opportunity for young people. In fact, if they get a taste of the Defence Forces by being in the Reserve they may very well decide to join the Permanent Defence Force, PDF.

We used to lose the best of our people to the PDF every year. We trained them to a certain level and then they were gone into Deputy Berry's outfit and we had to start again. That was good for everybody.

The Tánaiste mentioned movement to overseas. We have been talking about this for years. Is any work being done to have job security preserved for people in the Reserve who give up their time to go overseas for six months so that when they come back their job would still be there for them? I think that is the case in the territorials and reserves in other countries.

That should be the case and we do not normally have difficulties. It is something we should provide for legislatively. That is my view. We have to enhance the idea and prioritise the view that people who wish to contribute to the State through joining the Reserve Defence Forces are not impeded or punished in any way.

There are a number of aspects to this. First of all, we do not say to every young person coming out of school to join the Army or whatever but I have met some people from Reserve Defence Forces who are specialists in technology. The opportunities are very significant in terms of added capacity particularly in a time of need such as Covid, a pandemic or whatever to have a ready reservoir of human capital. In my view it is building up human capital for the benefit of the State. It is a missed opportunity and we seem to have a problem in this country in terms of reserves. I remember all of the controversy about the Garda Reserve ten, 15 or 20 years ago. There was opposition to it. People were saying, "It's yellow pack", and that is the wrong attitude. We need to build up human capital to face the many threats we face. Particularly when emergencies happen in the public domain there would then be a bigger reservoir of people we could draw upon to help match any particular challenge. Plus, as the Deputy said, if young people join they may very well get a taste for it and decide to develop a career in the Defence Forces. We are very anxious to have progress on this issue now.

I am glad to hear the Tánaiste say he is considering legislation to preserve the job security of people who might actually join the Reserve and go overseas for a period of time. I would really welcome that. It is long overdue. We await that so bring it on as soon as possible.

I have a question about subhead A15. Cybersecurity is the issue I want to bring up. Will the Tánaiste tell us the amount made available for that under that subhead? I am sure the Defence Forces have a specialist unit. Do we have any extra personnel involved in that particular division or any plans to do that?

The National Cyber Security Centre is our main centre for dealing with cybersecurity from a national perspective. Our military contributes to and attends. The primary role of the Defence Forces with regard to cybersecurity relates to our own defence and security networks and systems. They participate under the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications through the National Cyber Security Centre. It is a whole-of-government challenge and has to remain so with every Government Department involved through the National Cyber Security Centre.

It is difficult to get specific figures because there is pay, along with people who contribute and attend. We also have military people present in Estonia at the NATO Cyber Security Centre. It is not a NATO centre but it is called that. That is a multinational approach to understanding the dangers and threats to cybersecurity. I went there two years ago to see it. It was interesting that the planning was, "What happens if your water utilities are attacked? What is the scenario planning? How do you respond to it?" We need to build up our expertise very significantly in that.

With An Garda Síochána, the Defence Forces and the National Security Analysis Centre, we all work together and we have to work together on this.

Linked to that is the resourcing of military intelligence.

The resourcing of military intelligence is linked to that, obviously.

It might be interesting to get a briefing on that issue as well at some stage.

With respect to recruitment will the Minister comment on diversity? Many people come to Ireland from other jurisdictions and countries to make their home here. Will he give the committee a breakdown with respect to diversity in the Defence Forces and what the policy is there on recruiting people who were not born in the island of Ireland? What are the numbers like?

I do not have the exact numbers here but I will get them for the Deputy. It is an issue I am concerned about. We need far greater diversity. For anyone born in Ireland there is no issue irrespective of-----

Of course, but for people who come from abroad and become citizens here-----

Yes, I think there is a bit of conservatism within the system.

Is there a-----

I have discussed this recently with the defence leadership. Not only that but we should we seek to recruit from overseas just like we do in every other sector.

Is there a proactive policy in that regard to recruit?

Yes. I have made it clear. One of the issues is vetting. Vetting for internationally recruited personnel can be far more protracted and takes a far greater length of time than vetting within the country. That is Garda vetting and so on.

The Tánaiste's previous Department had a unit called Balance for Better Business, which looked at the role of women in various organisations. I thank the Tánaiste said that the percentage of females in the Defence Forces is 12%. Is there a target to increase that?

Yes. At the moment we have approximately 559 women. We had approximately 7.4%. In the RDF there was approximately 13% and it is approximately 19% of civilian employees. We need to get that significantly up to international norms. A female-specific recruitment has been established to co-ordinate the attendance of tri-service female-specific recruiting teams at national and regional level. There is a broad-based approach to fitness testing.

There are now requirements tailored specifically for women. An emphasis has been placed on fitness test preparation, and induction fitness test videos are available for this. We are going to recruit a senior gender adviser into the Defence Forces. Gender diversity and unconscious bias training took place across all formations and services last year. As the Deputy knows, private secondary medical care was extended to enlisted personnel. This is particularly important because it will include private medical care during pregnancy for women members. The Defence Forces women's network was established with the aim of increasing the participation of female personnel at all levels of the organisation.

