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.