Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Apologies have been received from Deputy Cowen and Senator Joe O'Reilly. We have members present in person and online from their offices. Our main agenda item this afternoon is meeting the implementation oversight group, IOG, of the high-level action plan for the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces. I am pleased to welcome the chair of the IOG, Ms Julie Sinnamon. I am also pleased to welcome Mr. Eamonn Murtagh, assistant secretary, and Mr. David Byrne, principal officer, from the Department of Defence. While attendance at Oireachtas committees is something to which Ms Sinnamon has become accustomed over the years, I would hazard a guess that this is her first time to appear before the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. She is in her new role and we welcome her.

The format of our meeting is similar to other parliamentary committees insofar as we will hear Ms Sinnamon's opening statement, followed by a questions and answers session with members of the committee. I ask members to be concise with questions to allow everybody an opportunity to participate. While some members are present in the room, there are a number online. I do not see those members online but I understand that Deputy Stanton is online, along with Senator Ardagh and Deputy Leddin. They are welcome and they will participate in the usual way, should they choose.

I remind witnesses and members of the long-standing parliamentary practice that we should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make them identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, any statements that may be potentially defamatory with regard to any identifiable person or entity will result in a direction to discontinue the remarks. It is imperative that any such direction be complied with.

I also want to welcome members of the Defence Forces to the Public Gallery. They are here courtesy of Deputy Berry. I see that they are all both experienced and experts. I hope they find the proceedings to be interesting and stimulating. On behalf of the committee, I call Ms Sinnamon to make her opening statement.

Ms Julie Sinnamon:

As independent chair of the IOG for the Commission on the Defence Forces, I thank the committee for inviting me to address it. It is a welcome opportunity to share the progress that has been made to date regarding the implementation of the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces as approved by Government, and I look forward to hearing the contributions of committee members. I am joined by Mr. Murtagh, one of the Department of Defence members of the committee, and Mr. Byrne, who is involved with the implementation management office. The latter provides the secretariat function to the IOG.

I have held the position of independent chair of the IOG since last November. In total, the group has met six times. The most recent meeting took place last Thursday, 25 May. In my role as independent chair of the IOG, I ensure that the group meets regularly, reviews progress reports, oversees and provides input into the development of the detailed implementation plan for the Commission on the Defence Forces and reports into the high-level steering group. The IOG benefits greatly from the wealth of experience and expertise of its members, who are drawn from within the Department of Defence, the Defence Forces and across a number of Departments at assistant secretary general level or military equivalent. The IOG meetings provide an excellent opportunity for members to provide input on specific recommendations from their Department’s perspective, and on the development of the detailed implementation plan in general. To date, the focus of the IOG has been the overseeing and driving of progress in the implementation of the 38 early actions set out in the high-level action plan for the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces, much of which has involved putting in place the foundations and structures to support the proposed transformative change.

As members will be aware, the independent review group on dignity and equality issues in the Defence Forces published its report on 28 March. The Government agreed to establish an external oversight body of the Defence Forces, on a non-statutory basis initially, in line with one of the 13 recommendations in the report. The Tánaiste has set out his view that the immediate establishment of this external oversight body is a critical element to driving the necessary culture change throughout the Defence Forces and increasing transparency and accountability. While my appearance today is in my capacity as the independent chair of the IOG for the Commission on the Defence Forces, I have also been appointed as a member of this external oversight body.

Before going into further detail regarding our progress to date, I take this opportunity to provide context to the role of the IOG and its work to date relating to the Commission on the Defence Forces. As members are all aware, the establishment of a Commission on the Defence Forces was a commitment in the programme for Government. In December 2020, the Government authorised the establishment of the commission and agreed its terms of reference and membership. The terms of reference covered the structures and size of the Defence Forces, defence capabilities, HR policies and strategies, the Reserve Defence Force, governance and high-level command and control in the Defence Forces and pay structures. The work of the commission was carried out against the backdrop of the defence policy framework set out in the White Paper 2015 and the White Paper update 2019, both of which were developed by joint civil and military teams.

Following 13 months of intensive work carried out by the commission members, the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces was published in February 2022. The report contained 130 recommendations in total, and recommended widespread and unprecedented changes for the Defence Forces and defence provision in Ireland. The commission emphasised the urgent need for cultural transformation within the Defence Forces. In response to the report, a memorandum and a high-level action plan, including a response to all 130 recommendations, were brought to Government and approved on 12 July 2022. The Government approved a move, over a six-year period, to a level of Defence Forces’ capability equivalent to level of ambition, LOA, 2, as set out in the capability framework devised by the commission, which will entail funding increases to reach a defence budget of €1.5 billion at January 2022 prices by 2028, to be agreed through the annual Estimates process. This represents the largest funding increase for defence in the history of the State.

The high-level action plan which I have just referred to was produced by a civil-military team comprising of personnel from the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces. The plan was launched following a period of extensive engagement across the Defence Forces, as well as with a wide range of other stakeholders and various Departments. The high-level action plan noted that the commission’s report contained 69 main recommendations, which together with sub-recommendations, comprised 130 recommendations in total. The high-level action plan grouped all 130 recommendations under five strategic objectives as follow: strategic HR and cultural change to be delivered; new command and control and joint structures to be established; services to be reformed and restructured; Reserve Defence Force to be revitalised; and joint capability development to be implemented. In addition to the five strategic objectives, a separate enabling workstream captured the necessary building blocks required for implementation of many of the recommendations within the report. These include: Government defence LOA defined; implementation structures developed; defence budget allocation agreed; key HR enablers developed; and strategic defence review progressed.

The high-level action plan set out a total of 38 early actions to be completed within six months of the Government decision.

The plan also set out implementation and oversight structures, including a high-level steering board chaired by the Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach, an IOG with an independent chair, and a civil–military implementation management office. The membership of the high-level steering board includes Secretaries General from the Department of the Taoiseach, the Department of Defence, the Department of Justice, the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, and the Department of Foreign Affairs, and also the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces. In addition to holding the position of independent chair of the IOG, I also sit on the high-level steering board.

