Gerard Craughwell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their attendance. The world changed in February 2022 and it would be fair to say that if we were looking at the Commission on the Defence Forces report again, we would probably be looking at level of ambition three, rather than level of ambition two. It strikes me that it is an awful long time to 2028 to build the budget up to €1.5 billion and we should probably be looking at a budget of somewhere around €3 billion with properly resourced Air Corps and Naval Service.

As my colleague Deputy Berry said, we cannot see what is up there and we do not have a clue what is down there. I do not know where we are going with that.

I had not intended to bring up the psychometric testing element until Deputy Stanton brought it up. There is a move away from psychometric testing to skills-based testing, which is far more appropriate for a defence force. I invite the witnesses to have a look at the psychometric testing to see how out of touch it is.

I want to talk briefly about pay. In this country, the system has been to have national pay agreements and one size fits all. I would ask you, Chair, if you would agree that one size does not fit all, particularly when it comes to people who are available to the State 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I am not so sure that it is a great idea trying to apply the same standards that would be applied to a clerical officer, for example, to a recruit in the Defence Forces.

The issue of mandatory retirement at 50 is also causing serious problems. I have a few things to throw at the witnesses in this area. We are also talking about situations where we need to bring back specific skills to the Defence Forces, like artificers or marine engineers, for example. None of them want to go back when they retire, although there is a need for them, because they are hit with pension abatement. This was brought in for the super well-paid, high-level civil servants. Abating former private soldiers or NCOs is a bit of killer and a complete disincentive for those who could still serve the State in a civilian capacity.

Regarding the commission, it considered an urgent requirement to put in place a codified, top-down, capability development planning process. Is there now a process in place? I understand that only one civil servant has been in place in the new capability development branch and not a single military officer has been posted there yet. Is that true? If it is, when is it expected that the capability development planning office will be fully staffed?

Going back to the Reserve Defence Force, RDF, we had representatives from the Civil Defence in before the committee some time ago. They have absolutely no problem recruiting people. The requirement to become a member is simply a question of turning up. That is the way it used to be with the RDF. A person simply turned up and went through a training process and became an RDF member. I cannot understand why things have changed. Is there a commitment from Government to allocate funding to support the regeneration of the Reserve Defence Force, which to all intents and purposes is almost at a point where it does not exist? Have the measures been put in place for this plan? The commission recommended that an immediate focus be given to the standing down of a number of current Defence Forces aid to the civil power taskings which no longer seem justified in the current security situation. Does the Chair realise that not a single aid to the civil power tasking has ceased in the 16 months since the report was published? If any have, I am not aware of them.

The next thing that is of concern to me, and I hope I am not going too fast for the witnesses. I am always being accused of speaking too fast.