Mr. Se?n Clancy:

I thank the Chairman. I plan to speak for approximately 20 minutes, if that is acceptable to the Chair. I am conscious I did not provide a brief prior to my attendance here today and I therefore think it is important I set the complete context, insofar as is practical, for the conversation we will have afterwards. If it is acceptable to the Chairman, this will take about 20 minutes.

Ar an gcéad dul síos, mar Cheann Foirne Óglaigh na hÉireann, gabhaim buíochas le baill an choiste as ucht an cuireadh chun labhairt leo ar chúrsaí a bhaineann le hÓglaigh na hÉireann agus ar a dtosaíochtaí. Táim ag tnúth go mór le caidreamh dearfach leis na baill agus le hiad a chur ar an eolas faoi na hábhair atá faoi mo chúram.

As Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces, I thank the committee for the invitation for me to attend here today and for the opportunity to address members on matters and priorities relevant to the Defence Forces at this time. I intend to brief the committee on current and future-focused developments concerning the Defence Forces, including the security environment, my organisational priorities, cultural change, the Commission on the Defence Forces, and retention and recruitment matters. In that context, I look forward to a positive engagement and hope to inform members on any issues they may raise that are within my remit and responsibility.

As already outlined by the Chairman, I am accompanied this afternoon by Brigadier General Rossa Mulcahy, my assistant chief of staff, Colonel Rory Sheerin, who is the Defence Forces director of human resources, Colonel Caimin Keogh, director of the strategic planning branch, and Commandant Gemma Fagan, a member of my Chief of Staff’s division.

The members of this committee will be very well aware we are facing a number of unique and unprecedented opportunities and challenges. I am personally invested in leading the Defence Forces to address the key issues we face as an organisation in collaboration with our departmental colleagues. Since taking up my role as Chief of Staff in September 2021, I have reflected on how Óglaigh na hÉireann can improve and develop, thereby ensuring we are operationally ready for deployment at home and overseas and ever ready to carry out the roles and tasks assigned by Government.

Despite our very real challenges, some of which I will address in some detail, it is important to appreciate that this is also a period of great opportunity for the Defence Forces. The report submitted to Government by the Commission on the Defence Forces provides a generational opportunity for Ireland and for Óglaigh na hÉireann. Most importantly, the Government-approved recommendations provide a roadmap to design and develop the future force out to 2028. The future structures and capabilities of the Defence Forces will be redesigned to respond to developments in both the national and international security environments. The threat and risk environment looking out to 2030 and beyond remains complex and unpredictable.

Our overseas deployments remain a priority and are a visible demonstration of Ireland’s commitment to international security and multilateralism. The mandated missions or operations where our members deploy are often challenging and, in some cases, in hostile environments where some of our personnel, tragically, have made the ultimate sacrifice, as evidenced by the loss of 89 personnel throughout our 65 years of unbroken service with the United Nations. Like the Chairman, I too take this opportunity today to remember Private Seán Rooney, a soldier, a peacekeeper and colleague who was killed on active service in Lebanon on 14 December 2022 and who remains, to this day and always, in our prayers and in our thoughts, as do his family and friends. A dheis Dé go raibh a anam dílis.

Security environment assessments inform how we train and prepare our forces so that we can secure our national sovereignty and defend and protect the citizens of Ireland. Reflecting on the number of global challenges that have emerged over recent years, it can be seen how those developments have informed the current employment of our forces. I am immensely proud of the key role we have played in support of the Health Service Executive and other Departments and agencies during the Covid-19 pandemic. We demonstrated, in a very real and tangible way, the value and benefit the Defence Forces bring when called upon in times of national crisis in terms of our planning competence, our logistical and operational expertise, our dual-use capabilities and, most importantly, our personnel.

That experience has also informed the Defence Forces’ response to other recent Government taskings and requests for assistance to support, for example, beneficiaries of temporary protection and those seeking permanent international protection. We have enabled the provision of emergency accommodation in a number of military installations and we continue to deliver those supports to the lead agencies within our means and capabilities. The Defence Forces’ planning and cyber defence capabilities were also deployed in support of the HSE when it was subjected to a serious cybercrime incident in 2021, and we continue to support the National Cyber Security Centre with the secondment of personnel and expertise when required. In 2021, the Defence Forces Army Ranger Wing, our special forces, was tasked to support, secure and assist a Department of Foreign Affairs-led emergency consular assistance team operation in Kabul, Afghanistan. That mission facilitated the evacuation of 26 Irish citizens and dependants during that challenging period. All of these examples serve to heighten the public’s awareness of the value that competent and capable Defence Forces deliver in terms of national resilience for our people and this State.

Of course, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which occurred after the publication of the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces, has worryingly signalled the return of high-intensity conventional and hybrid conflict to the European Continent. As the Government has reiterated, Russia’s war is an assault not just on Ukraine but also on the international rules-based order. This new security paradigm emphasises the need for robust planning and preparation of contingent capabilities to meet current and future assigned tasks. This must be achieved while also continuing to contribute to international peace support operations and humanitarian missions.

The Government’s decision to participate in the EU military assistance mission, in support of Ukraine, will enable the Defence Forces to consider the deployment of up to 30 personnel to provide specialised training supports. The planning consideration is ongoing. These types of threats and emerging tasks underline the utility of and a requirement for a defence force that is flexible, adaptable, capable and inter-operable, as part of a whole-of-government approach to security and defence.

Following my appointment as Chief of Staff, I identified three key priority areas to guide staffing efforts and desired outputs. These priority areas are development and well-being; internal communications and Commission on the Defence Forces implementation. They focus on identifying and delivering projects and work strands that can be progressed by the Defence Forces and our policies and procedures. My overall intent is to empower leaders, at all levels, to improve retention conditions, implement and progress positive means of internal communication and support and enable the modernisation and development of the force. It is my intent to drive positive change from within, in order to realise the total package of benefits associated with being a member of Óglaigh na hÉireann. Balancing our required operational outputs in tandem with developing our future force design, structures and staffing, in line with the Commission on the Defence Forces level of ambition, is an ambitious, but appropriate, objective.

Closely linked and central to the realisation of my overall intent, is my determination and resolve to tackle any form of inappropriate behaviour such as bullying, misogyny or sexual harassment. Let me assure the committee that any form of unacceptable behaviour is completely contrary to our values and ethos and I am determined to tackle this problem, in order to ensure the safety and well-being of all our personnel. Any incident of inappropriate behaviour is one incident too many and it will not be tolerated. I am on record as stating that the vast majority of those who serve in Óglaigh na hÉireann are appalled by the lived experiences and accounts shared by our colleagues, both serving and retired, especially those that came to light following the Women of Honour documentary. I am grateful for the opportunity to reaffirm that position here today and to state it before this committee.

I await the publication of the independent review group’s report and I have assured An Tánaiste, the Minister for Defence, of my intent to work with all stakeholders in order to fully implement the recommendations as approved by his office. I am confident that the independent review group's recommendations, in addition to Defence Forces work streams already commenced in this area, will further enable our organisation to be grounded on best culture, ethos and values, which is no more than our members should expect and deserve.

In addition, as committee members may be aware, one of the five strategic objectives central to the implementation of the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces is concerned exclusively with addressing workplace culture, HR practices and policies for our members. These progressive initiatives, combined with the independent review group's recommendations and the internal steps taken to date, will provide those who serve with a workplace that is fully aligned with the principles of dignity, equality and mutual respect.

With that, I will turn my remarks to the Commission on the Defence Forces report. As committee members are no doubt aware, the commission reported in February 2022 and in July of last year, the Government approved a high-level action plan. The ambition is to advance, over a six-year period, to a level of Defence Forces capability equivalent to that required to enable level-of-ambition 2, as defined in that report. This will entail multiannual funding increases, which have commenced in 2023, to reach a defence budget of €1.5 billion, in 2022 prices, by 2028 and involves increases in personnel numbers of 2,000, creating a new Defence Forces establishment of 11,500.

The commission identified the critical importance of the unbreakable link that must be established between Government decisions on defence policy, level of ambition, capability and approved budget lines. In that vein, the commission concluded that our current capability ambitions were inconsistent with the more ambitious statements outlined in defence policy and that a continuation of the model would leave the defence instrument without a credible military capability to protect Ireland, its people and its resources for any sustained period. The commission's recommendation to move to an enhanced level-of-ambition 2 by 2028 has been approved by Government and is now a significant catalyst for change for the Defence Forces.

It should be noted that all 130 of the commission’s recommendations have been categorised under five strategic objectives. These core areas concern transformational change to modernise organisational culture and HR strategies and practices; the reform of high-level command and control and the creation of new joint-services strategic and operational headquarters, supported by three service chiefs; revitalisation of the Reserve Defence Force; reform and restructuring of the three services; and joint capability development. A joint civil-military implementation management office is currently engaged with external consultants to develop a detailed implementation plan to be approved by Government. That plan will timeline and chart how and when projects will be progressed to achieve its objectives.

During this time, the Defence Forces and the Department of Defence have not stood still. I have progressed a number of initiatives, in collaboration with the Secretary General and her staff, in line with the high-level action plan recommendations. Since the beginning of the year, I have designated an office of reserve affairs, led by a colonel rank. The office will be tasked with designing a new plan to regenerate our Reserve Defence Force, for the approval of An Tánaiste, the Minister for Defence. The Reserve Defence Force is an integral and valued capability under our single force concept and we welcomed the Defence (Amendment) Act 2021, which provides for Reserve Defence Force supplemental military service in support of the Permanent Defence Forces, and the Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020. The Acts and amendment enabled the reserve to contribute significantly to the wider Defence Forces effort during the Covid pandemic, while also having the effect of removing the absolute prohibitions within the defence Acts on members of the reserve serving overseas.

I am also progressing the designation of a gender adviser to my office and, pending that appointment, I have institutionalised the attendance of a senior female officer to provide a broader perspective at weekly and monthly general staff meetings and to advise the general staff on gender-specific issues. Women comprise just over 7% of our workforce, which is a capability gap. That number needs to grow and we are working on this as part of our recently launched BE MORE recruitment campaign, as well as other initiatives. Work is also well-advanced on the high-level action plan. This plan identified a total of 38 key early actions, to progress a number of key recommendations arising from the commission's report. These early actions will also act as the necessary building blocks to support the full detailed implementation plan. An update report is due to be published by An Tánaiste, the Minister for Defence, in the near future, prior to delivery of the detailed implementation plan.

I am happy to report that significant progress has been achieved in many areas, including pay and allowances; the development of a new vision statement for the Defence Forces; ways to expand our recruitment and induction capacity, to include the development of new joint recruitment and induction training centre at Gormanston Camp and the creation of a civil-military capability development branch to deliver new infrastructure, equipment and facilities needed to accommodate, train and operate our forces on land, air and sea. Competitions for the appointment of new heads of strategic transformation and strategic HR, who will report directly to me, are actively under way.

The progress to date has been briefed to the high-level steering board, which has been established to oversee implementation and is chaired by the Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach. In addition, the implementation oversight group led by the independent chair, Ms Julie Sinnamon, has been established to oversee and drive progress on the implementation of the recommendations of the commission. This journey of modernisation and force transformation will inevitably involve a level of disruption and will require significant organisational and cultural change. Ultimately, upon implementation, the ambition is to deliver a regenerated and fit-for-purpose force with an ambitious vision, a larger and more capable workforce and a greatly enhanced, multiannual budget-and-resource envelope.

One of my priority considerations in the past number of years concerns the recruitment and retention of personnel, who are our most valued resource. Our capability to deliver the required military outputs in a dynamic threat environment and in times of crisis, rests on the sustained availability of sufficient personnel who are prepared physically, intellectually and psychologically. The members of this committee will be cognisant of the human resource difficulties the Defence Forces have experienced in recent times. The full-employment market conditions currently enjoyed by Ireland is the contested space that all employers must overcome, when attracting recruits and retaining personnel in service. We are constructively engaged with our departmental colleagues in this space, in order to ensure that we have a competitive edge. I am convinced that the future force, in its structures and staffing, will have to be agile and adaptable in order to address the security challenges of the future.

Recruitment into the Defence Forces occurs across a number of streams for enlisted and commissioned ranks. Though levels of induction have been generally robust, it has been challenging over the past number of years to grow sufficient numbers to keep pace with higher levels of exits. Defence Forces recruitment systems are regularly reviewed and updated. The implementation of relevant recommendations arising from the consultant-led review on recruitment continues. In addition, and in line with recommendations by the Commission on the Defence Forces, a new recruitment strategy has been developed with a focus on four principal themes, which are expanding induction pools; enhancing marketing effectiveness; optimising selection and induction methodologies; and maximising retention in training.