The purpose of the high-level steering board is to oversee the implementation of the recommendations in Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces, as approved by the Government. In addition to supporting and guiding the implementation, the board will also act as a clearinghouse for issues that cannot be resolved or where particular blockages are being experienced in the implementation of the commission's recommendations. The purpose of the IOG is to oversee and drive progress on the implementation of the recommendations of the commission.

The membership of the IOG includes senior representatives from the Department of the Taoiseach, the Department of Justice, the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the National Cyber Security Centre. It also includes me, as the independent chair, two assistant secretaries from the Department of Defence and two deputy chiefs of staff from the Defence Forces. It will include the Defence Forces head of transformation, who is due to be appointed shortly.

The high-level action plan identified 38 early actions to progress several key recommendations from the commission's report that would provide the necessary building blocks to develop a detailed implementation plan. The commission's report identified five core areas to be addressed in an implementation plan, and these were captured in the high-level action plan as the five strategic objectives that I have referred to. The detailed implementation plan will also be structured around these five strategic objectives.

Intensive work has been carried out on this plan over recent months. The implementation management office has provided updates on the progress of the implementation plan to the IOG throughout the process. As the Tánaiste has stated previously – I wholeheartedly agree – it is important for this plan to be completed expeditiously, but it is more important that we get it right. This is particularly important in the context of the recent publication of the report of the independent review group on dignity and equality issues in the Defence Forces. The detailed implementation plan will set out how the commission's recommendations are to be delivered up to 2028. The scale of the proposed transformation effort is unprecedented and there is much work to do in the months and years ahead.

While acknowledging the scale of the task that lies ahead, I would like to reflect on what has been achieved to date. On 23 March this year, a comprehensive update on the 38 early actions was published. At that time, 80% of the early actions were fully completed, with the remainder substantially progressed. Since the publication of this update, several additional early actions have been completed, including the design of gender, diversity and unconscious bias training and the commencement of the strategic defence review. Further progress on the early actions is ongoing. Throughout the early-action phase, the Commission on the Defence Forces implementation management office reported to the IOG regarding the progress on, and the status of, the early actions, including the development of a detailed implementation plan.

Some of the key achievements to date include Government approval to move to LOA 2, with funding to be increased to €1.5 billion, based on 2022 prices, by 2028, to be agreed upon through the annual Estimates process. This represents the largest investment in defence in the history of the State.

The head of transformation and head of strategic human resources positions have been advertised externally and substantially progressed, with appointments to both of these roles to be made shortly. These positions are key to the success of the transformation programme. Recruitment and induction strategies, encompassing advertising, expanded recruitment and induction capacity, have been developed.

The Office of Reserve Affairs has been established. Ministerial consent for temporary associate membership of ICTU, for the purpose of participation in discussions on national pay agreements, was provided for the representative associations in May 2022. Pay has improved as a result of increases arising from the findings of the Public Service Pay Commission's report and from recent pay agreements and the early implementation of some of the recommendations of the Commission on the Defence Forces. The implementation of two of these recommendations, namely, that personnel of private three-star or able seaman rank be paid the full rate of military service allowance applicable to the rank and that the requirement for that cohort to mark time for the first three years at that rank be removed, has had a substantial impact on starting pay rates in the Defence Forces, and the rates compare very well with starting pay rates across the public service.

In addition, the Building Momentum pay agreement extension allows for increases in pay of 6.5% over the lifetime of the agreement. Since 1 March 2023, pay rates have started at €37,147 in year 1 for a recruit on the completion of basic training, €41,123 for a school-leaver cadet on commissioning and €46,406 for a graduate cadet on commissioning. All figures include military service allowance, which is pensionable.

I thank my colleagues in the IOG and the high-level steering board for their invaluable contribution to the process so far. I acknowledge the importance of the collaborative work carried out by the Defence Forces and the Department of Defence. As a group, we have monitored the progress of the implementation of the early actions over the past several months, and we are satisfied with the progress to date, with the vast majority of early actions fully completed and the remainder substantially progressed. The progress to date has laid strong foundations for future work to deliver on this critical agenda.

The Tánaiste and Minister for Defence, Deputy Micheál Martin, has highlighted the importance of the recommendations of the Commission on the Defence Forces and that the strategic framework being put in place to drive these through will be an important enabling mechanism for the delivery of the independent review group's actions. I understand that the Tánaiste's priority now is to ensure that there is one strategic plan for the transformation of the Defence Forces, fully understood by everyone, with appropriate governance and reporting mechanisms and properly resourced, and also to ensure that progress will be seen internally and reported externally. Clear and irrefutable evidence of change on the ground is the only thing that will rebuild the confidence of serving members and enhance the trust of the public they serve.

I thank the Cathaoirleach for inviting me here today and look forward to hearing members' thoughts and views on matters relating to the Commission on the Defence Forces.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Sinnamon for that rather comprehensive opening statement. I now turn to members for their observations and questions. We will start with Deputy Carthy. He will be followed by Deputy Berry.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank our guests, particularly Ms Sinnamon, for being here and giving us that broad update.

I am concerned about the pace of implementation. It is well over a year since the publication of the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces. There are always ways in which the manner in which we meet stated objectives can be set out, and we have been told that 80% of the 38 early actions have been implemented or largely implemented. I am concerned because I believe early actions means early implementation of those actions, which would lead to broader concern regarding the wider set of recommendations that will exist. Ms Sinnamon referred to the recruitment and induction plan. When will that be at the implementation stage? What is the timeline for the joint induction training centre?

A major area of concern relates to the current numbers in the Defence Forces and the fact that we are well below the establishment figures. We are quite a bit off the commission's proposals on option 2, to the tune of some 3,500.