The Chair will be glad to know that I have just one or two questions left and then I will be finished. I know the Department and the Minister are very much engaged in assisting and supporting veterans through the Organisation of National Ex-Service Personnel-Óglaigh Náisiúnta na hÉireann, ONE, and other organisations.

What is the budget for this for the coming year? What subhead is it administered under?

It is under subhead A22. About €360,000 was allocated in grants to veterans' organisations, including Dormant Accounts funding. We recognise two veterans' organisations, Óglaigh Náisiúnta na hÉireann and the Irish United Nations Veterans Association, IUNVA. The Department has service level agreements in place outlining supports in respect of both organisations and pays annual grants of €130,000 and €30,000, respectively, to assist with administrative overheads. Additionally, the Department of Defence has secured €900,000 to date under the Dormant Accounts Fund to assist ONE and IUNVA with specific special projects. The report of the Commission on the Defence Forces recommended the establishment of an office of veterans' affairs under new Defence Forces structures. We are going to progress the implementation of this and there is a timeline for this provided in the strategic framework.

I just want to congratulate the Department on the work it is doing in supporting veterans. It is greatly important. Many people can be very lonely and suffer all kinds of other issues, so I encourage even further support.

I visited the headquarters of ONE last year. I was very taken by the social services and housing supports it provides, as well as the sense of comradery there and veterans looking after each other. It is very touching and something I will be eager to continue to support.

Can we get a breakdown of the current strength of the Naval Service, Air Corps and Army? We have been given the overall figure of 7,700.

I think I gave that earlier.

I am referring to an individual breakdown of the figures for the three services and the individual targets for each of them as well.

At the moment, the figure stands at 6,136 for the Army, 689 for the Air Corps, at the end of 2023, and 725 for the Naval Service. Overall, this gives us a total of 7,550.

The Minister mentioned private health care and how this will work. This is new and very welcome for enlisted personnel. I think it was always there for the officer corps. How will this work in practice?

Basically, people needing medical care will go to their medical officer. They are then referred to a consultant, of their choice really, but depending on the medical discipline or the issue. The cost is fully reimbursed.

GP costs are covered, prescription costs are covered and hospital and consultant costs are covered. All of those costs are covered.

Okay. Excellent.

It is a big change.

Yes. That is really good. I am very happy with that. This next question might be a bit of a curveball. I was at an event this morning organised by a group called the Open Doors Initiative. The Tánaiste might be familiar with it. The organisation encourages and supports people from challenging backgrounds in getting employment. I am on the board of the organisation, so I am very familiar with it, just to put that on the record. It operates mainly in the private sector. One of the large companies referred to assisting people who had previous spent convictions to get employment. What is the current policy with respect to the Defence Forces concerning allowing, encouraging or supporting people who may have had difficulties in the past, including those with criminal difficulties and who may have spent time in prison, but whose convictions are now spent? Is there a policy in this regard or has this been looked at in respect of supporting, encouraging and allowing people in this situation to become members of the Defence Forces? I know this is very challenging and may be a bit of a curveball query, but it is something I wish to raise.

Deputy Stanton is from east Cork, so a curveball is nothing new to him. It is a very reasonable question to ask, by the way. I have to be honest with the Deputy and say I have not yet addressed this issue with the military leadership and I will have to come back to him on it. The obvious issues arise.

It is a conservative enough organisation in many respects. Security is important as well.

At the same time, though, and Deputy Stanton is working in this field, redemption is important. People can get things wrong in their young lives but can then make an outstanding contribution later in their lives. If we look at the Two Norries podcast, which has now come to an end, I remember being interviewed by the presenters and being very struck by their backgrounds, their life journeys and where they are now in life. They are making very significant contributions to society. One of them is working in the area of drug addiction and acting as a counsellor working with the HSE to support people in difficulty, as well as others. I am sure the military would be equally responsive to this type of approach too. I have no reason to believe it would not be. The point raised by the Deputy is an interesting one. I will take it up and come back to him on it regarding what avenues or pathways could be created. Where people get things wrong in one stage of their lives, there must always be the opportunity to recover, to be rehabilitated and to get back into society.

I thank the Minister.

I call Deputy Cronin next.

Go raibh maith agat. I welcome the Minister to the committee. I would also like to be associated with his words about Private John Rooney. We had a minute for peace earlier today in the Dáil. We stood for a minute's silence for peace on St. Brigid's Day. Our peacekeepers are the very best of us. Many of the questions I was going to ask have already been answered. I would, though, like to return to the issue of underspending on pay. We acknowledge the increase in pay for recruits was very welcome. We all remember receiving our first full-time wage and then thinking we are absolutely loaded. While that is great for an 18-year-old, we do need to look at the rates of pay for a 30-year-old thinking of starting a family and buying a home. It is a pity to see this underspending when we should be looking to spend this money on holding on to the personnel we have.

