Dr. Kenneth McDonagh:

I thank the Senator for those questions. I am glad that Professor Cottey dealt with the issue of the UK veto on Irish deployments because with his accent, he can get away with it. To pick up on his point on the arrangement or non-arrangement with our neighbours in terms of air defence, these are the choices we need to make. We do not have this capability ourselves. As Professor Cottey highlighted, it would be very expensive to develop our air capability and what we could afford would be relatively limited at that. The per-hour cost of these things is really mind-boggling and means we have to make choices about how we will provide for our security in that space, in the absence of an indigenous capability. Is it about a formal contract with another country or a mini-lateral arrangement with like-minded countries within Europe? There are options we can explore that do not necessarily lead to membership of a military alliance but suggest that in specific areas, we can take advantage of co-operation.

That leads me to the question of the budget. The short answer, again echoing what Professor Cottey has said, is that it would not be enough to bring us towards level 3 of ambition, for example. It may not be quite enough even to achieve the target of increasing the established strength of the Defence Forces because if we cannot create the kind of environment where professionals want to stay and work, that is going to be a challenge as well. The benchmark that NATO uses, just as an example, is 2% of GDP as an appropriate spending level for defence, which is somewhat arbitrary. If one thinks of where Irish defence spending is, which is down between 0.3% and 0.4%, there is a long way to go before we get there. Even with the increase in defence spending we have seen, we will struggle to get to 1% by 2028. A lot more investment is needed. That might bring us to look at this through two different timelines. In the short term, we might be looking at more co-operation with partners to cover gaps in our defence, whether that is in undersea cables or in the airspace security that we require, and we might also consider a longer term spending plan for how we start to develop some of those capabilities ourselves. That is something that should be the subject of public debate, scrutiny and oversight. That is key, particularly for any arrangements we might have with other states.

In terms of PESCO projects, as Professor Cottey said, there is the capacity for us to develop our own. There are areas where we have real expertise, like in improvised explosive devices. We could be a credible leader in that space. It would provide a useful way to demonstrate our niche capabilities when it comes to security and defence. I do not want any of my comments today to be seen as being down on the Irish Defence Forces. I have had the pleasure of meeting people internationally who have worked with our soldiers abroad and who speak only in the highest terms of the professionalism and commitment they demonstrate. It is on the rest of us to provide them with the tools they need to accomplish those missions. Currently within the 60 projects, I have already mentioned the European Patrol Corvette, which would largely map on to the kinds of capabilities we are trying to acquire through the new multi-role vehicle, our vessel for the navy. There is also a project on armoured personnel carriers and the existing Mowag capability that we have is due for renewal. There is a mid-range cargo aircraft which is relevant in terms of where we are putting our soldiers deployed abroad, whether that is in Lebanon, the western Balkans or in Africa. There are key things that we could do with improving. This might be an appropriate way to get involved, if not as full participants then at least at observer level, so that we know what capabilities are coming online within the European defence industrial sphere.