We have long understood that our turnover rate, recorded at 10.72% in 2022, cannot be addressed by recruitment strategies alone. I fully appreciate that a healthy balance between retention and exit numbers must be maintained if the Defence Forces is to remain fit for purpose. We have witnessed heightened levels of exits since circa 2016. While that dynamic has softened during the pandemic years, 2022 figures confirm the resumption of an upward trend in voluntary exists. It remains to be seen if this is an after-effect of career decision-making delayed during the pandemic or whether it points to a more permanent acceleration.

Many aspects of military service have the potential to influence retention rates, including career opportunities, remuneration, intensity of training and operational missions, work-life balance considerations, infrastructure and equipment developments. The appropriate implementation of the working time directive can play a key role in this and is positively welcomed by the general staff. A ruling by the European Court of Justice in 2021, known as the Slovenian case, has been very significant to our understanding of this subject, and engagements are ongoing to arrive at a draft heads of a Bill for the appropriate amendment to the Organisation of Working Time Act.

In addition, work on a Defence Forces cross-functional retention strategy is under development and is relatively mature. The draft strategy focuses on a number of key retention themes, which include: culture; opportunities; supports; work-life balance, including the working time directive; conditions of service; and rewards and recognition.

I am cognisant of the double jeopardy that a reducing workforce entails, namely, asking personnel to execute the duties and responsibilities expected of a fully established organisation. I acknowledge that it will take time for the Defence Forces to rebuild our strength levels. In the interim, we continue to review the scope of our domestic framework operations and our overseas commitments. Our intent is to reduce the totality of our current commitments in the short term in order to enable, and progress, the regeneration of our force and the associated capability developments. Following the provision of military advice, the Government has signalled the intent to withdraw from the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, UNDOF, mission on the Golan Heights and this will facilitate other planned commitments. As a package, all of these initiatives should have a positive effect. When considered, in addition to the ambition and realisation of the implementation plan by the Commission on the Defence Forces, this will provide assurance to our personnel concerning their career opportunities, work-life balance, continued professional and personal development pathways, and the future direction of their respective services.

Before I conclude it is important for me to state and acknowledge the extremely positive and collaborative relationship that I enjoy with the Secretary General of the Department of Defence, her staff, and the full and unrelenting support and leadership of An Tánaiste and Minister for Defence. I can report that we are collectively on the same page, and positioned to grasp this once-in-a- lifetime opportunity to implement the changes that are necessary to build a regenerated and modernised Defence Forces.

I would like to make mention of the role played by the Defence Forces in support of the decade of centenaries programme since 2012. I am extremely proud of our contribution in this area, which also offered us an opportunity to increase the public’s awareness and understanding of our role in the defence and security of the State while also reinforcing our identity and heritage. Our personnel have carried out many State ceremonial activities, most notably the 2016 Easter parade, and more recently when making the centenary handover of Dublin Castle, adding a sense of pride, solemnity and dignity to these great moments of State. Our contribution to the decade has also reached into the cultural and societal spaces by the contribution, co-ordination and execution of the flags for schools programme in 2016, and in various other collaborations and exhibitions with academic partners and our national cultural institutions. Such efforts, including our recent commemoration of the handover of the barracks through the contested Civil War commemorations, have demonstrated that Óglaigh na hÉireann is a mature, reflective organisation, capable of respecting in an inclusive manner the totality of our shared history. I am immensely proud of our organisation and the people who serve in it both past and present, and I am confident that we will stand firm for 100 years more. Finally, I thank the Chairman for giving me the opportunity to address the committee, and I am happy to answer any questions that are within my scope and area of responsibility. Go raibh míle maith agaibh.

Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank our guests for taking the time to come here. I wish to place on the record our thanks, as a committee, to the staff of the Defence Forces who have been so great at hosting us on our excursions over the last number of years. They have been incredibly informative and educational for us as a committee. I am sure that a huge amount of preparation goes into each visit by a committee. I am also quite sure that at times it would have been best if we did not visit because we can be a little bit awkward as quite a few of us like to go on these excursions.

I will start by asking some general questions on the commission on the future of the Defence Forces. The Chief of Staff has mentioned a new establishment figure of 11,500. Does he think that figure is sufficient?

Would the Chairman prefer if I just asked a few questions or that a few members make their contributions and the Chief of Staff could answer everything together?

Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Chief of Staff will not find any disagreement with the future potential of the Reserve Defence Force. On the targets in terms of their geographical spread and their numbers, what in the mind of the Chief of Staff would be sufficient to meet the needs of Reserves?

The previous Chief of Staff highlighted climate change as an area of real concern and future work for the Defence Forces. Does the Chief of Staff agree with his predecessor or see another avenue that exists?

Lastly, the Chief of Staff mentioned the Covid-19 pandemic and the HSE, and the role that the Defence Forces played in that. The Defence Forces played a very important and tangible role which was very much respected and appreciated. I understand that the Reserve members of the Defence Forces have received medals for their participation in Operation Fortitude. Does the Chief of Staff envisage a medal being presented to the members of the Permanent Defence Forces? Would he support such a move?

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Chief of Staff and his colleagues. It is a great privilege to have them all with us today. As my colleague, Deputy Clarke, has said, I thank the Chief of Staff on my own behalf and that of colleagues for hosting our visits to the Curragh, Haulbowline and a number of other sites over the past couple of years. As a Kildare representative, I am particularly pleased with the operation that the Chief of Staff continues to run at the Curragh in County Kildare, elsewhere and in Baldonnel. Long may that continue.

I have some questions for the Chief of Staff. He mentioned in his opening statement the commission on the future of the Defence Forces and how this is an exciting time. I entirely agree with him that this is an exciting time. It is also a great opportunity for the Defence Forces to ramp up and avail of the support that has been offered by the Government to regenerate and create modern Defence Forces. I have a particular interest in more modern forms of warfare or more modern forms of attack or defence. I am talking about a hybrid. We know about conventional warfare but we, as a committee, have heard evidence about subsea cables and interception or certainly observance of those surveillance techniques off the Atlantic coast.

Drone warfare is in the news at the moment. Whether used by hobbyists or hostile nations or entities, drones are an issue. On telecommunications in general, outside the subsea cables, data centres, data farms, our connectivity is at the heart of our sovereignty in terms of how we manage and resource ourselves as a State. There is an economic imperative that we maintain our connectivity to the wider world and safeguard the data we manage on behalf of so many others, not least commercially. On cyber defences, I refer to the whole information and disinformation piece. There is quite a bit there, that is just a quick snapshot. On the modernisation of the Defence Forces that the witnesses envisage and on which I share their excitement, what do the new, modern, regenerated Defence Forces look like? I refer particularly to hybrid threats and ramping up to meet those challenges in the future.

We talk about numbers. Some of those numbers can be simplistic in terms of what the headcount should be. Where do the witnesses see the Forces target and what would be the distribution across the different arms of the Defence Forces, land air and sea and also across the new hybrid, cyber type threats I have mentioned? My late grand-uncle served in the Defence Forces in the Congo and elsewhere on some of the early UN missions. There is a great, proud history there of the Defence Forces which is shared by members of my own family. I thank our guests for all they and their colleagues do.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Chief of Staff before the committee this afternoon and his colleagues also. I want to express my condolences to him and all members of the Defence Forces on the death of Seán Rooney. It was a tragic incident. I express our gratitude to him and our condolences to all members of the Defence Forces and to his friends and family.

Before I ask some more general questions, I have a specific one for Lieutenant General Clancy from my engagement with the representative organisations such as PDFORRA and RACO and the Reserve Defence Force Representative Association. Given the fact that we have an ongoing inability to put ships to sea; the ongoing investigation into the sexual abuse allegations; the fact that the Reserve Defence Force is on the brink of collapse, as it has been put to me; and the ongoing recruitment and retention issues in the broader Defence Forces, where does the Chief of Staff see morale within the Defence Forces? Certainly from any engagement I have, morale seems to be at an all-time low.

Central to fixing many of the issues around retention and recruitment, as the Chief of Staff noted in his opening statement, is the working time directive. That would be echoed by the representative bodies as well. In the high-level action plan that was published last year, one of the actions that was deemed to be among the low-hanging fruit was the heads of a Bill for the working time directive, which were supposed to be brought forward within six months. We have now passed that. In his contribution, the Chief of Staff talked about the appropriate implementation of the working time directive. When we ask the Minister, he talks about exemptions as opposed to the full implementation. What does the Chief of Staff see as the appropriate implementation? There is major concern that what is actually going to be delivered on paper will be meaningless because it will be riddled with so many exemptions.

On the Reserve Defence Force, I welcome the office of Reserve affairs. Given the ongoing crisis within the Reserve, I have asked the Minister countless times about immediate actions that need to be taken around recruitment. There seems to be a major crisis there, as has been referenced by the representative body. In the last recruitment round in March last year, 1,000 citizens expressed an interest, 1,000 applications came in online and the online portal had to be shut down because they did not have the resources to manage it. However, out of that only about 90 personnel were eventually recruited into the Reserve.A litany of failures led to that, from medicals to failing to contact people in time. Is there an immediate action that is going to be taken to address that? Clearly there are people who want to be proud members of the Reserve Defence Force. What is an immediate action that the Reserve affairs office is going to take?

What is the Chief of Staff's view on the future of Cathal Brugha Barracks? There is a review and consultants are in the process of being appointed. We know the strategic importance of having an operational military barracks in the capital close to Government Buildings and other critical infrastructure. What is his view on the future of Cathal Brugha Barracks from a defence and military perspective and in terms of the critical importance of having an operational barracks in a city centre location?

On the ongoing crisis in the Naval Service, we have two ships, the LÉ Róisín and the LÉ Niamh, tied up. There is an inability to carry out sea days because of the massive crisis within the Naval Service. We know the strategic importance for security and defence of having ships at sea whether it is for the interception of drugs, acting as a deterrent, policing our fisheries or in respect of the undersea cables. Given the horrific time we are living in, the major threat of hybrid warfare and cyber warfare, and noting the previous military exercise being carried out by the Russians, many would see Ireland now as the Achilles heel in terms of security for Europe and particularly for those critical transatlantic data cables. Would the Chief of Staff see us as an Achilles heel, given that we cannot put ships to sea? What is his view? Many nations are now saying so. I believe it is putting our military neutrality in jeopardy. Other countries are actively talking about coming in, as they have done previously, to police our waters. Does the Chief of Staff see it as an ongoing risk to our militarily neutral status?

On the figure of 11,500 in level-of-ambition 2, what are the views of the Chief of Staff on that? There seems to be a creeping narrative around the civilianisation of our Defence Forces. It is now being suggested that the 11,500 will also include civilian contractors working for the Defence Forces. The Minister has already spoken about outside medics coming in to carry out medical assessments for recruitment as opposed to dealing with the chronic shortage of trained military personnel to carry that out, military doctors and so on. What are the Chief of Staff's views on what I see as a growing civilianisation of military roles that have been carried out proudly over many years? I believe there is a minor role for civilian contractors but given the failure to address the recruitment and retention issue, bringing in civilians is a shortsighted measure.

We are in the midst of a housing crisis right across the State. Many people would be critical of the fact that in the Curragh, for example, there are many houses boarded up that would have been formerly used by members of the Defence Forces. What does the Chief of Staff think should happen to those houses? How should they be utilised?

I wish to make a final point. The decision to withdraw from UNDOF was wrong. What led to that decision being made. It is fairly obvious that the recruitment and retention crisis was the main impetus behind the decision. Why was that decision made by the Tánaiste and the Minister? Was it a direct consequence of signing up for an EU battle group, which will involve a two-year commitment that will tie up a large number of our Defence Forces personnel? The Chief of Staff proudly outlined our ongoing and unbroken record of partaking in peacekeeping missions. We know that this was a political decision. We amass soft power from our involvement in UN peacekeeping missions. Further involvement in EU and other battle groups will jeopardise our military neutrality. Withdrawing from peacekeeping missions in order to sign up to battle groups is the wrong decision. What are the Chief of Staff's views as to why our involvement in the UNDOF mission was ended?

Cathal Berry (Kildare South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are saving the best for last.

Mr. Se?n Clancy:

I thank everyone for their kind remarks. Members are always welcome to visit any installation in the State that belongs the Department of Defence or the Defence Forces. We are more than welcoming. It is important that, as we say, we get ourselves outside the walls. One way of doing that would be by having members of committees such as this come in and engage openly with us. Understanding grows through that engagement, which is important. It is also important, as I said earlier, that the State and its people what the Defence Forces do, how they do it, the shortcomings and challenges they face and the opportunities that exist.

There are a number of overlapping themes, particularly between Deputies Clarke and Brady, that I might try to address together, if that is okay. I will come back to Deputy Lawless’s questions as well as best I can.