Also on retention, I spoke to the Minister a few times regarding the Curragh Camp fire station. There is a general feeling in the Defence Forces of being neglected. I think closing this fire station would be confirming they are. These are deeply committed and highly skilled workers. Personnel rotate and some from the fire station go abroad to serve. This aspect goes to the safety of our troops. I wonder if the Minister has any news about this matter. I ask because I heard another rumour last week concerning the fire station. I think I spoke to the Minister about it.

It would be a shocking mistake to close the fire station, because it provides a service to the local community as well. People in County Kildare are very proud of having the Curragh Camp based in our county. I hope the rumour I heard is not true. I ask the Minister to confirm the situation.

The minute's silence for peace today was very welcome given the state of the world. I am always conscious of our Defence Forces and our UNIFIL contingent in Lebanon. This is why I am very anxious there would not be an escalation of the situation in the Middle East. Lebanon is very much on the horizon in this regard. At the recent meeting of the European Foreign Affairs Council, FAC, I was not impressed by the Israeli Foreign Minister and his comments in relation to Lebanon and Israel's demands of Hezbollah to withdraw to the Litani river in line with the UN resolution. Equally, Hezbollah needs to calm things down and pull back. It would be horrendous for Lebanon if a new front were to open there between Israel and Hezbollah. Lebanon would be very much the poorer if that were to happen, given what happens in modern warfare. I am very concerned about this issue.

Private Seán Rooney very bravely, in a very challenging situation, gave everything to save others. He lost his life in a criminal act. It is before the courts. We do not want to lose our soldiers. We should value our peacekeepers. That is why it is important that we lose no opportunity to make it clear to Lebanese authorities that our peacekeepers must be valued and their lives must be valued and respected and to Israel and Hezbollah to desist from any attempted escalation of the conflict there.

On the pay issue, opening pay for officers and cadets coming out of school or college is relatively higher compared with other professions. There is a range of allowances, the most recent being the patrol duty allowance, which is now doubled after ten days. There are other allowances across the system. It is part of the public service negotiation process, which means it is subject to the pay rises that happen. We will look at other aspects to see what we can do to improve the situation for more middle-ranking personnel. There have been significant improvements all round, which has to be acknowledged. A three-star private earns €38,000 to €44,000 for post-2013 entrants, corporals earn €44,227 to €48,000, sergeants €47,000 to €49,000, company sergeants €54,000 to €57,480, and sergeant majors €59,227 to €63,000. There is a range of others. We will continue working within the pay agreements to see what we can do. We did something extra this time for the EU battle group which was not there before to try to help people, which we will continue to do in any other areas we can. I will mention accommodation and the health service entitlement.

On the fire service, I am awaiting the report. I have asked for the report of the chief. I think the Deputy picked up rumours. I will be honest, there is definitely a review going on. There seems to be a sense that military leadership has views as to purpose and use and so on. I will await the report and come back to the Deputy then.

Does the Minister have a timeline?

I hope it will be within the next fortnight or so.

I appreciate that. We spoke about social and cultural changes. I saw there are 15 chaplains. The spiritual welfare of our Defence Forces is important but I saw a mention of bishops and religious orders. How many denominations are represented by those 15 chaplains? Is there such a thing as a humanist chaplain?

I understand there is one Church of Ireland chaplain and the remainder are Catholic.

So it is just Church of Ireland and Catholic?

There is one Church of Ireland chaplain and the remainder are Catholic.

Is representation for different denominations being examined?

We are open. It depends on churches and their availability. I will check it out. There is no issue with other faiths being available if required and if sought.

I also looked at the cost of utilities. I saw that a primary school in County Clare has become the first energy-independent school. Has consideration been given to the Defence Forces trying to become energy independent?

There is a very strong agenda in that regard. When I visited The Curragh, it was pointed out to me that a number of buildings were built with that objective in mind with solar panels and other systems and even vehicles. There is a very good engineering corps within the military and very good research projects, which I am anxious to promote even more. Good stuff is going on between SFI and the military in innovation. Energy is a key area in that respect.

On education and training, how much is spent on language training with our increased overseas plans, whether I agree with them or not. What kind of training is given around language? We are not a country that is great at learning languages. We have a poor rate of language learning. Most are fluent in Irish and English, if you are lucky.

It is not broken down into languages. About €5 million was spent on military education and training. Suffice to say, we do a lot of training in the Defence Forces. There is a lot of education, which is good. There is a lot of advancement and progress. I will check that for the Deputy. It is a fair point because people serve overseas and language is important.

Language is so important.

I have no doubt that is catered for but I will check. If there is a gap, we can improve upon it.

I know a lot of people around Camp Shamrock speak English with an Irish accent.

That is a very good thing.

It is important that we learn languages as well.

We are the home of literature, do not forget - English literature, for that matter. Was it Thomas MacDonagh who was the first to write about Ireland's impact on the English language and literature? There is nothing like French in a west Cork accent, I am reliably informed by French people.