Ms Sinnamon spoke about the pay scales and some of the progress made in this regard. Is there any discernible evidence that these changes have already impacted, particularly in respect of retention? Have retention rates improved? Is there any further evidence in terms of recruitment rates that can be pointed to at this stage?

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will take a number of questions from Deputies and then go back to Ms Sinnamon. Does the Deputy have further questions?

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but they may be answered in the response to my previous question, if the Cathaoirleach understands what I mean?

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. I will take a brief response at this stage from Ms Sinnamon and then go back to the Deputy.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I refer in particular to the retention and recruitment aspect because the answers might negate some of my other questions.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but if we are going to do this based on single questions, we will be here for a long time. I invite Ms Sinnamon to answer Deputy Carthy's specific question. I will then go back to the Deputy for further questions and then call Deputy Berry.

Ms Julie Sinnamon:

To start with the issue of pace, when we issued our first report, in March this year, 80% of the early actions had been completed. Since then, we have made further progress and more than 90% of the early actions have now been completed. In fact, when I look at the actions that have not been completed, one of those was the development of a detailed implementation plan. This plan is now at an advanced stage. One of the issues that has delayed it has been the independent review group report on the establishment of an external oversight body, the development of the terms of reference for that body, the potential interface of both of those and ensuring the implementation plan is comprehensive. The work is at an advanced stage and it has been indicated that it will be done by the end of the second quarter. The implementation plan is scheduled to be published by the end of June. The implementation plan was one delay.

Regarding external change management support, again there was a tendering issue in respect of the diversity and gender training element. This has now been completed and the gender training is scheduled to start in June. The third item still outstanding is the working time directive. This is much more complicated and has taken much longer than we expected. There has been a great deal of engagement in recent weeks, it is moving ahead at pace at this stage and it will be implemented. The Tánaiste has said it is a key priority to get this done as soon as possible and a lot of effort is going into it. I share the Deputy's concerns about the pace. We would all like to see this happening much faster but the key priority here is to ensure this is done as fast as possible but also as comprehensively as possible. This has been the reason for the delay.

On the pay scales and the turnaround in retention rates, a two-pronged approach is being taken. The first is concerned with increasing the recruitment level. Significant work is being done on advertising and promotion, particularly concerning the pay scales and the work done on them, which I referred to in my opening comments. The second issue is retention. As has been the case in many change management processes in which I have been involved, the time taken is always much longer than expected. I would not have expected to see a significant turnaround at this stage. The evidence suggests there is still a lot of work to be done before we see the impact. That is why the implementation of all the measures in this commission report is critical to addressing the retention issues, as well as being able to deliver the recruitment. There is no evidence at this stage to show the issue has been reversed. For this reason, it is critical that we get the implementation plan finalised and I, as chair of the implementation group, ensure we implement actions in line with it.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps one of the representatives of the Department will give an update on the working time directive, which I understand requires legislative measures to be introduced. I would like to get a timeframe for that.

Ms Sinnamon mentioned the high-level action plan approved last July. It has virtually been a year since then. At that point, the Government approved changes to be made over six years. I am always wary of action plans that extend over long periods. The Government's tendency is to back-load, especially the financial commitments. What often happens then, of course, is that there are competing demands when we get to the end of the process. Perhaps Ms Sinnamon or a representative of the Department could indicate whether moves are afoot to provide significantly for some of the capital investment commitments that will be required in 2024. In other words, I am asking if we will see these contained in this year's budget. This will very much be a statement of intent on the part of the Government. This is particularly the case when we are in a much-vaunted situation in respect of the Exchequer returns this year. It appears to me that now is the time to make some of these major investments that will be required, particularly ion terms of resources.

Regarding some of the reasons we need to have improved figures for recruitment and retention, one is to ensure the Defence Forces can do what we expect them to do. Will Ms Sinnamon outline what work has been undertaken at this stage concerning the Reserve Defence Force, RDF? I would describe the current status of the RDF as one of having critically low numbers. On the approach taken by the Government, one reason our Defence Forces have such an esteemed reputation across the world is due to the role they have played in UN missions specifically. I note that to engage in an EU battle group scenario, we essentially had to remove our troops from the UN Disengagement Observer Force, UNDOF, mission in the Golan Heights in Syria. That is a concern for me. In the March 2023 update, reference is made to an additional 20 missions or observer status missions in the context of permanent structured co-operation, PESCO. Can anybody provide information regarding what this might mean for other, existing UN-mandated missions the Defence Forces might be involved in and how our capacity to deal with all these competing challenges can be met with the current numbers of personnel in the Defence Forces?

Ms Julie Sinnamon:

To go back to the implementation plan for a moment, I share the view that if a plan covers an extensive period there are concerns that everything will get back-loaded. The format of the plan we will be developing is that it will show what is going to happen in 2023, in 2024 and then from 2025 to 2028. There is, therefore, a focus on ensuring the plan is accelerating as much as possible to bring forward developments in 2023 and 2024. It is not just going to set out what will bed one; there will be timelines for everything. This is what the implementation group is going to be overseeing to ensure the plan is delivered in line with those timeframes. It will be time specific in that regard.

The capital investment increase and the figures for 2023 were record amounts for the Defence Forces, from a budgetary perspective. The 2024 budget has not been agreed yet, as the Deputy will be aware, but in order for this plan to be delivered the budget will have to be increased to bring it to the 2028 level as set out in the plan.

To go back to one of the points the Deputy made on the joint induction centre, this has been established now in Gormanston barracks.

It will provide initial training for recruits from all branches of the Defence Forces, including the Army, Naval Service and Air Corps, based on a common syllabus. This is in place.

The office of the Reserve Defence Force has been established and a senior person has been appointed at colonel level from the Defence Forces. Recruitment will continue once the initial appointment has been made. A draft campaign plan for Reserve Defence Force regeneration had been submitted to the Deputy Chief of Staff for observations. Progress has been made on that side at that level. I cannot answer the question on disengagement from the Golan Heights. I will have a response submitted to the Deputy subsequently on it.