I wish comment on the staff complement of 11,500 and civilianisation. This is an important matter The most overriding principle is that the organisation has to have capacity to absorb and capacity to grow. In that context, a complement of 11,500 is correct and sufficient. It is set down very clearly in level of ambition 2, which was set by the Government. In my view, it is the right figure to grow towards. We have a challenge with regard to recruitment and retention. It is an ambitious challenge to get to 11,500, but we are determined to grow towards that. The timeline under level of ambition 2 notwithstanding, level of ambition 3 will see further potential growth of the organisation.

Civilianisation is not a new concept to military forces. Military forces in First World countries in particular would have civilian participation, particularly in specialist, analyst and technical roles. That is accepted. The number of 2,000, as outlined in the Commission on the Defence Forces report, to grow to 11,500, is inclusive of civilian personnel. That is also very clear. Civilianisation is not a new concept for the Defence Forces either. We have many areas in which we have civilians, as the Deputy rightly pointed out, in contractual roles, but we also have them in permanent roles. The fisheries monitoring centre, for instance, has grown over the past 24 months in the context of the changes to European borders. In that regard, we have had a capacity that we needed to increase. We have done that through a combination of civil and military personnel and analysts. We have done it in several other areas of the organisation also. That has been ongoing for many years; it just has not been as overt as it has been through the commission report. I am satisfied that appropriate civilianisation in appropriate roles is a roadmap that we should not be afraid to embrace in order to make the organisation fit for purpose as we go forward. That is the right approach to take. Once we have identified and analysed, that will come as part of our overall restructuring.

As the Deputy may be aware, the Commission on the Defence Forces gave us some handrails, if you like, regarding the distribution of the 2,000. That goes to another part of the Deputy’s question. The commission gave us good broad-brush boundaries, as it understood them, and a recommendation with regard to the three services and how the application of the additionality would come about. That was not restrictive or constrictive; it was a guide. We will use that as part of the redesign and restructuring of the Defence Forces. We will take it into account, although, as I said, I would suggest that we are not constricted by it. I hope that answer is satisfactory.

There were a couple of questions Deputies Clarke and Brady on the Reserve. I am hugely proud of the Reserve Defence Force. It has a major role to play in the future. We operate the Reserve on a single-force basis. There have been challenges around that in terms of regeneration. That is the purpose of the office of reserve affairs. The position of director of the Reserve was taken away in the last re-establishment of the organisation of the Defence Forces in 2012 if I recall correctly. I stand open to correction on that. There was a lack of a focal point for the Reserve thereafter. As a result of the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces, we have a clear means by which we want to expand the Reserve Defence Force and, in turn, expand our capability as a whole. The establishment, as it is laid down at the moment, is getting its 4,069. We have a strength of approximately 1,600 at the moment. That is way below where we want to be.

One of the Deputies identified challenges we have encountered, particularly in the past 24 months. In one sense, Covid did not help us in that space. Our medical capacity was one area where there was a blockage in terms of what was referred to as our recruitment capacity during that period. Notwithstanding that, we had an expediential need to recruit into the Permanent Defence Force at the same time as a result of our high rate of turnover. All of these together did not serve the Reserve. Most importantly, the single clearest focal point we were lacking was in the context of somebody to drive and generate the Reserve itself. I corrected that, as recommended by the Commission on the Defence Forces. The regeneration, as it is laid down in the recommendation in the commission's report, is under way.

There are clear means by which we intend to try to regenerate the Reserve Defence Force. For example, one of the contracts referred to - the civilianisation of a particular area - related to the induction medicals for Reserve personnel and new recruits to the Defence Forces. That contract will enable up to 18,000 recruitment medicals to be done on an annual basis. I am confident that a successful outcome from the tender process, which is under way, it will enable an enhanced recruitment process for our Reserve and Permanent Defence Force equally.

That goes back to the very heart of the single-force concept, which I spoke about earlier, whereby we need our Reserve Defence Force to be at the same level, as far as is practicable, as our Permanent Defence Force. The legislative Acts enabled through this House to which I referred earlier foresee the Reserve Defence Force as participating fully in that regard. It was enabled to do that throughout the Covid pandemic. Of course, we know that overseas deployment has now also been opened up to the Reserve. We have a standard and we expect all those forces with an ambition to go overseas to meet a standard and it would be the same standard. We depend on that unity of effort of the totality of the organisation for our expertise and professionalism, particularly in our overseas deployments.

On the medal for the HSE role for the Reserve-----

Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry I misspoke. I apologise for any confusion.

Mr. Se?n Clancy:

-----the Defence Forces have not issued a medal. We do not intend to issue a medal in this regard to any of our personnel for the part they played.

Deputies Brady and Lawless mentioned the hybrid in both areas. I refer to the Commission on the Defence Forces as a starting point. The Commission on the Defence Forces was very clear on the capability gaps that exist in respect of defence policy outlined in the White Paper of 2015, the commensurate tasks applied and direct tasks that fell out of that, and the capacity of the Defence Forces within the means and capabilities provided by the State. That was very clearly identified by the commission. As a consequence, capability gaps have opened up over time. We are well aware of those and the commission outlined the areas on which we need to concentrate. The prioritisation that came from the commission report also lends itself to that.

Two very clear areas to which the Deputy referred are cyber and hybrid. In both of those areas, we are actively pursuing the commission's recommendations. As he will appreciate, capacity and absorption are key areas we need to be able to achieve and will form part of the development, redesign and restructuring of our forces as we go forward. As he rightly pointed out, areas of critical infrastructure, such as cables and other materials of that nature, are important to the State. However, this State very much takes a whole-of-government approach. For instance, the cables he mentioned fall under the responsibility of the Department of Environment, Climate and Communications. The Defence Forces are part of enabling and supporting the State in the wider whole-of-government approach, and that is the position we take. From a capability point of view, we have the capability development branch which is in development. We have our equipment development plan which will feed into that. That is a five-year plan, now taking into consideration the overall expenditure growth that we expect and the capital and infrastructural development that supports that. It is under an IDP. All of these are published on our websites and, I believe, on the Oireachtas website. They are freely available and are renewed on an annual basis. People can step through those to see where the priorities are and where they are changing over time.

The commission laid out very clearly the priorities for Army, the Air Corps and the Naval Service at this point in time, some of which tie in directly to the cyber and hybrid space. The commission also identified the need for cyber command structures and hybrid command structures. We are very conscious of that in the redesign and restructuring of the organisation. When we speak about fit-for-purpose Defence Forces, these are the areas we need to grow. An agile organisation that is fit for purpose with a proper command-and-control structure will enable the organisation to reshape itself, change itself and reconstitute itself in response to the changing unpredictable dynamic security environment we face.

The Deputy mentioned the representative associations. He had a number of questions on the working time directive. I have already answered in respect of the Reserve, Cathal Brugha Barracks and the Naval Service in particular. I will try to address those now. The personnel and human resources challenges in the Naval Service are well known. They require us to adjust our posture with a certain number of vessels. We have decommissioned three vessels which were old and no longer efficient. Part of the commission's response is to build a new balanced fleet in the Naval Service that will support operations and outputs of the overall Defence Forces. As the Deputy knows, as part of that balanced fleet approach we have acquired two inshore patrol vessels. We will then move on towards the longer term approach to a multi-role vessel. That will bring the Naval Service fleet back up to nine ships.

If we look at the Naval Service in terms of its outputs, it takes two things - if I can be as straightforward as that - namely, platforms and human resources to operate those platforms. While we may have ships tied up and we may have decommissioned ships, this does not prevent us from knowing what the capability requirements are and how to fulfil what is laid down in that regard by the commission, and to have a medium to longer term view on that. That will support the redevelopment, regeneration and building of the Naval Service. I must be optimistic. I am optimistic that we can turn the position with regard to Naval Service human resources around. We are moving in many streams to try to achieve that.

The second part of this relates to the human resources required to man and operate those things. We do not downsize the platforms because that is counterintuitive to trying to grow the human resources to the specific level that is required to fulfil the roles, assigned outputs and capabilities required by Government of us. The commission referred to a nine-ship fleet in order to achieve level of ambition 2. We intend to achieve that and we are on course for a balanced fleet of nine ships in due course by the time we reach 2028 and beyond. Generating the human resources to fulfil that is part of that ambition.

As the Deputy rightly pointed out, up to 2016, the Defence Forces and An Garda Síochána were exempt from the Organisation of Working Time Act. The change of policy at that time required a number of working groups to identify the impact and effect. The majority of routines, operations and daily outputs of the Defence Forces fall within the scope of the working time directive and fall within the working time directive itself at this point. At the moment, we are going through a process of trying to develop heads of Bill to transpose the impact of that into legislation which will come before this House in due course. We are engaged with stakeholders, primarily, as the Deputy mentioned, the representative associations as one part of it.

The European Court of Justice ruling was very instructive in informing what was within scope. It identified several areas that were a national prerogative for countries in terms of their own paradigm, their own security and defence and to define what was within scope. We are involved in an iterative consultative process with the representative associations at the moment. Another meeting will happen later this week. The Tánaiste has been very clear that he wants a determination and completion of this by the end of this year. We are all engaged in that - the civil, military and representative associations and other stakeholders - because it has a wide impact. I am confident that this will be completed by the end of the year.

Of course, a number of areas are impacted. As already stated, the majority of the activities of the Defence Forces fall within the working time directive as it stands. We are now into the consultative process of defining what is and is not within scope as a consequence of the European Court of Justice ruling as well as so the actual directive itself so that we can transpose it accurately. This does not fall within the gift of the Defence Forces; ultimately, it is a policy decision. The Attorney General and others need to be involved in this. It falls to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to transpose it into legislation. I am very confident that this will be done. We need to maintain a balance. Central is the protection of the rights of personnel serving in the Defence Forces. We also need to ensure that we maintain the capacity to deliver the outputs as assigned.

We can do both. I am confident we can get there. It takes, like anything, good negotiations and good proper thought and analysis to do so. I am confident we will get there at the end of the day with it.

Finally, on Cathal Brugha Barracks, the committee will be aware that there is a feasibility study, that is under way right now, that has been set up to establish the feasibility of Cathal Brugha Barracks, in terms of if we were to move it somewhere else. Cathal Brugha Barracks is a live operational barracks. That means that people work there and they live there. To move the barracks means moving where people live also and that is something that can often be lost in translation during these discussions.

The feasibility study, as agreed interdepartmentally to be undertaken, will look at the totality of that. It will look at the totality of the security implications for the city. It will look at the security implications for the Defence Forces and our ability to provide same to the critical infrastructures within the city itself and what are the alternatives for it.

I await the outcome of that with interest. When it comes, of course, I will engage with it and we will see where that brings us at that point in time. I would not like to be pre-emptive or prejudicial to the outcome of that feasibility study at this point in time, if that is okay with the Deputy.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are questions I touched on.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These are questions I had previously asked. I asked a question about morale.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I outlined the nature of the questions on morale, United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, UNDOF, and the boarded-up houses in the Curragh already to get the Chief of Staff's view on them.

Cathal Berry (Kildare South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chathaoirleach. I will ask six brief questions. I am conscious of my colleagues trying to get in. If there is a second round, I would be happy to speak.

I welcome Lieutenant General Clancy and his team. To double on what Deputy Clarke was saying, I thank him for the hospitality that was extended to the committee on our visits to the naval base at Haulbowline, the Defence Forces training centre in the Curragh and Casement Aerodrome in Baldonnel. It is good we are in a position to reciprocate a little hospitality today for a change.

My first question is in relation to capability. Obviously, we are all aware of what is happening in Ukraine. We would hope there would be a peaceful solution tomorrow but we are all realistic. That is unlikely to happen. In fact, the trajectory or trend line we are on is non-reassuring. It is more likely that the conflict will widen and escalate rather than de-escalate. It would be good to get the Chief of Staff's professional assessment of how this country can protect itself in the event of the conflict widening. I guess the specific question is, do we have a national defence plan and is it adequately resourced? That is the first question.

The remaining five have to do with retention, which, I would say, is far more important than recruitment. To double on Deputy Brady's question about the housing situation in the Curragh, but also beyond that from a Defence Forces perspective, there are 77 family homes unoccupied as part of the Department of Defence estate, 62 of which are in the Curragh. I accept they are in various states of disrepair. We very much welcome what the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence stated in the Dáil Chamber a month ago where he changed the policy. The Tánaiste stated that the Department will be looking at having families living on base in the future, which is a welcome development. I guess my question to the Chief of Staff is, where are we with implementation of that new policy? Specifically, and this might focus the answer, by the end of this year does the Chief of Staff envisage any of those houses being back on track? Housing is a topical issue, and rightly so, currently in the country.