There are a few Spanish people talking with Irish accents as well.

They might be more understandable if they were speaking French.

I will not go into it but it is worth noting that it is a damning indictment of our public health system that the Defence Forces need private healthcare. You hear people talking about Sláintecare and well-meaning people ask why the parties cannot all get together and sort out whatever the issue is like they did with Sláintecare. I say to myself, I know what state Sláintecare is in and how far away it is. It is a damning indictment that members of our Defence Forces need private healthcare but it is welcome at the same time. Is there anything there about the Defence Forces Justice Alliance? We had its representatives in the AV room. I spoke to the Minister in the Dáil about it last week. Some of their health problems are stark. I think a lot of TDs, not just me, said it was one of the most upsetting presentations in the AV room, from members of the Air Corps in particular. Does the Minister have any plans around that such as healthcare and medical cards?

On the question about eligibility for private healthcare, it was in the Commission on the Defence Forces report. I want to try to do anything that can enhance the quality of life of serving personnel in our Defence Forces. I want people to stay in the Defence Forces and to recruit more into the Defence Forces. God forbid you had cancer or cardiac issues, you can go private but often the best care is in the public hospital in the tertiary system, such as cardiac care in the Mater, St. James's and CUH. That is my view. In terms of ease and getting access to consultants for issues, however, this is an additional service between the two. It was sought and we were anxious to deliver it to all enlisted personnel. It had been available for officers.

What about the Defence Forces Justice Alliance, in particular for the Air Corps?

I am coming to that. We received correspondence recently about the Defence Forces Justice Alliance. There was a similar personnel campaign for Baldonnel and toxic chemicals. Regarding some of what has been said, it is very difficult to say it is all due to experience in the military or in Baldonnel. Cases have been taken before the courts. In one case, my understanding is that-----

It is better if we do not discuss any cases before the courts.

The State Claims Agency is looking and can decide if it wants to do mediation in one case, if it believes it is necessary. I would prefer a mediated role in some of those cases if there is a strong case.

I see some of the correspondence coming in to say so many people have died generally. You would have to get a broader study to see whether it is all due to Baldonnel in some cases. I would have to look at the entirety of what is being said before drawing the conclusions that are being drawn.

Is the Tánaiste considering medical cards or healthcare for------

Not at this stage. We have not looked at that yet.

Not at this stage.

There is no defined cohort of people in what is being presented.

The Tánaiste has met them though, has he not?

I met them some time back but not for quite some time. This group has been set up just recently in the aftermath or timed in parallel with the establishment of the tribunal inquiry. I met with some prominent people on the toxic chemicals when I was in opposition and then it went into the courts where a number of cases are at the moment.

Okay. I will not make any comment to that question.

I thank the Deputy.

I will take the Tánaiste briefly back to a point he made in an earlier response to Deputy Cronin when he spoke about our current relations with the authorities in Lebanon and the sensitive nature of such. In his opening address, he made reference to the tragic killing of Private Seán Rooney. We mourn his loss but we also condemn his murder. In this regard, the very slow rate of progress in determining what actually happened and bringing the perpetrators to justice is to be noted. I note that of the five chief suspects, all of whom were charged, all are free and none are currently in custody. Regarding the chief suspect, I note that the case before a tribunal was adjourned from last December until next June. What representations has the Tánaiste made to the authorities in Lebanon? What assurances has he received that justice will take its course in a way that we would regard as satisfactory? Have we received assurances that the tribunal of inquiry or that the military court will proceed in June and that the reason or excuse put forward in respect of the lengthy adjournment is valid in the circumstances?

I am equally unhappy with the slow progress there and the nature of the trial process and I have met the Lebanese minister for foreign affairs on a number of occasions now, most recently in Barcelona at a European ministerial exchange on the Middle East more generally. I had a bilateral with him there, previous bilaterals at the UN General Assembly, UNGA, and indeed, I went to Lebanon to meet him. I also met the minister of defence in Lebanon and spoke to him there. I articulated our anger at the fact that the chief suspect was released pending the court case on medical grounds according to the Lebanese authorities. I will not be satisfied with this until I see justice. It is slow. I am equally conscious of the state of Lebanon at the moment but we are keeping a very strong watch and brief on this. We have employed lawyers who cannot intervene but are there as observers every step of the way. We are concerned about this. As I said earlier, we must value our peacekeepers but more importantly, Lebanon keeps thanking Ireland and articulating its appreciation of the Irish contribution historically to Lebanon and to the peacekeeping there, yet we need to see that reflected in the rigour we would expect from the courts and the judicial system there regarding the murder of Seán Rooney.

Under the circumstances, might it be appropriate that we would raise the issue with the national governments of other peacekeeping countries with a view towards ensuring an element of support and progress on this matter?

Yes we should, and also critically with the United Nations, the Secretary-General and other key persons, which we have done in the late Seán Rooney's case and more generally on force protection in respect of DFOMs, denials of freedom of movement, that still occur in Lebanon.