Mr. Eamonn Murtagh:

As Ms Sinnamon outlined, there is ongoing engagement and consultation with the representative associations, Defence Forces management and the Department on the exemptions from the working time directive. These are intensive and it is hoped they will be concluded soon. As Ms Sinnamon said, the Tánaiste's intention is to progress legislation as quickly as possible thereafter. It is progressing intensively at present.

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

I welcome Ms Sinnamon and I hope she will be a regular visitor before the committee as the process continues. I agree with a lot of the comments that have been made. I acknowledge that some progress has been made in the 15 months since the commission reported. Membership of ICTU for PDFORRA and RACO was a sacred cow. We thought the world would fall in if they ever got affiliated to ICTU but it is business as usual and the sun comes up. It is a classic example of what can be achieved. It was very low-hanging fruit but it makes a huge difference.

There has been good progress for people with fewer than three years' service. There is very little for people with more than three years' service but a moderate improvement for people with fewer than that. This should help with recruitment, probably not with retention but with recruitment for sure.

Three Air Corps aircraft are due in the next two years. One, the Airbus 295, will be here in four weeks' time. This will be a game changer as regards what we can do over the Atlantic. A maritime patrol aircraft is coming in September and a third aircraft will be here in approximately two years' time. This will be the first troop transporter freighter that Ireland has ever had. It will give us great capability for evacuating our citizens abroad. Those are the good points.

The concerns I have are about the pace and I echo the points made by Deputy Carthy and Ms Sinnamon. The pace has been quite slow, particularly when we look at what is happening throughout Europe. Everyone else seemed to scale up their defence capability within weeks of the invasion of Ukraine. We are still very slow and moving at the pace of a snail. This is having an effect. People are looking at our retention rates and asking whether we are serious. We have to demonstrate intent. That is why it is so important.

The concerns I have from a capability point of view are primarily with regard to radar. We were told there would be primary radar coverage soon over Ireland. We are the only EU country without it. There is no legal impediment to it. There is cross-party support for it. There was great razzmatazz and it was announced with great fanfare but it seems to have completely disappeared off the radar, if you will pardon the pun. The key question I have, and the one most people in the committee have, is when will Ireland have primary radar coverage of our airspace like every other EU country. It is a reasonable request. We can get tied up in processes or we can focus on the product. If any project management is being done, there should be an end date or at least a tentative timeline.

The Commission on the Defence Forces also recommended that two new Augusta Westland 139 helicopters be purchased to assist the aeromedical service in Athlone. I am not sure where this project is at. It was recommended but it has not materialised.

My next point is something small but it is important. The reason I mention it is that it is more low-hanging fruit, just like ICTU membership. It is with regard to defence attachés. Every country in the EU bar Ireland deploys defence attachés abroad. We even have an international defence attaché in the Gallery, who is very welcome. We receive international defence attachés to Ireland but we have never deployed one. I do not know where the blockage is. Culturally, official Ireland is apparently against appointing defence attachés. For me, this is important because they are plugged into the intelligence ecosystem. They scan the horizon and provide early warning.

To be frank, Ireland was very poorly prepared for the Ukrainian conflict breaking out. We look at how the influx of refugees and displaced people has not been managed as optimally as it should have been and the cost of energy and business supports. If we had defence attachés plugged into London, Washington and France, our level of preparedness would have been better. Perhaps from a capability point of view, the independent chair could focus on primary radar coverage, the two helicopters and defence attachés. If these were delivered, it would certainly help from a seriousness point of view.

I want to focus on people. The only real metric that matters is the headcount in the organisation. If we want to get a barometer on whether things are improving, we should look at the headcount. Unfortunately the headcount has been dropping consistently, even in the past 15 months. People are losing confidence in the process. There are only 7,800 people in the Defence Forces now. There used to be 10,500. The number has dropped 25% in the past ten years. That is awful. If any other profession was dropping its strength by 25%, it would cause mayhem downstream.

We are going through a tumultuous period in the Defence Forces. Not only have the numbers not stabilised but they are continuing to drop. The Chair will probably back me up when I say that last week in this very room we had a positive meeting with the National Cyber Security Centre, NCSC. Its numbers have doubled in the past 12 months. It was very clear that if we get the premises, the pay rates and the people right, the numbers will increase. If we get the same system in place for the Defence Forces, there is no reason they cannot be turned around. The NCSC pays appropriately and has people properly accommodated in proper premises. There is a sense of purpose about the entity. That is why people want to serve on it and the numbers are increasing. There is a clue there from the Defence Forces point of view.

Ms Sinnamon was good to mention the detailed implementation plan. This is the last chance saloon for the Defence Forces. Will Ms Sinnamon provide any clarity on or indicate when the implementation plan will go to the Government? Will it be published before the Dáil recess on 14 July? We really need to see front-loaded details, as Deputy Carthy said.

I want to highlight an issue with the patrol duty allowance for a military sailor to go to sea. It is set at approximately €60 a day before tax. This is completely unacceptable. It needs to be at least doubled and probably trebled. It can be doubled for the cost of €3 million a year. This is the Jesus nut for the Naval Service; it is the single point of failure holding the Naval Service back. I am sure Senator Craughwell will back me up when I say that if the patrol duty allowance for the Naval Service is fixed, then the Naval Service will be fixed. The numbers will stabilise very quickly and the force will regenerate over time.

We have bought two decommissioned New Zealand ships for €26 million but we have no crew for them. There are already echoes of the e-voting machine debacle. People are saying the ships were purchased because they are smaller vessels and they are easier to crew. If we extend that logic, it would by like saying we should close down the big hospitals in Ireland and build smaller ones to solve the nursing and doctor retention problems. There is a perverse logic to it. Focusing on patrol duty allowance will make a huge difference.