The third question is about private medical care. Currently, commissioned officers are getting it but enlisted personnel are not. We welcome the defence Estimates. The Tánaiste was before this committee only a few weeks ago. In the Estimate, €5 million has been provided for 2023. Is there a launch date for this? When will private medical care be available to enlisted personnel? Obviously, we would say the sooner, the better. Our enlisted personnel get injured and they should not be out of pocket when it comes to paying for their surgical operations, whether it is knees, hips or whatever.

The next question is about pay. I acknowledge there have been some small improvements at the lower end of the scale. If you have less than three years' service, there have been small improvements which I and, no doubt, the committee welcome, but there has not been any improvement specific to the Defence Forces beyond that. The Commission on the Defence Forces recommended improvements on patrol duty allowance for the Naval Service. We are hearing indications that it could be doubled in the next little while. That is not sufficient. It should be quadrupled because it is such a small allowance. Is that the case? When will the final decision be made on the patrol duty allowance?

The commission also recommended long-service increments for those with long service but we do not yet see any implementation of that. Where are we with that process? The commission recommended 840 lance corporal positions. Obviously, they are important in their own right, but it would allow senior privates to get a bit of a pay rise if they were promoted to lance corporal. When are we likely to see the first lance corporal in the Irish Defence Forces?

An initiative that has been mentioned here before is apprentice and cadet pay. They do not get military service allowance. Apprentices, for the first two years, are on less than €20,000. What would the Chief of Staff's view on that be, and could military service allowance be extended to apprentices and cadets? The Chief of Staff will remember the cadets were used during the Covid pandemic. They were deployed operationally from a contact tracing point of view.

Lastly, retention has been mentioned here previously. A number of serving personnel have been in touch with a number of Deputies and Senators who are members of the committee. If you joined the Defence Forces before 1994 and you are a private or a corporal, you can serve to the age of 60. We accept the principle that there are privates and corporals currently serving in the military who are 60 years of age but if you joined after 1994, you must retire at the age of 50. Perhaps that was a rational rule when it was brought in in the 1990s but it is not appropriate any more. What would the Chief of Staff's view on that be? Can we at least pause the implementation of this rule pending review? The Tánaiste was here and to read his body language, he was open-minded at the prospect. If we are trying to keep people in the Defence Forces, we should not be driving them out. I would certainly argue that people who want to stay, provided they are medically fit, should be allowed to stay.

The last point is on gender. I take the Chief of Staff's point that 7% of the Defence Forces are female. That is not appropriate. We would like that to be much higher. We should bear in mind as well that the gender balance of the Defence Forces is better than that in midwifery. It is better than in nursing. It is better than on building sites. While we want to improve it and it is at a low base, the Defence Forces is not the only organisation in this situation. We should be mindful of that. The Chief of Staff mentioned 7% on average, but my understanding is that there is a higher percentage of females in the Defence Force band and in the Reserve Defence Force. What I would extrapolate from that is if you provide an environment where there are regular working hours, which is compliant with the European work time directive and where you are not sent overseas with a couple of days' notice, it is likely to attract more female participation. If the Chief of Staff has those percentages, even approximate ones, it certainly would be helpful. Lastly, from a gender point of view, the gender pay gap is an issue across society where males are paid more than females. What is the gender pay gap in the Defence Forces?

That is all I have. If there is a second round, I would be happy to speak.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chief of Staff and welcome him and his colleagues here. I thank the Chief of Staff for a very good presentation. It was a positive and far-seeing presentation.

Many of the questions I was to ask have been asked and I will not repeat them. I want to ask the Chief of Staff about the issue of diversity and inclusion. As we speak, the action plan against racism is being launched. Could the Chief of Staff talk about it? Racism is not mentioned in the Chief of Staff's presentation. Inclusion is and diversity is.

I am sure it is implied. I would like the Chief of Staff to take a moment to comment on the number of people from diverse backgrounds who are in the Defence Forces – people from other nationalities and so on. What is the policy to encourage such people to join and be part of the Defence Forces?

I wish to ask about the Naval Service and the current situation regarding the number of ships that can go to sea at any one time right now. We speak about the ambition and I agree with the Chief of Staff there. Am I right in saying that it depends on the number of specialists available? What are the plans to retain the specialists? Have we been looking at retention payments? I know some are already there. How are they working? I know that in international experience it is mixed. I looked at some of the research on that. Has encouraging people to stay on been examined, especially people with specialist skills who are essential and not how many other people there are to take the ships to sea?

I ask about the head of transformation and where that is at the moment. How many applications have been received with respect to that particular post that was advertised a little while ago? What is the remuneration for that post, if the Chief of Staff can tell us? I am curious. I am aware that is an important job in other organisations. Will it be a temporary job and time limited for a number of months or years? It implies that when you transform an organisation, the job is done. Will it be an ongoing transformation? My understanding of these roles is that once the main bulk of the transformation has occurred, people in that role in other organisations often move on. They do not stay put.

I refer to the head of strategic HR. Where is that at the moment? The same questions apply there. I guess that would be a longer term role. The Chief of Staff might tell me about that.

I wish to ask about recruitment and, in particular, the amount of time takes from when somebody makes an initial application to when he or she is attested. My understanding is it can take quite a while. During that interval, that person might move on to other things. Focusing on the aptitude psychometric tests, I have some questions about those, and I am sure the Chief of Staff is aware of them. I was told in 2021 that 4,408 aptitude tests were administered and the number of those who failed was 2,178. More than half of those who took them failed. If there is a 50% failure rate in aptitude tests, I would be raising questions as to whether the people who were interested and went to the trouble of taking the tests were actually interested in joining the Defence Forces or at least exploring that. If half of them failed the aptitude test, I wonder if the aptitude test is too hard. Perhaps we should all take one here and see how we get on. In 2016, 50% or more failed the aptitude test. I was told they are in line with best practice and other militaries use such testing in a similar manner in their selection processes. However, it seems to be very high. If young people are interested in joining and they hit this hurdle and they cannot go any further, perhaps it needs to be looked at or the Chief of Staff knows something about it that I do not.

That is it. Most of the other questions I wanted to ask have been asked already, so I will not repeat them.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to place on record my concern that we all received a letter prior to the Chief of Staff arriving here to the effect we were not to stray into policy areas. I believe the Chief of Staff, as the most senior military officer in the country, is well capable of telling us if we stray into areas we should not stray into. With that in mind, I am somewhat concerned at the blurring I have noticed and other people have mentioned to me of the roles within the senior Department of Defence and the Chief of Staff’s office. We see the Secretary General taking security briefings. It is my understanding that it is the Chief of Staff’s job to offer security advice to the Minister of the day. It has been said to me or in my company on one particular occasion that anybody could be the Chief of Staff. I am sure the Chief of Staff would not agree with that statement. I wish to have his view on that.

The Chief of Staff spoke about the centenary of commemorations, in which the Defence Forces indeed did a tremendous job. However, I participated in a commemoration in Glasnevin later last year to commemorate some 1,000 members of the national Army who died in the Civil War. No colour party was provided for that and it caused much distress to families. Somebody told me, and I do not know where it came from, that it was the position of the Defence Forces that this would have been a misuse of resources. I have never known the military to refuse a colour party for any commemorative ceremony. I would be interested in the Chief of Staff’s views on that.

One of my colleagues mentioned the dreaded issue of medals. I am looking at veterans' issues at the moment. Are the Defence Forces prepared to do what military organisations all over the world have done and look back on acts of valour carried out by members of the Defence Forces? In particular, a member of my former battalion, Billy Kedian, lost his life in Lebanon having set out to rescue or warn colleagues of incoming mortars, and all that was awarded to him was the military star. Dick O’Hanlon and Martin Fahy from Galway and two other colleagues, under fire, rescued former Sergeant Major O’Connor, got him to a medical aid post and saved his life. There are countless stories of this type, leaving aside the dreaded Jadotville, which has never been dealt with correctly. I know the Chief of Staff and I will probably differ on that and I am happy enough with that. Is it not time that we looked back at acts of valour that took place, commemorated those men, and it was mainly men at that time, who put their lives on the line to save a comrade, and saw to it that they are properly recognised for that? It is extremely distressing we have not done that for quite a number of those men.

During his presentation, the Chief of Staff mentioned that any member of this committee and any former member of the Defence Forces is welcome in any barracks in the country. On my desk now, I have 30 sergeant majors, BQs and RSMs who are meeting to try to come up with a veterans’ charter on which they would advise the veterans' organisations, the Chief of Staff and the Department on. These are all the most senior non-commissioned officers in the Defence Forces and they have been refused accommodation in any barracks for a meeting. I have actually funded one of those meetings. It is outrageous that men and women who reach those non-commissioned ranks are being refused accommodation in a barracks to hold a meeting. They will not run away with the silverware or anything like that.

On the operational side, my colleagues mentioned the subsurface cables and the need for, if you want, subsurface surveillance. Has there been a revision of the procurement requirements for subsurface surveillance, both for the Naval Service and the Air Corps? I believe the new aircraft that are coming on line will be capable of carrying out subsurface observations.

I will move on to the 2013 pension scheme. Does the Chief of Staff believe that the 2013 pension scheme is detrimental to the retention of troops in service in the organisation? For the life of me, I know from my time in the Teachers’ Union of Ireland that each revision of pensions that took place in 1996, I think, in 1999, and again in 2013 cut more and more into the pension schemes and caused serious concern. However, no profession is forced to retire at 50 other than the Defence Forces right now. Given that a person cannot draw down a supplementary pension while he or she waits to reach the age of 60, that will be a serious problem. An awful lot of young officers particularly are looking at a couple of years, a bit of service overseas and then moving straight into the Civil Service.

In recent times, a significant number of commissioned officers have moved into the Civil Service. On the side of the non-commissioned officers, a lot of them who reach pension age are finding that the Civil Service is not an option for them because of there being pension abatement, which is outrageous.

On the working time directive, is the Defence Forces seeking any exemptions from that, and if it is, how many and why are they being sought? I understand there are operational issues that might cause problems, and the Chief of Staff might outline those for the committee.

I have two issues regarding the Defence Forces Army Ranger Wing. One is the allowances which have remained unpaid for years. What is the position on those? The second one is that a number of members of An Garda Síochána have been sent overseas to look after Ministers when they were travelling to Ukraine. Why not the Army Ranger Wing? Surely that is its role. Its members were sent to Afghanistan. They were good enough for that, so why are we not using them for trips to Ukraine?

A final point which is of concern to a lot of serving soldiers, I am told, concerns those who are being pulled out of UN duties to join a European battle group. Are they going to lose out on allowances when they join a battle group?

I am sorry there are so many questions there, and the Chief of Staff will understand that a lot of them are not my questions but are coming from former members of the Defence Forces, particularly on veterans' issues, and colleagues whom I would have known down through the years who are concerned about the direction in which they think the Defence Forces is being driven. If it is being driven in that direction, the Chief of Staff is the one who has to save this. I appreciate throwing these questions at him when he is only a short time in office is probably difficult, but I appreciate him taking the time.

I should put on record the tremendous job which the Chief of Staff and the organisation did for Private Seán Rooney and his family. It was one of the most moving days I have been involved in in a long time. We look after our people very well. I congratulate the Chief of Staff and the entire staff on that.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A dhaoine uaisle, tá fáilte romhaibh go léir go dtí Teach Laighean. It is a very special moment for me to meet the general staff, having served myself as an officer in the Defence Forces. I will try to be brief. A lot of questions have been asked.

My primary interest is in the culture of the Defence Forces. Women of Honour was referenced. As the general staff knows, and as everybody in this room knows, the revelations about serious sexual violence, sexual assault and rape, did not begin with Women of Honour. It began 25 years ago, when I sat down with the Chief of Staff's predecessor, Lieutenant General Gerry McMahon, in his office, as a serving officer, and I set out the very serious challenges that confronted Óglaigh na hÉireann at that time with regard to explicitly discriminatory policies and practices as they applied to female personnel.

My research, which was published in 2000, resulted in a very detailed document which sets out, in forensic detail, the causes and patterns of gender-based discrimination and gender-based violence within the Defence Forces - sexual assault and rape. It is not about sexual harassment, or bullying. We need to be really careful about language. It is about the darkest forms of sexual violence. These are not gender issues. These are issues of the most serious criminal nature, and I set that out in very great detail 23 years ago.

With the fresh disclosures made by Women of Honour, I was contacted by the former Fianna Fáil Minister for Defence, the former Deputy, Michael Smith. I want to set the record straight here. I demanded the independent Government inquiry into my research - I did. The study review group was set up at my behest to investigate my research. It reported in 2003, and fully vindicated my findings in stating that not only were women in the Defence Forces subjected to sexual violence, sexual assault and rape, but also some male soldiers. The reason Michael Smith contacted me was because he wanted to express his sadness that, even though he and I had given the warning very clearly 23 years ago, it would appear to be the case that your culture - our culture - has not changed.