Briefly, while I have the floor before going to Deputy Berry, I raise an issue in my own constituency. The Tánaiste quite rightly mentioned the multifaceted role played by the Defence Forces. One important role over the last 50 years has been the provision of additional, and oftentimes required, security at Portlaoise Prison. My understanding is that the bill for such extra security provided from the Department of Defence through the Defence Forces is in excess of €2 million per year. The number of high-security prisoners in Portlaoise is much lower than it was some years ago and there was a suggestion that there might be something of a scaling back on the 24-7 armed security provided by the Department of Defence. Is provision made in the current Estimate for a continuation of these funds, or is to be expected that there may be something of a change in policy, having regard now to less than a handful of what might be regarded as high-security, dangerous prisoners who have been imprisoned for terrorist-related offences? I note in this regard the capital cost, which I am not sure is being borne by the Office of Public Works, the Department of Justice or by the Department of Defence, in respect of a new building at Portlaoise Prison which is to be exclusively used by representatives of the Defence Forces. Should there be something of a scaling back of the Defence Forces requirement at the prison? I also wonder to what use this building might be put? If the Tánaiste does not have detailed information there, he-----

I have. There has been a scaling back. We discussed this at the time, not here in the committee but with the military leadership, and there is a desire generally that we would scale back - if not end - the entire provision. Given numbers and so on, we need to consider the optimum deployment of the Defence Forces and as the Deputy has correctly pointed out, the requirement now at Portlaoise Prison is no longer what it was. Already this year, there has been a reduction in the numbers of military personnel. It is down to very low numbers now actually and I see that probably ending in the course of this year. Obviously, there are discussion to be had with the Department of Justice but the Deputy is correct in his analysis. The change has started and there has been a significant scaling down already. I am not au fait with the building and its potential use subsequently but the Deputy probably has ideas himself on that matter.

It is a matter of some controversy but we will see how matters pan out however. As Chair of the committee, I acknowledge the crucial role played by Defence Forces personnel in Portlaoise at the prison over what I think has been a period of 50 years, oftentimes in very difficult and challenging circumstances on the island. They were always there and it was something which the people of Portlaoise acknowledge with gratitude and appreciation. If, as the Tánaiste says, it is coming to an end, so be it.

The Deputy's point is well made. There was a time when prison officers were targets and were shot. In one case that we know of, a prison officer lost his life. Therefore, there was a time when it was needed. The number of high-security prisoners is now in single digits and they are of a certain age and so forth, so the necessity that was once there is no longer required. Therefore, the optimal deployment of the Defence Forces must be our prime agenda and objective.

I bid the Tánaiste and his team a good afternoon. I thank him for his opening statement.

I will start on a few positives. In the budget in October, an allocation of €1.23 billion was announced. In the context of the Revised Estimate, the allocation is now €1.25 billion. Obviously ,there is an additional €20 million, which is not to be sneezed at. It is small money for sure, but at least it has us moving in the right direction. I welcome that.

I echo what my colleagues said about the patrol duty allowance that came into effect this day last month. The allowance has been doubled. This landed very well with those in the Naval Service. The members of the joint committee visited Naval Service headquarters 18 months ago. The increase was the big ask of the staff there. I am glad to see it has finally been delivered. That is good.

Deputy Stanton mentioned private healthcare, which is hugely important. A few years back, 200 troops who needed serious operations were on a waiting list. When troops are injured, those injuries can be serous. They jump off buildings and blow stuff up. This will certainly speed up the process of getting them back to work. I very much appreciate that.

It is good that the pay for people with less than three years' service has improved significantly. It was €27,000 a year four years ago. On 1 October next, it will increase to €40,000 under the new pay deal. That is a major psychological threshold breached. It is about a 50% uplift in the lifetime of this Dáil for people with less than three years' service. That is an important message to get out. It means progress, particularly for those to whom I refer.

The delivery of two maritime patrol aircraft last year is an excellent game-changer in the context of what we can do over the Atlantic. That is to be welcomed. I understand that the new C-295 troop transport will be on the assembly line soon in Spain. They are cutting the steel for it at the moment. That aircraft will provide a capability that Ireland has never had when it arrives, probably in the summer of next year, 17 months from now.

I will also address the infrastructure improvements. A lot of money is now being pumped in from an infrastructure point of view for nearly every barracks, which is great. I mention this because if money is provided, it is well spent in the Defence Forces.

I also mention it up because, as the Tánaiste stated, the sectoral national development plan allocations will be coming on stream soon. I presume that the defence apparatus will be fighting for at least its fair share of that. I will hammer home the point that we are, in the context of GDP and GNI*, only getting one third of the EU average when it comes to defence spending. If our health service or education service were only getting a third of the EU average those services would be in complete disarray. This is one of the reasons it will be very hard to modernise the Defence Forces unless we can increase the funding allocation. Anything the Government can do in the context of a sectoral NDP allocation would be massively appreciated.