The Army Ranger Wing allowance is a lightning rod for discontentment in the Defence Forces. They are our best troops. A cast-iron pay award was given to them approximately a decade ago which has not been honoured by the Government. If these people were paid properly, the narrative would change throughout the Defence Forces because they would finally see the Government was serious about fixing pay rates.

Long-service increments are also an issue. I fully accept and very much welcome the improvements in pay for people with fewer than three years' service. People with more than that have seen almost no improvement. If we are looking to improve retention rates, the long-service increments, which have been approved by the Government and are included in the Commission on the Defence Forces report and the high-level action plan, need to be implemented.

I want to ask about interaction with the representative associations.

Has Ms Sinnamon met PDFORRA, or Reserve Defence Force Representative Association, RDFRA, and the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers, RACO, one to one? If she has not it is something she should consider if she wants to know what is actually happening on the ground and cut through all of the layers, and to know whether her proposals and policies are actually having an effect. They should be the first point of call.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Berry. There are a lot of issues there Ms Sinnamon.

Ms Julie Sinnamon:

I will start with the head count issue the Deputy raised. It is a substantial issue. That is why, in order to reverse it the recruitment side needs to be stepped up and more changes will be needed in addition to those made to date. In terms of the positioning, we must ensure people are aware of the total package and that it is not just about the finances but all of the reasons why people will join either the Defence Forces or any other career. Some progress has been made on the presentation of that, that is one focus. Then there is the retention issue; the package of measures in this commission report are really essential and the implementation of those as quickly as possible is critical. The work that will also be undertaken by the external oversight body set up in response to the independent review group, IRG, will also support the retention issues, as well as the financial side. As the Deputy noted and acknowledged some progress has been made, but there are 130 recommendations. Some of those, for example, the long service increments etc., will need further evaluation before implementation and those are things that will be part of that plan in order to progress it.

The defence attachés point the Deputy made is not something I have picked up to date in my engagement on this. I can take his comments on board and revert to him. I cannot answer that any more specifically at this stage. The patrol duty allowances are again not one of the immediate actions which have been prioritised or that we have made progress on. Those are issues that will need further evaluation and implementation. I am happy to have heard the Deputy's inputs today and we can feed those back to the system.

I have not met any of the representatives of PDFORRA to date. It would be useful to have that engagement. To date I have focused on the members of the Defence Forces and the Department of Defence, and reading myself into a new world. I have not met any of those representative bodies but that is something I intend to do.

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

Apologies for not being in the committee room today but I have a problem with one of my eyes and am minding myself. I welcome the witnesses and thank them for their presentation. I will not go over some of the questions colleagues have already asked. The last time the Chief of Staff was in I asked him about the aptitude tests, the psychometric testing. When people visit the Department of Defence's website the first thing they come across is, "practice your psychometric test here". Has Ms Sinnamon practised that test at all? Did she or members of her team have a go at it? I suggest it is quite off-putting and from the figures I received over the last number of years, in some years up to 50% of people who actually attempted and completed a test failed it. That is probably after practising it. If we talk about recruitment and this is the first thing people come up against, they might not even complete the test because it is quite off-putting and quite long. Has Ms Sinnamon actually practised this test herself to have a look at it? This is the very first thing youngsters will come across when they visit the Department's website and I put it to her that it is extraordinarily off-putting and quite difficult. It is a major obstacle course for people to be involved in this. I know it is a very practical exercise but people have told me they tried the test and gave up.

My second question is whether Ms Sinnamon has looked at or will look at the length of time it takes to join the Defence Forces from initial application and expression of interest right to attestation, at all levels? I put it that it takes quite a long time and during that period people can lose interest and move on to something else. Is that part of what Ms Sinnamon is looking at?

My third question is around the revitalisation of the Reserve Defence Forces. Can Ms Sinnamon comment on how she sees that going, what timescale we have there, and what has been done to date in respect of that?

When were the head of transformation and head of strategic HR positions advertised? How is it taking so long for those appointments to be made? The last time the Chief of Staff was in was months back, I think, and he said it was imminent. These are hugely important positions but we still do not have them.

Ms Julie Sinnamon:

On Deputy Stanton's first question about psychometric testing and whether I have done it, I have not. I have done more than my share of them throughout my career but I have not looked at those. One of the things under way is a review of recruitment processes which will hopefully address this issue. I cannot speak for either of my colleagues and whether they have ever done the psychometric tests but a review of the recruitment processes from A to Z is essential to make sure we are making it as streamlined as possible.

Regarding the two positions the Deputy spoke about, I am happy to report that the head of transformation appointment has been made and the person will take up post next week. A head of strategic HR has been appointed. There are a number of minor points to be finalised but that appointment has been confirmed. It has taken some time but those appointments have been finalised. The initial position has been set up in the office of the Reserve Defence Forces and the rest of the teams are being recruited to beef that up.

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

Could Ms Sinnamon give three, four, or five actions that will take place to aim to revitalise the Reserve Defence Forces? What are the top four or five issues there that Ms Sinnamon would like to see happening, and to happen pretty soon?

Ms Julie Sinnamon:

I do not have the detail of those four or five actions. I can revert to the Deputy with what is being proposed and what has been progressed against them. A colonel has been appointed to the office of reserve affairs. A draft campaign plan for reserve forces regeneration was completed in April and submitted to the deputy chief of staff for operations, but I can revert to Deputy Stanton with some of the specific details in that plan.

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

Are there plans to revitalise the first line reserve? I have been told that the number of people involved in it at the moment are three officers, 43 non-commissioned officers, and 229 privates, which seems extraordinarily small. Does Ms Sinnamon have any comment on the first line reserve?

Ms Julie Sinnamon:

I am not involved in that level of detail on the first line reserve so, again, I suggest we come back to the Deputy with more detail on that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms Julie Sinnamon:

Will the Senator just repeat the last point he made?