My first question is to ask the Chief of Staff to make a statement or comment on why he thinks my research was completely and utterly ignored. That is the first question. My second question is why was so much energy invested, and it is almost exclusively a phenomenon among officers, in so much reprisal targeted at me and other people who speak up about sexual violence, sexual assault and rape in the Defence Forces? Why have I been targeted and why was my family targeted?

The Chief of Staff's predecessor, Vice Admiral Mark Mellett, when I met him in 2019, gave an expression of regret at the way I and my family had been treated - being the targets of reprisal, which, shamefully, is ongoing, I am sorry to say. He said he could not give an apology because some of the people who were involved in that reprisal are still serving. In fact, some of them have been promoted to very senior rank. Vice Admiral Mellett said he could not apologise for that reason. I am asking the Chief of Staff would he, on behalf of the Defence Forces, apologise to me and my family for the reprisal that was visited upon me and my family over the years? My crime, if I might put it in that way, was to speak out about sexual violence. One of the things that has puzzled me over the years is why so much energy in military culture is expended on reprisal. If even a fraction of that energy was directed at identifying and bringing the perpetrators to some sort of justice, the problem would be alleviated, but no.

Michael Smith, in his conversation with me, said he was one of the first Ministers to introduce a reduction in the alcohol limits for driving. He said he took great satisfaction over the years in seeing the numbers of deaths on the roads related to alcohol intake reducing. In other words, we stopped harm. However, his sadness, and my shared sadness, is that despite the very explicit warning I gave you all 23 years ago, hundreds of young men and women have been exposed to life-limiting and life-altering experiences because no action was taken. In fact, what we did experience was cancellation, reprisal, gaslighting and the downplaying of this problem. I would ask the Chief of Staff to make a statement about that and about whether my family and I will get an apology for that. An expression of regret is not enough.

The other question I have for the Chief of Staff is, what is his feeling about the independent review group? How does he think that report is going to reflect on the culture of the Defence Forces? If, as I suspect, it is going to show that not only has the culture not changed but that it may in fact have deteriorated, what does that say about military management over the past 20 years, and who should be held accountable for that?

I have a final question for the Chief of Staff. A number of challenges have been highlighted here around the situation in Ukraine. I agree with Deputy Berry; it is going to escalate. There is a serious risk there. I would say to the Chief of Staff that the most serious existential challenge to the future of Óglaigh na hÉireann is its own culture, its lack of diversity, and the fact it does not reflect the society it is charged to protect and served. Karina Molloy says in her recently published book that, after 39 years' service in the Defence Forces, it is not a safe place for women. I concur with that view based on my own research, which is evidence-based, and based on all of the revelations that have been disclosed to me on foot of the Women of Honour disclosures. If it is an unsafe place for 51% of the population, how can the Defence Forces purport to protect and serve the Republic?

How can the Defence Forces send troops overseas, where there are vulnerable women and children in hostile environments, when it is an organisation that, according to the evidence, appears to be an unsafe place for women?

Before any of those questions are answered, I know that Lieutenant General Clancy is a person of absolute integrity and, aside from Vice Admiral Mark Mellett, is the first Chief of Staff to acknowledge and speak directly to the Women of Honour and to acknowledge explicitly the problem that exists within the organisation. I also believe Ms Jacqui McCrum, the Secretary General of the Department of Defence, is a person who is absolutely committed to transforming the culture of the Defence Forces. This is a situation the Chief of Staff has inherited. I wish him the very best of luck in dealing with it and bringing the organisation forward but, mark my words, what is coming next with the independent review group and its report will be a watershed moment for the Defence Forces. I ask the representatives not to invest their energies in trying to engage in pushback, denial, reprisal, cancellation or gaslighting of any of the people who raise red flags but, instead, invest their energies in bringing the transformation of culture within the Defence Forces, which must happen if it is to become effective in its mission or as an organisation.

Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The first supplementary question I will ask relates to the Chief of Staff's opening statement, where he referenced emergency accommodation in a number of military installations to support lead agencies around those seeking international protection. One barracks, Columb Barracks, Mullingar, will be used to house those coming to our shores seeking refuge. Was that decision made by the general staff or the Department? I ask because there was zero correspondence with the more than 30 community groups that operate out of that barracks.

I will go back to the commission report. It was published in February 2022. All in all, it had 130 recommendations, including sub-recommendations. We have had a commission report, a high-level action plan, an implementation management office, an implementation oversight group, a high-level steering board and, what the Tánaiste referred to a number of weeks ago and which is echoed in the statement made by the Chief of Staff, a work-in-progress implementation plan. As we are nine months past the publication of the high-level action plan, is that pace adequate to address the level of change needed within the Defence Forces?

I will touch on the issue of protected disclosures in light of the imminent independent review group, IRG, report. When the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022 was passed, did it have any impact on how the Defence Forces deal with protected disclosures being made? I note the Chief of Staff's opening statement, as well as Senator Clonan, referred to the Women of Honour programme. I note it was January 2017 when Yvonne O'Rourke highlighted the abuse, discrimination and bullying she had experienced in the cadet school. It is my understanding she was told that her protected disclosure was subjective. That is reflective of a word Senator Clonan used, "gaslighting". In fact, prior to the broadcast of Katie Hannon's documentary on RTÉ, Ms O'Rourke had repeatedly requested meetings, all of which were refused until after the airing of that documentary. Who is responsible for handling protected disclosures in the Defence Forces? Is it the Department or general staff?

On the same issue of Yvonne O'Rourke, is the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces, ODF, fit for purpose? When Ms O'Rourke took her case to the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, which ruled that systemic discrimination had been determined, the Defence Forces were instructed to undertake a number of points. Will the representatives give an update on whether any of those instructed pieces of work have been undertaken? Who is ultimately responsible for ensuring the information provided to the ODF from the Department of Defence is true and accurate? Is any work carried out to determine truthfulness or accuracy? Is that done by the general staff or the Department?

What are the witnesses' reactions to the finding earlier this month regarding the Air Corps chemical exposure issue, where it was found the Air Corps failed to comply with a Supreme Court ruling to provide safety documentation as part of discovery? That was quite a damning statement for the judge to make. The representatives' feedback would be very much appreciated.

Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I join with colleagues in welcoming Lieutenant General Clancy and his colleagues. I thank them for answering the questions put to them so far. We are under time constraints. Many of the questions I wanted to ask have already been asked. We have all been contacted by various groups, representative bodies and others. I join with colleagues in thanking Lieutenant General Clancy and his colleagues for the hospitality they have shown to us on our visits to various locations throughout the country. We look forward to visiting a number of others before the end of this year, hopefully.

On the closure of barracks, in March 2012, Dún Uí Néill Barracks in Cavan town was closed, along with barracks in Mullingar, which was referenced by Deputy Clarke, and Clonmel. This resulted in the redeployment of 500 personnel. At the time of these closures, the number of full-time personnel was 9,458; it is now approximately 8,000. Will the representatives clarify the exact number of active personnel within the Defence Forces at present? Do they have a view on the impact of barrack closures on recruitment and retention? I welcome the recommendation by the Commission on the Defence Forces that the Defence Forces strength be increased to 11,500 by 2028. Increasing the Defence Forces to that number will require additional accommodation and facilities, which Lieutenant General Clancy alluded to in his contribution. Dún Uí Néill Barracks, Cavan, was the only purpose-built barracks in the history of the State and was the most modern in Europe at the time, with accommodation for more than 200 personnel, equipment and a helicopter base. Would it not be an ideal barracks to reopen, given its location at a point midway between Finner Camp in County Donegal in the north west and Aiken Barracks, Dundalk, on the east coast?

On ministerial reviews that are carried out before personnel are deployed overseas, I recall being at one in Cavan in the late 1990s, which then Minister for Defence, Michael Smith, presided over. It has already been referred to by my colleague, Senator Clonan. That was a huge spectacle and had a massive impact on the community of Cavan. People travelled from way outside the hinterland of Cavan to attend that parade. As a result, there was a spike in recruitment to the Defence Forces, the Army in particular. Would the Defence Forces give consideration to conducting such reviews in future in areas where army barracks are not located? Could that be considered by the Defence Forces or, through them, by the Minister or Department?

Finally, since its closure in 2012, I have raised in the Seanad on numerous occasions the possibility of reopening Dún Uí Néill Barracks. However, I did not get very positive responses. I am glad that the mindset may be changing. In recent replies, in 2022 from the then Minister, Deputy Coveney, and a number of weeks ago in another reply to my colleague, Deputy Brendan Smith, the present Minister and Tánaiste left open the door to the possibility of the barracks reopening. My final question to the lieutenant general is whether he would support such a move.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have had significant vacancies in non-commissioned officer ranks in particular. Based on the comments of my colleague, Senator Clonan, would the Chief of Staff accept that the lack of supervision because of vacancies not being filled is contributing in some way to the difficulties outlined by Senator Clonan, that is, that we simply do not have enough people on the ground to maintain discipline and good order?

Mr. Se?n Clancy:

I thank all the Deputies and Senators for their questions. As the Chairman said, there is quite an extensive number of them. I hope I can get through them all. I am sure we can revert if I miss any of them.

Since the Chairman has pointed me back towards the question of how optimistic or otherwise I am and Deputy Brady's question, I will start there. The committee has visited all the barracks and has a sense of the pulse and the temperature in each of them. You referred to that yourself, Mr. Chairman. I, too, have visited every single barracks on more than one occasion, as the committee will appreciate. I have sat with groups and individuals of all shapes and sizes within our organisation to discuss their sense of this and where they are at, and I can say with real confidence that everybody's goodwill in terms of the success of the Defence Forces is there. That is the fundamental underlying tenet I would like to get across today, that every woman and every man in our organisation is determined for the Defence Forces to succeed. Everybody understands the challenges we have faced and continue to face but, more importantly, and when it comes to whether I am optimistic or pessimistic about morale, I am optimistic about it because of what the commission has done and the manner in which that has been articulated.

One of my priorities is internal communication. I did not say external communication for the Defence Forces, and I am not very prolific in my external communication. That is very much deliberate on my part because my priority is communicating to the internal audience, those women and men I serve today. As a consequence, it is important to me that they understand fully what is under development and the opportunities that are there and are given a reason to be optimistic about the future for the Defence Forces. That is not only my role but also my duty to each and every one of them. For as long as I am in this role, I plan to continue to fulfil that duty, to set out my priorities in the manner in which I have done, to try to increase the resources in the manner in which I have explained in respect of platforms, what we do, our raison d'êtreand why we do it and to communicate that internally in order that people understand the duty of service internally and how important it is.

For me, that leads inevitably and should lead to increased morale. The committee has got a sense of where morale is right now. As Deputy Berry pointed out, we have had some wins, particularly around those within our organisation who are most vulnerable in pay terms. Under the high-level action plan those wins were very deliberately targeted at our most vulnerable to try to give us that competitive edge because we experienced high losses during training, for instance, and during those early, formative years of Defence Forces service, in years one to three. I refer to the inhibitors and the freedom now around military service allowance and around standing still and the barriers which have been removed in respect of that service area in terms of that initial part. That can be seen coming to fruition now in respect of the total values package. As I mentioned at the outset, pay and conditions are part of that total values package. We see now that a three-star recruit, after 24 weeks' training, can start on a pay packet of €37,149. We see non-graduate cadets on €42,000-odd and graduate cadets on €44,000. I do not think there is anybody here that would argue that those salaries are not comparable to starting salaries in the wider Civil Service and public sector.

That is only one element. I recognise fully the cultural element that exists in our organisation, which Senator Clonan has so eloquently articulated, and I think he appreciates the fact that I fully recognise it and continue to do so.

I will not shirk my responsibility to address the cultural issues that exist in our organisation today. I cannot say often enough that everybody has the right to come to work every day and receive dignity and respect, but they should also show it. The majority of women and men in Óglaigh na hÉireann today are good people who give that dignity and respect.

I have also recognised the fact that we have sexual harassment. I have said openly that includes rape. I have no difficulty saying that. I recognise it as a fact that has existed for a considerable period. I would suggest that has been a reality for even longer than 23 years. I would, in fact, suggest it goes back much further than that, as was captured in Ruth Fitzgerald's report, which covers the period 1950 to 1994, and which was published yesterday. Independent monitoring groups, IMGs, of course, came after Senator Clonan's report. I will address his comments. There were IMG reports in 2004, after The Challenge in the Workplace report of 2002, and in 2008 and 2014. Some of those reports were consequential to the work the Senator had done at that time, which I have recognised in my comments over the time I have been in office.