The Tánaiste referred to defence funding being increased to €1.5 billion - at 2022 figures - by 2028. His predecessor, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Coveney, was always keen to point out in January 2022 that the figure would be €2 billion if inflation were taken into consideration. The Tánaiste has stated that it is dependent on the project.

If there was an assurance that it would be project specific, it would certainly help.

There is a key point I want to make. The briefing document provided to members states that the role of the Defence Forces is "to provide for the military defence of the State". The Commission on the Defence Forces openly stated- this has been accepted by nearly everybody - that the Defence Forces cannot do the job they are tasked to do. There are consequences for not funding the Defence Forces properly. If we can fund them properly over the coming years, it would be hugely appreciated and would make a massive difference on the ground.

The key thing for me is the people involved. It is our number one capability. I am sure the Tánaiste will be aware that the current Defence Forces contingent of 7,550 is the lowest for over 50 years. This definitely has to be addressed. The Tánaiste is aware of that.

I will make a few suggestions. The Tánaiste spoke about the maximum recruitment age. It varies over the ages of about 25, 26 or 27 depending on the service. The Tánaiste said he will increase that over the next while. I would say that the higher up it can go the better. Prior to 1994, the maximum mandatory retirement age used be 60.

Someone who joined before 1994 could stay until the age of 60. The age was then reduced to 50.

I will have news on that front shortly.

That is good to hear.

I understand there is a small a blockage in the context of re-induction. Re-induction is when troops who have retired and want to get back in. That list is increasing. Many of them have been on to our office to say they had applied, for example, six months ago and still have not heard. Some people have heard but are blocked to the system so perhaps the Tánaiste or his office could give that a nudge to move it along.

If the Deputy has any cases in mind, he could send them on to us. There should not be delays on that. We should just get it done quickly.

These are fully trained and would just need a small bit of re-induction and they are good to go.

Deputy Stanton asked about looking at broader ways of recruiting. There is a lateral transfer programme that Australia and the UK use. They generally poach some of our troops, and they have done so for the last 20 years. Some of these people have been on to me. They are Irish citizens who have been in the armies of the UK , New Zealand, or Australia, for example. Is there any lateral transfer programme to go back in the opposite direction? I raise this matter in order to hear the Tánaiste's thoughts on it. If we are happy to allow our troops to go to Australia and New Zealand and work in their military for a few years, perhaps we should be happy to have them back as well. It is just something to explore.

Reference was also made to regenerating the RDF, which is absolutely vital. I always say that there is an "s" is Defence Forces because the RDF represents that "s". It is so important from a recruitment point of view and from a human capital perspective. One of the issues around why we have so few people in the RDF was the complete collapse of the footprint. The reopening of the Cavan barracks has been raised a few times by Deputy Brendan Smith. It is a perfectly good barracks. The Defence Forces has been contracting for the last 20 years and it would be a serious lift to morale if we actually started to reopen some of the facilities, in the context of recruitment and retention.

On the EU security and defence policy, I recognise there are diverging views in the Parliament over it. I benefited a lot from PESCO. I see there is a funding allocation for it. It gets a bit of bad press. Ireland is also in the Erasmus programme ,but that does not mean we have an integrated education system. Ireland is involved in Europol as well but it does not mean we have a federal police force. Ireland is in the cross border directive too with healthcare but it does not mean we have an integrated health service, but maybe we would be better off if we did. PESCO is the same. Just because we have this arrangement where people can train properly it does not mean we have an integrated military, and there is no fear of it either. Nobody is in favour of that. I welcome that funding allocation.

I will finish with a few questions. There are two old CASA CN-235s sitting in a hangar in Shannon. They were replaced with new aircraft some years back. Do we have a plan for them?

I will come back on that.

On the houses in the Curragh, about this time last year the Tánaiste made a very uplifting commitment before the Dáil when he said that what we have we hold. Where are we with the 62 vacant houses in the Curragh Camp? My understanding is there are three tranches. One tranche could pretty much be reoccupied. Another tranche needs a lot of work, and another tranche needs a whole lot of work. If there was an update on that it would be very much appreciated.

Two new Naval Service vessels were purchased from New Zealand. Do we have a planned date for when we can put them to sea?

On a positive note, I am hearing from some public representatives around Dún Laoghaire that there is talk of establishing a forward operating base for the Naval Service there. Is there any update on that? It would be very positive for recruitment and retention and in operational terms if we were very close to the main population of the country. This goes back to what I said about Cavan and the O'Neill Barracks. If we are starting to open new facilities for the Defence Forces then people can see we are investing, and that is good to know.

On the Deputy's general comments, I appreciate the positive observations on patrol duty allowance. The starting pay, particularly for those who have less than three years of service, is quite a dramatic uplift, as the Deputy describes it. The C-295 will be coming on target to be delivered to us in 2025. The ongoing issue would be recruitment and retention.

