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.