I face these problems as a Chief of Staff today. I face them as Seán Clancy, as the General in charge of Óglaigh na hÉireann today. I cannot undo the past but I can certainly change the present, with a view to creating an environment and atmosphere, service conditions and a workplace that allow for equality, diversity, respect and dignity to all who serve. I, along with all my staff and every member and good person in Óglaigh na hÉireann today, share that view and ambition. I am confident we will continue to work day and night to achieve it. I assure the committee that is our priority and has been since the day I took office. I did not see this as a challenge when I took the office. I openly articulated that this was an opportunity. All things being equal, I will serve as Chief of Staff for at least five years and it is my intention to see that term through. My key priority from day one has been the opportunity presented by the committee members and the women of honour who have articulated their experiences. I have engaged with groups and individuals, male and female, who have in confidence and sensitively articulated to me their lived experiences in our organisation. I am under no illusion with regard to the issues that exist today and existed in the past in our organisation. However, I have a determination, which I know is shared by the Secretary General.

That brings to me the point Senator Craughwell raised about the greyness. The greyness that exists is healthy. We sometimes have too many closed views. The Secretary General and I share a determination to change the culture within the organisation. As the committee knows, I do not control all of the power within our organisation. I have certain responsibilities but there are other responsibilities that the Secretary General has and shares. The combination of those responsibilities will help enhance our overall development and the well-being and outputs from the Defence Forces. That is my goal. It is simple.

The Secretary General is, of course, entitled to receive security briefings. She cannot do her role or job without them. We fulfil our role in terms of advising the Government and the Tánaiste and Minister, Deputy Micheál Martin. The committee will be aware of the governing rules. When the Secretary General speaks, she speaks on behalf of the Minister. She is entitled to, and needs, security briefings to fulfil her role. The perspective taken in the traditional sense is not something I would care to express any view on. I know my responsibilities. I have no difficulty whatsoever with the manner in which the Secretary General is conducting herself. I was deliberate in the remarks I made in my opening statement when I referred to shared views and an extremely positive relationship. I have found the relationship with the Secretary General to be most productive in terms of the output and the advancement of the organisation as a whole. The advancement of the Defence Forces in this transformative period is my primary goal. If we are to seize the opportunity that transformation is offering us, we must maximise everybody's efforts, including those of the Secretary General and the civilian team. I am determined to do so.

I will try to respond in sequence to the questions that were asked. Deputy Berry raised a question about housing. Deputy Brady also raised the matter. The Tánaiste has been very clear about the Defence Forces Training Centre, DFTC, in particular, which is relevant to Deputy Berry's question. In a holistic sense, there is no reversal of policy that I am aware of when it comes to housing. The long-standing policy was introduced in the 1990s, if I recall correctly, and there has been no reversal of that particular policy. However, the Tánaiste has been very clear that no housing estate that is currently within the Defence Forces will be demolished. We are tasked with refurbishing and repurposing, where necessary. Let me talk in a holistic sense about the Defence Forces. We have a requirement to accommodate a large number of our personnel, those who are most vulnerable and who I spoke about earlier. Those include our new trainees and inductees; the young personnel in our organisation. To that end, our infrastructural development plan speaks clearly as to where our priorities are. The Tánaiste has made it clear he wants all of the housing estate to be refurbished and repurposed, if necessary, or reallocated, if you will. That is a very positive development. The Deputy's question brought that out into the open.

The infrastructural development plan, as I said, lays down our priorities. The committee will see from that plan that we have created new and refurbished accommodation in Cathal Brugha Barracks. The same has happened in Baldonnell. We have one of the most state-of-the-art accommodation facilities provided for sailors in Haulbowline. That opened only a number of months ago. Having viewed that, been there at its inception in my previous role and accelerating the development of that area, I am very proud. The Defence Forces, in particular the Naval Service, can be very proud of accommodation of the standard that is now provided in Haulbowline.

A plan around rehousing in the DFTC is under discussion. We have a plan for another 100-bed accommodation in the DFTC. Our new joint training and induction centre in Gormanston will need additional accommodation to enhance its current capacity, which is limited to growth to the level of campus level, which is my vision for that induction centre. I want to create a centre of excellence where we have all our training up to two stars. Initial training and induction training are set in that centre. We have commonality of standard and efficiency of instruction. There are governance structures over which we can stand. We have an infrastructure that is suitable for the 22nd century. To that end, we will be creating, in my vision, a campus whereby we create an alternative outlet, if you like, for students and others coming from second level into third level. We know we need to draw those students on a track to give us that competitive edge, if you will. The ambition for the centre of excellence is in due course to achieve that vision. That will give us one level in terms of the supports, outcome, draw and attractiveness of our institution in that space, which will be helpful. There is no question but that the accommodation and quarters we have need refurbishment. However, we also have a finite capital investment programme and financial purse. That, of course, falls within the remit of the Secretary General and I do not want to encroach in that respect. However, the infrastructural development plan is a civil-military agreed plan that includes all of those considerations. As I said, the Tánaiste has made the situation clear in respect of the stock we hold. As was rightly pointed out, a lot of it is in a state of disrepair. The Tánaiste wants that rectified. We are fully engaged in planning around that system.

An issue about the patrol duty allowance, PDA, was also raised. That is very much an early-action piece. It was built around the simplification of the number of actual allowances that currently exist for the Naval Service and to bring about one central allowance under the umbrella of patrol duty itself. A considerable amount of work has been done in that regard.

We have come to an agreed position in terms of how to achieve that. There is active engagement, which I understand is very positive, with the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform and how to finalise that piece. I cannot give a timeline on it. That is outside my gift because I do not have a determining factor or an influence on the process. That lies between the Department of Defence and the Department of Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform.

With regard to the long service increment, LSI, that was one of the early actions. As members will know, this is not something new to the Defence Forces. It exists in some pay grades and also exists in the wider public service and Civil Service. Again, this is a pay issue that is not within my gift. However, it is very clearly marked within the Commission on the Defence Forces. A full report was done on it as a consequence of the Public Service Pay Commission, PSPC, report that was done at the time and which pointed directly to this issue as well. There are a number of grades that have an LSI but this is something positive that will be developed. It was to be looked at and it has been looked at. The report is done and now it is into the negotiation phase.

The creation of the lance corporal rank is not one of our early actions. It is one of the later actions but it is scheduled in the implementation plan for 2024, although I cannot be certain of that. Obviously within the implementation plan we have to phase the actions because it is simply not possible to do everything at once. That is why we have an implementation plan that will cover the period to 2028 and we therefore have to prioritise issues as necessary. That is where that lies at this point in time.

I would like to address the decision to withdraw from UNDOF and why that decision was taken. Deputy Brady asked about that. At the outset, I said that we have to rationalise because we recognise the strength of the organisation as it stands today versus at the establishment of the organisation. Deputy Stanton asked about the number. Our current strength is 7,917. Factors such as that influence decision-making. I also mentioned the stress and strain on the organisation and asking people to double-job and do other jobs. All of these things inform the advice that we provide to the Government and to the Tánaiste on these matters. At any one time almost 20% of the Defence Forces, the Army primarily, are involved in overseas actions. That is between those in training, those preparing to go overseas, those in the two missions that are overseas and those returning. In any calendar year, that is an extraordinary level of commitment. You will not find a commensurate level of commitment in any other European force at this point in time. Given that the numbers are so small in our organisation, relatively speaking, that creates an additional burden. It is therefore incumbent on me and the Defence Forces to look at these parameters and make difficult decisions. UNDOF is very technically oriented while UNIFIL has a greater level of first-time participants in overseas service. There are in the order of threefold more first-timers in UNIFIL than in UNDOF. Many factors come into play when we are making these decisions and creating the conditions to give appropriate advice. That is the reason for that.

Yes, we have a commitment under the European battle group. It is a policy and a Government decision that we will participate in that, commensurate with our participation in the various European treaties. The next one is coming about in 2024. It is incumbent on the general staff to review how we can fulfil our task, as tasked by the Government. This will be a standby arrangement and will be much different to previous battle groups. It will be covered over a two-year period. The first year will be in training and the second year will be on standby. There will be two phases of standby, that is, the first six months and the second six months. In each of those spaces there will be two different exercises. One will be on 30 days' notice to move and the second will be on ten days' notice. In order to prepare for that, we have to plan now. It is about all of these factors. It is not just about the battle group but the wider piece and the influences that come to bear when we are trying to come with the appropriate advice at this point in time to bring forward to the Government.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think it is safe to say the political decision to join the EU battle group, coupled with the political failure to address the retention and recruitment issue, was the tipping point in the decision to withdraw from that peacekeeping mission.

Mr. Se?n Clancy:

I could not possibly comment on that other than to say the numbers needed to maintain two overseas commitments at this point in time, irrespective of the battle group, are overstretching the organisation today.

Mr. Se?n Clancy:

With regard to Deputy Berry's questions, the national defence plan is a subordinated plan to the national security strategy, which is under development. That strategy is in the political domain primarily and therefore that question would be more appropriately asked in that domain.

The issue of private medical care is part of the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces report, as the Deputy is probably aware. It is also part of the programme for Government. The report on private medical care, including its costs and so forth, has been fully completed. It is now in the realm I spoke about previously. That decision is with the civilian Department of Defence and the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform with regard to its finalisation. It is not within my gift or my competence to provide the Deputy with timelines on that at this point in time.

Deputy Stanton asked about the heads of HR. Both those processes are up and running. As he alluded to, both those positions were advertised. It is no secret that commensurate pay is at assistant secretary general level. It is the same as within the Civil Service. There were 15 applicants for the strategic HR appointment and 30 applicants for the head of transformation. Apart from that, it is a confidential process. I could not allude to it any further than that except to say I am satisfied that the processes are up and running and there will be determination within a matter of weeks with regard to the outcomes from those processes. Both of those appointments would report directly to my office and will participate on the general staff board. They will be solely responsible on the Defence Forces side and thereafter they will participate, along with the general staff, at the strategic management committee level as well. They will be fully integrated into the organisation. The expertise they will bring around transformation and strategic human resources in particular will be of great benefit to the organisation in time.

I was asked my views on apprentices and cadets. The factual position is that the military service allowance, MSA, is paid to those who are qualified, as the committee is well aware. Cadets working in the HSE during Covid received MSA payments for the timeframe under which they were engaged in those duties. It is not practice for apprentices or cadets to be involved or engaged in operational duties of any kind. That continues to be the practice, and rightly so. As alluded to, there is a pay rate associated with apprentices and a pay rate associated with cadetship. On top of that, they all receive their training. They receive their uniforms and clothing. They receive their accommodation and food and so on and so forth. The general expenses associated with that are all covered within their training package.

We do not associate the need for the military service allowance, MSA, with trainees and I am satisfied that there is no need to change that. The pay levels associated with apprenticeships and cadetships are not within my purview. Therefore, that may be for another discussion. I am satisfied that the accommodation, clothing, food, training and pay rate comprise a package that is attractive to any potential candidate for cadetship or apprenticeship within the organisation.

My thanks for the question on the gender balance. It was interesting to hear that view and how the various challenges in different organisations were articulated. The gender pay gap can be examined through the lens of numbers or just straight across the Defence Forces. We do not have a gender pay gap, per se. We just have a rate of pay commensurate with a rank. Pay is gender neutral in that sense. However, the fact that only 7% of our staff are women means that the majority of pay goes to our male staff. When it is looked at through that lens, there is a pay gap. We simply do not have the numbers.

I am mindful of our research into creating an environment where we can increase the number of female participants in the Defence Forces. The Commission on the Defence Forces was clear that our female participation should be 35%. That was an ambitious level to set from 7%. By my last recollection, the Australians have had this agenda under way for more than a decade and a half and have achieved, on average, just under 20% across their three services. This is not an easy challenge, but it is one we are determined to meet. There is a capability gap and we need to grow the number of females participating in our organisation. This will create the level of diversity the organisation requires, a point that Deputy Stanton mentioned.

That actually brings me on to the issues of diversity and inclusion that Deputy Stanton rightly raised. I did not mention racism – that was perhaps an omission – but it has to do with the cultural issue within the organisation. Part of addressing that is to have multicultural and diverse personnel in the service. Personnel from several countries – Ukrainians and Polish, to name but a few – participate in the Defence Forces. We will continue trying to ensure we are an open and inclusive employer in the opportunities we present. We hope to grow participation in this respect.

Regarding the number of ships that can go to sea right now, it is well publicised that we have four ships, with two on operational pause. We maintain rotational security patrol duties and MDSA security patrols, as required. We maintain an active operational stance with those crews.