On the retirement front, we have had a Cabinet sub-committee meeting on this issue around all the services. The Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, Deputy Donohoe, will be making new proposals to Cabinet shortly on the retirement age issue. I will also change the starting age significantly upwards. I agree 100% with the Deputy on that. The world has changed dramatically as regards fitness and lifespan. People have the capacity to join later in life. People aged 50 are doing Ironman and all sorts of challenges. The idea of age being a discriminator is no longer applicable. There are 40-year-olds who are fitter than 20-year-olds. Deputy Stanton is very clear about that.

I will look at the lateral transfer programme. I am sure there are no objections to people transferring, but I will see whether there is an active policy to encourage people to join our forces. I will discuss that with the military leadership.

Deputy Brendan Smith has been in touch regarding Cavan Barracks. We will look at that issue but the building could have been out of use for quite some time now and there would be significant capital costs. It would have to fit into the reorganisation and structural reform of the Defence Forces, which is under way.

I welcome the Deputy's comments on European security defence policy and PESCO. Some of the observations and commentary on PESCO have been ridiculous. The level of participation by the country is low or has been low historically. We are observers on quite a lot of missions but, up to recently, were participants in just a few. I am saying to our people that we should participate much more and be very much a part of it because we learn from such projects, particularly in the areas of maritime security, cybersecurity and other areas. It also helps interoperability with other European militaries with which we might be serving on UN peacekeeping missions. The Deputy's point to the effect that we are involved in a range of European Union programmes, which involve sharing of knowledge, participation in education programmes and so on, is very well made. The same should apply in security and defence policy. We have had an extraordinary atmosphere or environment in Ireland whereby any talk of these things is taboo or not encouraged. People are stigmatised very quickly if they mention any of these things. We need to change that approach.

The two CASA CN-235s will be disposed of. They are surplus to requirements. Independent experts have been retained to value the aircraft to inform the disposal process. That will come to me when all options have been bottomed out.

The inshore patrol vessels are undergoing a programme of work at the naval base. They are expected to become operational in 2024 with crew familiarisation and training. We have to do the naming and commissioning ceremonies. The Deputy was correct in saying that a forward base in Dún Laoghaire or elsewhere in Dublin is being seriously considered. We need a Dublin presence, certainly in a naval situation. Some 1.5 million people are living in Dublin. We need to be able to open up access for people to join the navy. To have young people see it in operation in their locality matters. One of the downsides of barracks closing is the loss of military tradition in recruitment. I am very conscious of that.

Marine advisers were appointed following a public tender competition for a multi-role vessel, MRV. Work is now under way that will lead to a public tender competition to cover the supply of the MRV in due course; the Deputy did not raise that matter but I let him know about it for completeness. That will be subject to availability of funding within the defence capital. Prior to procurement, I will assess where we are as regards naval strength as this purchase will be a significant investment commitment when we eventually get there. We are, however, progressing the procurement.

My impassioned plea regarding the houses in the Curragh turned out to be an expensive plea but progress is under way. I have directed that we just go and get the job done. It will be costly to restore those houses, some of which are listed, but it is the right thing to do.

That will be greatly appreciated by the community in the Curragh as well as all the troops.

I have asked the Chief of Staff to progress and get on with it.

It will also be something that is very visible. When people see investment going in anywhere-----

I was taken on a tour of those houses to see my-----

And you survived.

-----handiwork and to translate the Dáil announcement. Genuinely, some of these buildings are in quite considerable disrepair while some are not. There will be a phased refurbishment of them. We should just go ahead and do it, which we are. I have given a direction for that to be done.

Approximately 77 vacant residential-type properties are under the remit of the Department. To be fair, the Department is now doing a load of new blocks, and it does residential accommodation all the time. The development of the joint induction training centre in Gormanston Camp, where all three services will come together to train, is well under way. It is an investment of €23 million. The upgrade and refurbishment of various buildings at McKee Barracks will cost €18 million. There will be an upgrade of accommodation at the naval base. I do not know whether the Deputy saw that when the committee was there. It is probably worth-----

It was in progress when we were there.

It is probably worth a return visit. It will cost €17 million when all of it is completed. The development of gymnasium works, which we think is very important, at Finner Camp, Casement Aerodrome, Haulbowline naval base and Renmore Barracks will cost €16.4 million. The development of the Casement military medical facility will cost €15.4 million to cover relocation from St. Bricin's Hospital. The new CIS Corps workshop will cost €10.7 million. The upgrade of the former University Students Accommodation Complement, USAC, block in Galway will cost €10 million. There will be an upgrade of accommodation at Collins Barracks to include a new accommodation block and refurbishment of block 1 which will cost €9.6 million. The development of a new Army Ranger Wing headquarters building will cost €7.8 million. An upgrade to Aiken Barracks dining hall will cost €7.2 million. An upgrade of the Defence Forces Training Centre, DFTC, garaging facilities will cost €2.5 million. An upgrade to hangars at Casement Aerodrome will cost €1.4 million. That is a list of the projects that are currently under way. It is an unprecedented capital investment in infrastructure, including barracks at Haulbowline and Baldonnel. We are driving ahead with that programme.