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

Yes, the aid to the civil power. It is my understanding that there was to be an immediate focus on getting rid of the aid to the civil power taskings that are no longer a requirement given the security situation in the country. However, it appears that not one of those taskings has been stood down. If we are committing troops to things that are no longer necessary and if they are doing something they see as wasteful, it is a further disincentive to people to remain in the Defence Forces.

The commission recommended a whole-of government air and maritime services needs analysis to take place in the short term. This was specifically recommended to avoid unnecessary duplication and capability development across different Departments and agencies and to ensure greater coherence across Government and delivery of greater value to the taxpayer. Given we have just been told today that the preferred bidder for the next search and rescue contract has been accepted, and I congratulate those involved and tell them I will be watching them like a hawk, there was, apparently, no cross-departmental thinking on this that I can say I am satisfied was at a proper level. The same applies to our Naval Service. We have Revenue Commissioners personnel and we have Naval Service personnel all going to sea. There is huge concern among sailors I have spoken to about the two new ships that were bought. They have told me that they are not suitable for the tasking for which they are intended. I am no expert in maritime issues but I would be somewhat concerned about the purchasing process. Was a full appraisal done? Were people from the navy involved in the purchase of the ships? Did they recommend the purchase? We could go to the bother of getting the information under FOI but they are questions that needs to be answered.

Regarding serving members, tomorrow we commemorate the shooting of Private Billy Kedian in the Lebanon and some people who served with him are still serving today. Some of them are suffering from PTSD and, from what I understand, there is no real care being provided in this area. This is something that has happened in most armies around the world. It has taken them time to come to terms with the issue.

Regarding the pensionability of the military service allowance, MSA, are the witnesses aware that when it was brought in, it excluded a whole raft of people who had been paid the military service allowance while serving but it was not made pensionable for them? To me, this is a disgrace. The people, mainly men, served this State and were in full receipt of the military service allowance, but because of a date on a calendar, they were excluded from the pensionability of it.

I did not want to bring up this last issue, which the independent review which Ms Sinnamon adverted to in her report. It is extremely distressing to members and former members, like myself, of the Defence Forces, that the report has been taken as fact when all it is is an exploration of what happened. Would Ms Sinnamon accept that until such a time that there is a sworn inquiry and evidence taken under the normal rules of evidence, we should not be playing up the independent review group report and that we should accept is as something that needs further investigation?

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not going to pre-empt what the chair of the implementation oversight group is going to say in response to Senator Craughwell. However, it strikes me that there are some issues, the detail of which might not be over the work programme of the committee. In any event, I will allow Ms Sinnamon to respond.

Ms Julie Sinnamon:

My role as chair of the implementation oversight group is a high-level role in terms of ensuring the implementation. I do not have the level of detail on a number of the issues which clearly the Senator has from his own direct experience. I am very happy to bring back a number of points the Senator has raised and discuss them with both the Defence Forces and the Department of Defence. However, I am not-----

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

I fully accept that. I needed to put those on the record so that we get answers for them. I fully accept it may not be in Ms Sinnamon's gift to answer today.

Ms Julie Sinnamon:

Regarding the Senator's point on the budget and €3 billion versus what has been agreed, the level of ambition 2 has been accepted but it does not mean that, at a point in time, the level of ambition 3 is off the table. It is quite a stretch to get to the level of ambition 2 and we will take it from there. It does not mean the other is not the case.

On the Senator's point about psychometric testing versus skills-based testing, I do not think it is an either-or.

I have seen the value of psychometric testing and I am also a big believer in the need for the skills testing.

Regarding one-size-fits-all, that is a constant issue not just in the military versus public service, but across the public service. Things like military service allowances recognise that there are different requirements from different roles, across the public service and the military.

I do not have the detail on the mandatory retirement issue. I can see the implications of it in terms of the people who are eligible and it is also something I will bring back.

The Senator raised the capability development issue. A process has been put in place. He is correct that at this point Defence Forces people have not been appointed to that body, but those appointments are in the immediate term. It is something that is very live as we speak.

Regarding the Reserve Defence Force, the Civil Defence has no problem recruiting. The Government has accepted the need to reach Level of Ambition 2, which involves substantial budget increases. The year 2023 so far has seen record increases in budget. The Minister's commitment to seeing this plan implemented it is evident from all he has said and from the first year's budget that has been provided.

On a whole-of-government maritime service redevelopment, I will report that back. I do not have an answer on that nor can I answer what role the Naval Service had in the selection of the ships that were selected. I presume there was a substantial element but I do not have that specific detail.

The IOG has been a major report in terms of highlighting issues. The Minister has been very clear about the steps that need to follow it. The report is consistent with many previous reports and things that were alluded to in the commission report, etc. We all recognise the need to implement cultural change. That is a significant element of the retention issues we also discussed.

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

I might come back quickly on the RDF and the implication of barracks closures throughout the country. For example, if I live in Sligo and want to become a member of the RDF, where do I go? Do I go to Athlone, Finner Camp or Dún Uí Mhaoilíosa in Galway? We have broken the RDF by not having units locally. When I was in the RDF as a very young man, every Tuesday night every street corner in Galway had fellows standing in uniform waiting to go to whichever unit they were in. Every Sunday morning saw the same thing. I cannot see any incentive for anybody living 30 or 40 miles away from barracks to be any part of the RDF. We need to go back to having people located on the ground within the villages. I offer that as advice more than anything else. If I live in Kilkee, there should be soldiers in Kilkee who would who run a military base in Kilkee.

Ms Julie Sinnamon:

One of the roles for the person who has been appointed to the office of the RDF is to identify how we can regenerate it. There is a challenge in doing that. In my role as chair of the oversight group, I will be watching the progress there. I do not underestimate the challenge.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will come back to Deputy Carthy in a minute. I convey to the chair of the oversight group a certain level of frustration on the part of members, which I am sure has been evident during this hearing. We have been involved since the commission was sitting. We had a very useful engagement with the chair of the commission and we made our contributions. We monitored the workings. Some members met individually and bilaterally with other members of the commission, particularly those with international expertise and experience, all of which was very valuable. We welcomed the landmark publication of the report.