As to plans to retain our people, we have engaged a mature recruitment strategy. We are also at the final stage of maturing our retention strategy. Regarding the Naval Service specifically, it might be of interest to committee members to know that we are at the final stages of employing a marine-specific contractor to help us employ specialists in the Naval Service. Using this recruitment head contractor with specific expertise in the maritime and marine environment, we hope to be able to tap into specialist areas, such as electrical radar artificers, ERAs, in the organisation. We hope to grow participation through that. We also have a seagoing service commitment scheme to try to retain people with specialist skills. This will play a part in the overarching attempt to capture the complexity of existing allowances under a single patrol duty allowance. We are actively engaged in trying to create innovative approaches to recruitment, including direct entry for those with skill sets where we have considerable deficits that are depleting our operational capabilities. When I referred to personnel versus platforms, this is the issue I meant.

Psychometric testing is an area of interest to many. We are living in a modern society and human resource recruitment has taken many twists and turns over the years, particularly in the past two decades. Some numbers were alluded to. Some 50% of people do not complete the psychometric test when it is forwarded to them. Of those, 40% are in the 0-10% completion band, which means they have not even started the test. That is how the numbers break down. It is not a direct consequence of the psychometric test in those circumstances. Rather, people apply, are forwarded the test and do not pursue it beyond that point.

We recognise that there are barriers to entry in a number of areas. We have medical, training and fitness requirements, so it is not centred solely on the psychometric test. We are constantly reviewing and trying to create the conditions to maximise people's potential to succeed. We do not want to turn anyone away, but we must maintain a standard. To that end, we have created the conditions to amalgamate the tests into a single day. We support people through IT services and help people with the psychometric test through practice and so forth. We have created and are about to sign off on a red, amber and green, or RAG, system around the fitness test. All those who are green pass and go straight through. Those who are amber we consider to be nearly there and we encourage and help them to get over the line within a certain timeframe. There are then those who simply do not make it, which is also a part of our process.

We are constantly reviewing this situation. We have a number of steps and measures around changing our orientation in all of these regards. One measure that we are very conscious of is the psychometric test. We are delivering under those terms.

Regarding the issue of commemorations that Senator Craughwell raised, I am proud of the conscious efforts, particularly over the past 12 months, that Óglaigh na hÉireann have been involved in during a sensitive period of the Decade of Commemorations. I am conscious of our role and of the need to be an inclusive and mature organisation in that respect. We have plans around the commemoration of the national monument in Glasnevin. We have set a date for that, we have plans in place and we have already received approval. I respect others going ahead with commemorations, but we have our own institutional planning in place through the planning group, which I established more than 14 months ago to look at the totality of the year 2022. That process has been ongoing and a date has been set. It coincides with the transposition into legislation in 1923 of the standing up of the Defence Forces - Óglaigh na hÉireann - as an institution. That was always our plan and, as an institution, will be our national commemoration of that site and those in the National Army who died during the period. That is the manner in which we will do this. Of course, others are entitled and free to commemorate the event in any way they see fit, but as an institution, we have to observe, honour and respect our own planning around that space, as it were. No disrespect was meant. It was simply part of our approach.

Regarding acts of valour, I know and respect the Senator's views about medals and so on. It is a sensitive, emotive, important and special issue to many people.

This is an area which is sensitive, emotive and very important and special to a lot of people. As an institution we have very deliberate processes around how we deliver in terms of medals boards and to go back over them again, or otherwise, would have to be a very considered piece. I am not closing the door on it, but it is not something I had been overly familiar with before it was raised in front of me here, so I would need some time to consider that. I would caveat it by saying that we have very deliberative processes around medals. Any medals that have been awarded to some of the names the Senator mentioned, which are familiar, were done using a deliberative process. To go back and revise those processes would have to be given serious consideration because to any action there is an equal and opposite reaction quite often and we would have to take all of those pieces into account. I do respect the Senator's views, as I always do.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We might bear in mind that in Black Hawk Down they were not afraid to go back and look at that and upgrade all of the people who were involved. Other countries have done it and have not been afraid to do so. Leaving aside the Jadotville issue, which is a separate issue, the other issue is the number of veterans who approach me and tell me about wonderful things that happened. I was not there so I do not know but I think a look-back would be a good thing to do.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is okay.

Mr. Se?n Clancy:

A supplementary question was raised on the vacancies in the non-commissioned officer, NCO, rank and how that contributed to some of the issues that have been raised. The vacancies in the NCO rank are relatively new, even though they are there for a while, in terms of the timeframes I captured with Senator Clonan. I do not think it is influential in terms of the maintenance of discipline and good order that has broken down so badly during the timeframes referred to. I do not think we can make a direct association. That is my initial reflection on that.

On the veterans' associations, we have three fully recognised veterans' associations, the Irish United Nations Veterans Association, IUNVA, the Óglaigh Náisiúnta na hÉireann, ONE, and the Association of Retired Commissioned Officers, ARCO, which do an exceptional job in terms of representation at the appropriate level for the organisation as a whole and I am quite satisfied in that space.

There is no revision of requirements of our sub-surface capabilities. I am not aware of any revision of our sub-surface capabilities or requirements n the equipment development plan and the ongoing consideration of all our capabilities other than those we are already aware of and the gapping we have around that space, in particular.

On the pension discussions, again pensions are something that were decided upon by policy and by Government and it is not for me to make a judgment or give an opinion and I refrain from doing so. The mandatory retirement age referred to is something that is of course under consideration. When we look across the broader uniform services of the State, such as An Garda Síochána, the mandatory retirement age is 60. That is a fact. When we look at the Prison Service, despite having I think 38 or even a larger number of grades within the service for whom the mandatory retirement age is 60. When we look at the Fire Service, and the number of grades they have, the mandatory retirement age is 55. The Defence Forces have differing mandatory retirement ages across all grades. As Deputy Berry alluded to, this was put in place in the 1990s, 30 years ago, at a bespoke level for reasons perhaps around bringing down the age profile of the organisation, and creating a fitter, more modern force at that point in time. Therefore, these are the facts surrounding the mandatory retirement ages and I recognise the challenges they cause internally for the organisation as a barrier to retention.

The army ranger wing, ARW, allowance is under arbitration at this point so that says enough. I have spoken about the EU battle group and the cultural issues. On the broader cultural issues, I know points were raised on these issues. I have acknowledged them and I also want to give a degree of comfort, if it is comfort, because one cannot give comfort in this area and I am very conscious language is very important, as was rightly said. We have taken lessons from other militaries and we have brought in the likes of the Rape Crisis Centre to help us to understand, to give us confidence, to brief us, and to help with our understanding around equality and the issues involved in that. I wanted to put that on the record to this committee. We have not stood still in our timeline since I have taken office. We have created the conditions where we have stepped out and had immediate response teams at that time. We extended INSPIRE, our helpline service, to the wider Defence Forces, their families and to veterans as well, to create a helpline for people. We also set up, with the Department of Defence and the then Minister, a confidential contact person. I also stood up an organisational cultural standing committee which is a diverse committee, in terms of gender and rank, and is headed by my assistant chief of staff to bring about immediate changes in terms of response. An example of that in terms of our internal culture at the moment is when we looked to other organisations and at the whole question of sexual ethics, responsible relationships, and the training required around that, there was a gap and a deficit that was badly needed to be filled in our organisation. We have piloted that and we recognised we needed external instruction and support to deliver that internally in the organisation, which we have gone to tender on. We hope to stand that up with five instructors from external sources to be delivered to the organisation as a whole. These are just a sample, a flavour, of some of the changes around the cultural space and the actions we have taken.

Like the committee members, I am waiting for the independent review group, IRG, report to come and, honestly, I have no doubt it will be stark. I am under no illusions about that, as the committee members are not. My eyes are wide open as to the review on staff and I have never shirked from my views on this space and I have been very open about it. When it comes, I will engage with all stakeholders. I have given the commitment in writing to the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence, Deputy Micheál Martin, that I will engage with all recommendations that he accepts from that report. We will get on with it and be forceful about implementation, and I can assure committee members of that. It can be taken from that there will not be any push-back from my position in terms of transformation of our culture. Optimistic is the wrong word to use but I am very engaged to ensure we achieve transformation in this space and we have already made some progress and see some grass shoots in that space in terms of complaints received, which I see as a positive, bystanders taking action and so on and so forth. There are clear examples of that. In terms of people moving through the liaison process from an internal disciplinary process to an external Garda Síochána reporting process, we have seen many examples of that in the organisation. I welcome all of that because it shows signs of a maturity happening within the organisation in terms of acceptance and I can only change that.

Deputy Clarke asked about international protection, IPs, the responsibility for which falls primarily on the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. We were asked by other Departments to provide support by providing tentage etc. into Collins Barracks, and the relevant engineering supports. We have no role other than that and the fact it is a former Army barracks is just part of it. The role of the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth standing up and their responsibilities for-----

Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My question was whether the decision to use Collins Barracks was made by the Defence Forces or the Department of Defence.

Mr. Se?n Clancy:

I beg the Deputy's pardon. I cannot honestly answer that.

Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that, I understand.

Mr. Se?n Clancy:

I do not have an answer I can give Deputy Clarke. We are just asked and tasked with providing in that space and we have done that of course. That is it.

Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate Mr. Clancy's honesty.

Mr. Se?n Clancy:

The Deputy asked about whether the pace is adequate. This is something we challenge ourselves on all the time. I am very conscious, and I am very clear in my internal messaging, that we have to build the foundations and create the enablers that are important to ensure success. I am also very conscious that when we go through any transformation process we have to demonstrably show early wins.

That is why it was important to get those low-hanging fruit, if one likes, across the line at the outset. That is the reason for the new appointments and the creation of new entities such as the office of Reserve affairs. At the same time, the governance structures and the financial undertaking in terms of the year-on-year increase in resources are all guaranteed. Those processes take time. The manner in which the memo for Government succeeded through the Government by July, six months after the commission report, is a measure of success in terms of the timeline and the implementation plan. Engaging with an external consultant in that area is important to make sure we get the implementation right and can deliver in a timeline commensurate with the resources we have. Whether the pace is fast enough is subjective. It is important to consider this in the context of the briefing to the high-level steering board and the implementation group body specifically tasked with making sure that what is determined is delivered.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A Chathaoirligh, I asked the Chief of Staff a specific question regarding an apology to me and my family for the reprisal that was visited upon us. All I did was engage in leadership in holding the organisation to account, as instructed by the Chief of Staff. This committee and these Houses are all about holding powerful institutions of the State to account. Several of my questions were not answered but, in the time we have left, I would like the Chief of Staff to address the one I have just mentioned.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It has been on the public record for more than 20 years and the Chief of Staff is well aware of it, as are all others present.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

An apology would be the opportunity to show the leadership that indicates there is a cultural change. The absence of such an apology sends a clear signal that these matters have not changed and there is still-----

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With respect, this is my lived experience-----

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a missed opportunity.

Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the fact that the high-level action plan only accepted 37% of the recommendations that came from the report of the commission influence the ability of the Defence Forces to be easier able to meet those easy wins? If that figure had been higher, would it have placed additional barriers in front of those easier wins being achieved? Would it have made Lieutenant General Clancy's job difficult? Was so few of the recommendations being accepted in the high-level action plan a positive step?

Mr. Se?n Clancy:

The high-level action plan contained 38 actions. That was a reasonable share of the totality of 130 recommendations in the timeframe in which we tried to deliver those actions. They were identified in the context of those that could be delivered in a shorter timeframe in order to create momentum but also with regard to the critical enablers that were required. It is important to remember that no resources were allocated for the implementation of the high-level action plan in 2022. Rather, that was to commence in 2023. All these things influenced it. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, a high-level action plan update is being prepared for the Tánaiste and will be published shortly, before the implementation plan itself.

Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That only refers to those 38 actions or 37%.

Mr. Se?n Clancy:

It is 38-----

Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The figures are very close but it is 37% or 38 actions.

Mr. Se?n Clancy:

I beg the Deputy's pardon. I misheard what she said. It is a reasonable achievement in the six months under which it was flagged, from July. We started in September. The report and the update will be positive in terms of the achievement of those actions at this point.

In fairness, on the question asked by Senator Clonan, I have not been familiar with the request he directly put. I am more than happy to consider that request and discuss it with him but it is not appropriate for me to respond immediately. Doing so would be reactive. I am willing to meet him to discuss what exactly he is asking me to apologise for and to detail it out at that point, if that is satisfactory to him.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that and I await the Chief of Staff's invitation, but it is on the public record and has been so for some time. I appreciate the Chief of Staff's bona fides in that regard, however, and-----

Mr. Se?n Clancy:

In the past 18 months, I would not have been familiar with that.

Tom Clonan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would be delighted to meet him at any time. In the context of all these issues, I have never been approached in the past 23 years by anybody in the organisation despite the fact that I am the person who set out in great detail the causes, patterns and outcomes of this violence, as well as the solutions. All the Defence Forces have to do is talk to me. That is why I take great comfort in Lieutenant General Clancy's words. Jacqui McCrum was the first person in the Department of Defence to speak to me in 23 years and Lieutenant General Clancy is the first Chief of Staff, with the exception of Vice Admiral Mellett, to indicate he is happy to speak to me. That is a positive development. It is a watershed moment for the organisation and I only wish to be constructive and helpful but I have a family and we have endured a great deal of highly targeted reprisal. I have no doubt that when the Chief of Staff and I have that conversation, we should have a productive exchange. I thank him for his words and I await his initiation.