I have covered nearly everything the Deputy asked.

I have three small matters left. The Tánaiste asked for my views on psychometric testing. I am in favour of it for pilots, air traffic controllers or specialists, but I am not in favour of it for general induction at all. It could be brought in because 20,000 people might be applying for 100 jobs, as a blunt instrument and objective way of whittling the numbers down because everybody cannot be interviewed. However, that situation no longer arises. I am in favour of it for pilots, air traffic controllers and bomb disposal specialists, but not for general operatives. It is a superfluous thing that is slowing down the induction process. I did not do such a test. Did Deputy Stanton?

No, but I worked in administering those tests. They have a role, not as a gateway perhaps, but to direct people into specific areas after they have attested, and to discover certain skills and abilities they might have. I agree with Deputy Crowe that they currently seem to be a barrier for many people. Even when they look at the test online, they give up and do not even try. I challenged the Tánaiste to try the test to see how he gets on.

It would not be my forte at all. I have a distinctive approach to all these things. Can you imagine psychometric testing for entry to Dáil Éireann? Where would you begin?

The other option is you could do the test-----

I am not an expert on it. I value both Deputies' opinions. They have given a very useful insight.

The test could be used and taken into consideration at interview as part of a holistic approach, rather than a pass-fail, which is kind of ridiculous.

It could also be off-putting to someone. The problem with it originally in respect of the navy was that it was more or less the first thing people got online. They had to do the test first before they went any further. I want to draw people in. Let us bring people in. As the Chief of Staff said, let us try to make people match fit as opposed to-----

The Tánaiste mentioned the pay issue for people with more than three years' service. The advice I will give is there should be long service increments, LSIs-----

I did not quite say that. I know the Deputy was heading there anyway.

Exactly. Specialised instructors allowance-----

Did the Deputy say long service increments?

Yes. There should also be specialised instructors allowance and tech pay. For instance, many of our aircraft technicians can get multiples of what they are on in Baldonnel with Ryanair or Aer Lingus.

I have a last open-ended question about the geopolitical situation in the world. The Tánaiste is getting better briefings than anybody in the room. At present, Ireland is dealing with the second- and third-order effects of these conflicts. We have two major conflicts that could merge over time. How does he see the risk to the country at the moment? Should we be increasing our defence expenditure to mitigate against that risk?

The geopolitical risk will predominantly affect us economically, and it potentially affects European security in the context of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I am delighted with the news today that €50 billion has been greenlit by Europe, which is very important and sends a very strong signal to Russia that Europe is in it for the long haul. What is happening in the United States is very important. If the US flank was to become weaker in the context of European security and the guarantee that is essentially there for that security, that would be a vulnerability for Europe as a whole, including Ireland.

With regard to the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, any disruption to trade affects livelihoods. While the furthest behind will suffer first in Africa and the Middle East, economies generally will suffer. We suffered from an inflationary cycle post Covid and from the war in Ukraine with regard to energy. Prices will go up again if people have to take a longer route around.

Security is not just military security; it is also economic and trade security. We have a strong and modern industrial base here. I worry about the potential of the situation in the Middle East to escalate, particularly if there is an attack on Lebanon. Iran is in the midst of all of this but that fact is rarely discussed in the Dáil, in particular its role in respect of Hamas, Hezbollah and proxies in Syria and Iraq. There is potential for a much wider conflict, which everybody is trying to avoid, but we can see what happens when events happen in that people get led into attacks which have consequences.

On the situation in Europe, because we are so geographically far from the theatre of battle, it means that sometimes we do not appreciate the real, existential nature of that war for people living in the Baltics and Poland, who deeply feel their countries would be extremely vulnerable if Russia achieves victory in Ukraine. When I spoke to them two weeks ago, some other EU foreign ministers made me aware that their people are now expressing this in the streets and are very worried about it. The Germans had that too, by the way, and then the Ukrainians repulsed the Russians and drove them back to the Donetsk region. However, for Germans, for the first time in the modern era, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has raised insecurities and vulnerabilities. Hence, the big change and the €100 billion investment in military capability because they are now suddenly feeling very vulnerable too. The transatlantic alliance is key to European security. That is my take on it. The economic side will be our first casualty.

I agree. While the Russian army might be a couple of thousand miles away, the Russian navy can be just 12 nautical miles off our coasts, as well as its air force.

My concern is that we have already had a hit on the health service and while I am not saying that was a state acting, it was certainly a criminal group within Russia, the Conti group. Cybersecurity is an immediate threat. The volume of cybersecurity attacks went through the roof after the invasion of Ukraine. Those attacks were predominantly in Ukraine and other parts of Europe but the volumes went up significantly.

Thank you. Unless Deputy Carthy wishes to come back in, I am conscious of the time and that the officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs are about to come in. There is something of an overlap anyway in terms of topics. On behalf of the select committee, I express my thanks to the Tánaiste and his officials for being with us and for dealing with the questions, queries and submissions on behalf of members in the manner that they did.

Barr
Roinn