In Ms Sinnamon's submission, the word "urgent" appears. In the commission report, the word "urgent" appears on a number of occasions. That would seem obvious in the context of armed forces which have been chronically underfunded, evidence of which is clear to us as members with staff morale at its lowest in the history of the State and poor equipment is evident. Committee members have had the opportunity of visiting the Air Corps at Baldonnel, the Naval Service at Haulbowline and the Curragh. We saw at first-hand the consequences of a poor level of investment over many years. We have had a failure of recruitment. We now have approximately 8,000 Defence Forces members, which is 3,500 less than what it should be, as Deputy Berry said. This is the background to the urgency.

We have not even mentioned the issue of war and conflict in Europe, geopolitical instability and active threats on European soil. That has resulted in the type of frustration the members are conveying. It is not frustration levelled at the implementation oversight group, but we must stress the need for deadlines to be met. That is my question really. The commission identified 2025 as a reasonable target date for the delivery of the entire transformation. This is mid-2023 and next year is 2024. How confident is Ms Sinnamon that these deadlines can be met?

The commission has said that the representative organisations will have a crucial role in supporting the implementation process, yet these meetings do not appear to have taken place. The commission identified a number of early-stage wins, including the appointment of the oversight group, the external recruitment of a head of transformation, the strategic HR manager, the creation of the office of reserve affairs and the creation of a capability development unit, all of which is under way, but none of which has been rolled out after a year of deliberation.

In the context of Ms Sinnamon's appointment, what assurances did she receive from the Minister or the Government that she will be able to carry out her work in a way that will not be restricted? I can think of two restrictions. One of these is legislation and the other is budgets. We have seen the budget and the acceptance by the Government and the underlining by the Dáil of LAO2. In her view, will this be sufficient to allow the implementation process to be successful? Regarding legislation, what guarantees has she received from the Minister that the legislation will be published? The publication of a Bill, of course, is only the start of the process. We here have an important role in this regard, as does the plenary meeting of Parliament.

It seems that the target date of 2025 is ambitious but needs to be achieved. I say this having regard to the content of the report, the real need to see the transformation process implemented in a way that can ensure a morale boost for our Army and allow Ireland to be seen, domestically and internationally, to be taking defence seriously. This is not evident in the context of our deliberations on the international stage with visiting delegations.

I refer to this committee's role in engaging with witnesses in the context of foreign affairs issues and hearing regularly that the situation in Ireland cannot continue in terms of our investment in respect of the manner in which our Defence Forces play a role in society, having regard in recent times to issues such as hybrid aggression, cyberattacks, capabilities to manipulate our systems, organised crime, espionage and energy insecurity. This is before we look at the conflict in Ukraine and the entire weakness of our maritime resources. In this context, Ms Sinnamon has an extremely important role. How confident is she that the implementation process can take place in a way that is not in any way restricted by forces that might try to ensure this might not take place as smoothly as we would like?

Ms Julie Sinnamon:

I fully understand the frustrations of the committee. The 130 recommendations in the commission's report and the issues that need to be addressed are essential and the word "urgent" is important. I refer to a sense of urgency in respect of the speed at which this endeavour is undertaken. The Minister, I believe, in terms of his commitment to the legislative requirements to implement this process, is on the record publicly and has stated on several occasions this must happen. I believe, from the dialogue I have had with him, and having heard and read the statements he has made on the subject, that this is something he is totally committed to. This is something that is important. I refer as well to the importance of the early actions and that we are sitting here now and three of these early actions have not been completed. There is a very good reason, however, that these have not happened. It is a result of the IRG report and of needing to ensure that one aspect does not go ahead of the other. There is an implementation plan, which must be comprehensive. We cannot go out to tender for consultancies to support it without knowing exactly what the parameters of that implementation plan will be.

From my direct dealings with the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces, through the IOG and the high-level steering group, I believe this plan is being given the priority it needs in terms of delivery, including undertaking change and transformative change at the level set out in the original commission report. If we then also take into consideration the implementation of recommendations arising from the IRG report, to which the Minister has again indicated his commitment, the important thing here is that this change does happen. Between the high-level steering group, the IOG and the external oversight body arising from the IRG report, there will be a great deal of focus on ensuring real change happens and the Defence Forces get the commitment and the funding they need. This has been committed up to the LOA2 and 2028 is the associated timetable for this to be achieved in the budget set out.

Based on the first year we have seen, there has been a significant increase. Budgets to date have been delivered for the first year of this process. The quick wins in terms of making progress include addressing the pay issues we talked about. Medical insurance was another important aspect. In recent weeks as well, the Minister brought into the House the command-and-control changes in this regard. This process is now starting. There is a vast array of complex issues on which we have seen progress made relative to many other projects. It is frustrating they are not complete, but at the same time a great deal of progress has been made. These building blocks have been put in place. This implementation plan, scheduled to be completed by the end of the second quarter, which is the end of June, is very important. This is what I as the independent chair will be holding the system accountable for in respect of the specific actions and timeframes, which will include this year, next year and right up to 2028.

Ms Julie Sinnamon:

On this issue, and I am speaking as a County Down woman-----

Ms Julie Sinnamon:

-----although the recruitment issue has been addressed, I have not picked up anything specifically relating to an all-island basis from my oversight perspective. I will, however, discuss this issue in the design and objectives of the recruitment campaign. I do not have any direct knowledge of any all-island basis for it at present, but I value the Senator's comment and I will raise this issue.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was just trying to work out the percentage of County Down people who make up this committee meeting. I think it is probably the highest ever in an Oireachtas committee.

I have two follow-up questions. I may have missed it if the witness gave a specific response to Deputy Berry's question about primary radar. This was one of the 38 early actions. In the March update, reference was made to a planning team having been established, research having been commenced and further foreign visits planned for 2023. That does not sound like early action in terms of delivery. As Deputy Berry said, primary radar is considered imperative by members of this committee and anybody looking on.