Mr. Se?n Clancy:

I thank the Cathaoirleach. I am conscious that I have not responded to Senator Wilson. I will address some of the issues he raised. If I have missed any points in my responses, we can come back to those issues. The Senator rightly said that the systematic closure of barracks was a policy decision made in the late 1990s and early 2000s, right up to the reorganisation in 2012. I am conscious of the fine barracks that exists in Cavan. I have flown a helicopter onto the helipad there on many occasions and I am familiar with the barracks. It must be borne in mind that it is occupied and utilised by another Department at the moment.

Speaking more widely to the fundamental strategic piece raised by the Senator in respect of recruitment potential and the demographic and geographical distribution thereof, when one does not have a footprint in a particular geographical area, that causes a downturn in the potential. In the context of the organisation, the level of communications and the manner in which we can deliver messaging through various media, we are proactive in trying to be inclusive in terms of from where we bring people. We have a significant number of Cavan people who are barracked in Athlone, for instance. There are a lot of people of the 28th Battalion from that area, and in Dundalk. We are trying to attract people who wish to join the Defence Forces.

The re-engagement of Cavan barracks is a policy issue. It may come into the lens of consideration again, if I may put it that way, in the context of the structural reorganisation and redesign of the Defence Forces. That is yet to be determined in terms of our restructuring and redesign of the organisation.

There was a question on the future of the Defence Forces. All the potential options will be on the table in terms of our restructuring. I will take the Senator's view in that regard on board.

I answered the Cathaoirleach's question on the competitive edge but-----

Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is just a reminder of the question around protected disclosure, the ombudsman, the Air Corps and the Supreme Court ruling.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before the Chief of Staff comes back in, I want to go back to the working time directive. He said the majority of activities fall within the scope of the directive. To follow up on Senator Craughwell's point, have the Chief of Staff or his subordinates asked for any areas to be exempted from the directive? For example, do they see operations involving bomb disposal, naval patrols or aid to the civil power as being covered by the working time directive?

The Chief of Staff mentioned the figure for those currently serving in the Defence Forces as 7,917. That is down 481 people in 13 months. This means that since the commission's report was published last February, nearly 500 members of the Defence Forces have left. Does the Chief of Staff see that as members of the Defence Forces having no confidence in the ability to implement the commission's recommendations and voting with their feet? The institutional loss to the organisation of their doing so is immense. When does the Chief of Staff think there will be a reversal of the haemorrhaging of members we are seeing? Over the last month, another 1% - over 100 members - have left, even though the commission report is there with all its recommendations for how to fix the chronic problems within the Defence Forces. When are we going to see a reversal of the haemorrhaging?

Cathal Berry (Kildare South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I take the Chief of Staff's point that the Permanent Defence Force, comprising the regular troops, is competing with the private sector when it come to recruitment and retention and that is the same across the world, but our Reserve Defence Force is not and it is still perhaps 60% below strength. You can have a job in the private sector and be a member of the Reserve Defence Force. We had an excellent meeting about two weeks ago with the Civil Defence. It is very easy to get into the Civil Defence and easy to stay in it, but for whatever reason it is almost impossible to get into the Reserve Defence Force. Many people who leave the Permanent Defence Force get in touch with us to say they would love to be in the Reserve Defence Force. They might have retired aged 30 years and be fit and healthy. Where is the blockage? From a legislative point of view, you can transfer from the Permanent Defence Force to the Reserve. From a regulatory point of view it is possible. We have heard of a trickle of people who were allowed transfer from the Permanent Defence Force to the Reserve Defence Force. Where is the blockage and can it be removed?

On recruitment to the Reserve, as I said it is easy to get into the Civil Defence. There are no medical or fitness tests. When I joined the Reserve Defence Force it was easy to do. Have we invented barriers that are unnecessary? Now we do not have enough medical officers to implement the rules we are bringing in. I take the Chief of Staff's point that we are outsourcing induction medicals, but we should be in-sourcing induction medicals because they are so important and we need more medical officers. As a last point on the Reserve Defence Force, it was a success of this committee that personnel from the Reserve are now allowed travel overseas on operations. Has that happened yet? If not, when are we likely to see the first members of the Reserve Defence Force deployed overseas? They travel overseas for training to Oberammergau and to the UK, which is exactly as it should be, but have they been deployed operationally and if not, when are we likely to see that happening?

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a few issues. I asked how long it takes from date of application to date of attestation for recruits in the various areas. It is related to what Deputy Berry has been saying with respect to the various barriers. People get tired of waiting and head off somewhere else.

On the psychometric tests, I asked a parliamentary question and received a reply a few weeks later from the military authorities via the Minister. It said the number of tests administered in 2021 was 4,108 and the number of completed tests failed was 2,278. Those figures came from the Defence Forces, and do not imply someone started and could not carry on. When someone starts a psychometric test and does not finish it, we could put questions around that as well. We could be losing many people who would be good in the Defence Forces because of this barrier, which Deputy Berry has alluded to. I have met people who talk about this. It seems insignificant, but I do not think it is.

Mr. Se?n Clancy:

I think I have answered a lot of these. When it comes to the Reserve Defence Force, I refer back to my opening statement. I am not comparing the Reserve Defence Force with the Civil Defence. I cannot accept that comparison. The single force concept is based around the idea everyone is the same, that is, in order for the Reserve Defence Force and the Permanent Defence Force to serve together and integrate, they must be of a similar standard. I think we both accept that for that concept to work it has to be on that basis. Therefore, the bar for entry must be similar in that space. As Deputy Berry rightly pointed out, there is no regulatory barrier to transferring into the first-line reserve, for instance. The corporate memory has been lost to a degree, but these are issues I have tasked the office of Reserve affairs with. As I said, I have put a colonel in charge of that specifically to have a hand on the tiller with these issues, because that had been absent since the reorganisation in 2012. I am aware of all the issues the Deputy has raised and the Reserve affairs office will be addressing those issues through the regeneration. The numbers are down, as the Deputy said. The ideal is to have the medical be internal, but that is not the reality of what we have today. We need to accelerate our ability to induct more quickly through medicals and so on and so forth.

The average timeframe Deputy Stanton asked about is five months from start to finish. I want to improve and enhance that, which is why we are looking at the three areas specifically in terms of it. I accept the Deputy's point, but getting down into the data about failures, non-failures and so and so forth might be different. He was given holistic figures as per the question posed at that time.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I just wanted to clarify that.

Mr. Se?n Clancy:

Those numbers are always evolving anyway, but I accept the Deputy's point we have potential we need to capitalise on. I certainly want to capitalise on it, as does the Tánaiste. I am assured of that. He is exercising us to the fullest degree in this area and we have a monthly meeting with him where recruitment and retention is the sole agenda item. He is very exercised in this space, as he should be. As I said, the leadership he has shown has been first-class since he took over.

Deputy Brady's question was based around the working time directive.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, on any exemptions and on what operations personnel can be rostered for.

Mr. Se?n Clancy:

As I said at the beginning, we have a collaborative approach ongoing. It would not be appropriate at this point in time to jeopardise the discussions and consultations with our stakeholders, but there are areas that are within scope and areas that are not. As I said, the Slovenian judgment has been definitive, in one sense, or instructive. Those discussions are maturing not only with the civil and military part of the stakeholder engagement but also in the consultative space with the representative associations. There will be further meetings later on this week with that, so I do not intend to go into what is or is not within scope. It is not necessarily about exemptions, as scope is what we are talking about here.

Ultimately, this is a matter for the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence, Deputy Micheál Martin, to decide. As I said, when that is done and the heads of Bill have been finalised, it will then be a matter for the Houses of the Oireachtas to finalise the transposition into legislation. With respect, that is as full an answer as I feel it would be appropriate for me to give.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My second point related to the continuous haemorrhaging of staff from the Defence Forces.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Since the publication of the report, 481 people have left the Defence Forces. Is the Chief of Staff concerned that this report has not acted as a catalyst to instil confidence? Is he concerned that members are still voting with their feet and leaving in large numbers? Realistically, when does he think there is going to be a reversal in this regard?

Mr. Se?n Clancy:

I fully recognised the challenges in my opening remarks. This was a specific challenge that I alluded to. I again accept the challenge to be faced in this context. We are working very hard to try to address this matter with our colleagues in the Department of Defence in the context of giving us the edge required to do so. I cannot say with any clarity or certainty when we hope to change this around, but we must certainly bring down the overall figure of 10.72% in turnover. Any healthy military organisation would accept a turnover rate of 5% to 6%, or maybe 7%. When we reach that target, I suggest that we will have moved into a positive growth rate.

Part of this is our recruitment strategy, which is a development concerned with taking in more recruits annually, but also with increasing the impact of our retention initiatives to decrease the figures for those leaving. As stated, we have had an increase of approximately 25% in the numbers of those voluntarily leaving the organisation in the past 12 months. I mentioned that we had a quieter period during Covid-19. It is yet to be determined whether this is an accelerated process or just a consequence of delayed departures post Covid-19. It is too early to make that determinative analysis now. We are, however, very conscious of this point and we will be monitoring it to come to a determination.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand that there are about 200-----

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. That is fine.

Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. I do not think it is, but I will refresh memories. I am conscious that we are approaching the end of our three-hours. I refer to the Chief of Staff's response to the Air Corps failing to comply with the Supreme Court order.

Mr. Se?n Clancy:

Yes.

Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The other question I posed to him concerned the WRC ruling in the Yvonne O'Rourke case around training and what changes, if any, the amendments made in the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022 have made in who is responsible for managing protected disclosures. Is it the Defence Forces or the Department?

Mr. Se?n Clancy:

Starting with the Supreme Court ruling, I will revert to the Deputy on this question if that is okay. The Cathaoirleach offered me the opportunity of reverting on this issue.

Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely.

Mr. Se?n Clancy:

I am conscious that a great deal of time and effort went into replying to and complying with that ruling, but the outcome was not satisfactory to the Supreme Court. It is certainly not the intention to fail to comply. Some time and scope have been given to fulfilling that requirement. I would prefer to come back with a formal response on this aspect.

Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely.

Mr. Se?n Clancy:

The other matter was the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022. A protected disclosure, of course, depends on where it comes in. It is primarily the responsibility of the Department if it comes in on the civil side. Under the Act, however, as the Deputy will be aware, whoever it comes into has a duty of responsibility not to reveal it, to act on it and to establish it, until such time as it can either be discounted as a protected disclosure or we keep progressing it. This is the way we act. We have a protected disclosures office for anything that comes in and is declared under the Defence Forces. Whether a protected disclosure is declared as one or not, it needs to be treated as such initially until it is determined one way or another. This is the approach taken. Likewise, there is a protected disclosures office under the Department of Defence and it takes care of what comes in there. This is the way protected disclosures are treated internally. They are treated under the legislation. We also, of course, under our A7 administration, have our complaints procedure, which covers the grievances under chapters 1 and 2. These cover the extent in this regard from bullying, harassment and sexual harassment under chapter 1, to grievances and complaints under chapter 2. Those aspects are interactive if necessary. Of course, the ultimate end part of this process is through the Office of the Ombudsman, to which reference was made, under that complaints procedure.

The final part of the Deputy's question was on------

Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The WRC ruling.

Mr. Se?n Clancy:

What was the Deputy's specific question on this point?

Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was on the WRC ruling regarding Yvonne O'Rourke, where it was determined that discrimination had taken place. Specific recommendations were made by the WRC in respect of review and training. Has this work started? Has it been completed?

Mr. Se?n Clancy:

Yes, it has. If memory serves, this was at the end of 2020. A group worked for the following year and developed the response to the WRC on this issue. I am just recalling it now. We put in place the training specifically identified in that regard, and this is now embedded in our training before any interview boards, etc., required. The assistant chief of staff attended an interview training course where this would have been embedded. It was a full-day course. This process has, therefore, started and has been implemented. A full report is ongoing in respect of trying to develop the response to the WRC.

Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Chief of Staff stated that a report is being compiled. To whom will it go?

Mr. Se?n Clancy:

It will go to our own internal working group to respond in respect of how we will respond in this regard. I refer to developing the training initiatives, etc., and what we are required to do in the context of the working group that sat for the year to implement the ruling of the WRC. This incorporated our policies and procedures on equality, performance management, promotions and the interviews. We are working through that entire spectrum, and we are determined to implement it. This is in process. Apologies for-----

Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will check back in later. I thank the Chief of Staff.