I have a broad question on the high-level action plan and the responses of the Government to the 130 recommendations. Some 103 of the recommendations were either accepted, which means accepted for implementation, or accepted in principle. The language used in this regard is: "This recommendation is accepted in principle, but further consideration is required on the optimal approach to meeting the intent of the Commission." Will the witnesses clarify what the phrase "accepted in principle" means in practice? That is in comparison with the 17 actions determined to require further evaluation in respect of which the Government stated, "This recommendation is desirable. Further evaluation is required with key stakeholders [etc.]". Will the witnesses distinguish between the terms "further evaluation" and "accepted in principle" in the context of what they might mean for the implementation of the recommendations? Regarding a further ten recommendations, the response was: "It is proposed to revert to Government at a later stage with regard to this recommendation." The cynic in me is of the view that this is a fancy way of saying it is not accepted. Perhaps the witnesses will respond to my cynicism by stating that I have it wrong. Regarding those final ten recommendations, am I correct in saying that there is no plan to progress them at all?

Ms Julie Sinnamon:

Apologies to Deputy Berry on the other questions I missed out. The development of a primary radar capability was one of the recommendations. In response, a project team comprising senior civil and military personnel has commenced work on planning for military radar capabilities. This includes ground-based, maritime and primary radar systems. Delivery of the system is complex and will take some time. However, delivery has been prioritised by the Government. This year's increased capital allocation for the Defences Forces includes funding to progress the development of primary radar capability. The Government is totally committed to it. That team is working on it; it has been prioritised and is part of the allocation for this year to progress the development of that capability.

On Deputy Carthy's various categorisations, the word "accepted" means basically, as it says on the tin, that the recommendation has been accepted for implementation. The phrase "accepted in principle" means that it is accepted but that further consideration is required for the optimal approach. It has been accepted in principle, however.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a practical question. Can Ms Sinnamon point to an example of a recommendation which was accepted in principle, on which there has been tangible progress and at which we can now look in terms of implementation?

Ms Julie Sinnamon:

I will ask some of my colleagues to come up with a specific example while I go on with the other questions. While we have focused on 38 early actions, between 40 and 50 actions have been progressed, not all of them just early actions. On further evaluation, this means that a recommendation requires further discussion with key stakeholders and that it has to be examined in the context of resources, policy issues, financial considerations and legislation. A range of things impacted the recommendations for which further evaluation is required in order to understand their knock-on implications. A decision on implementation is to be considered after that further evaluation. The commission did not have the full resources to do all of that for every recommendation. It will come back. From my discussions with the implementation group and steering group, "revert" does not mean they have been rejected. It is proposed to revert to the Government at a later stage regarding those recommendations. They need further work and they will have to go back to the Government. They have not been accepted or accepted in principle at this stage, and they will go back to the Government. As the implementation group chair, all of the 130 recommendations will have to be progressed or decisions made on them if they are not progressed. They will go back to the Government.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps Mr. Murtagh or Mr. Byrne can answer my next question. There are ten recommendations in respect of which it was deemed necessary to revert to the Government over a year ago. Have any of those subsequently been reverted to the Government for reconsideration?

Mr. Eamonn Murtagh:

One example is in the area of command and control. There were five recommendations in that regard. The Tánaiste outlined at the time of the report that some legal advice from the Attorney General was needed with respect to their constitutionality. That advice was received and, as Ms Sinnamon outlined moments ago, the Tánaiste reverted to the Cabinet to inform it that the legal advice had been received and that detailed policy was being developed. There is an example of five recommendations. The other recommendations in respect of which it was stated that there would be a need to revert to the Government all involve LOA 3. The rationale was that one has to get to LOA 2 before one could consider LOA 3. That is the other example.

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

To back up Deputy Stanton, in relation to aptitude tests, I also take Ms Sinnamon's point. I totally agree that aptitude tests are needed for pilots and air traffic controllers. Aptitude tests were initially introduced for the Defence Forces because there were thousands of applicants. They could not all be interviewed. It was a blunt instrument to cut the numbers down radically. That is no longer a problem. I do not see why there is a general aptitude test. I did not have to take an aptitude test to join. Perhaps that is a good thing or perhaps it is a bad thing. I do not know. I will let Ms Sinnamon be the judge of that.

To back up what Senator Craughwell said, imagine joining a GAA team in a Border county and being told there is no problem but that you need a blood test in about six months and you might play your first match in about three years. Nobody is going to join that team. That is precisely what the Reserve Defence Force is insisting on. There is a fitness test for which there are no testers and a medical test but for which there are no doctors available. Even if someone wanted to join, the barriers are so complex and the resources so lacking that people cannot even get in. It is insane.

The best point of the day was made by Senator Craughwell. He spoke about unnecessary tasks. There are about 70 soldiers deployed right now doing tasks that do not need to be done. There are two takeaways from this. The committee has discussed the National Cyber Security Centre previously. It was stated that if we get the budget, pay rates and purpose right, people will join and stay. Imagine telling 70 people they will do a job that does not need to be done for the next 24 hours and will have to keep repeating it. That is insane. No other employer would task 70 full-time staff to do unnecessary jobs.

What is more concerning, as Senator Craughwell said, is that not only can we not wind things up and bring things to fruition, we cannot even wind things down. Fifteen months ago, the commission advised that people should stop doing this unnecessary work. It is still being don, however. My biggest concern is that the Chief of Staff would agree with the commission, as would his predecessor, but he does not have the agency or authority to wind down these unnecessary tasks. One of them relates to a bank, the second to an explosives factory and the third to a prison. They do not need to be done. The Garda Commissioner is not deploying 70 gardaí every day to do unnecessary tasks. Why does the Chief of Staff not have the authority to wind things down? If he requests or recommends something, why is it not acted upon? Why have the military chiefs been ignored for the past few decades?

My next point will back up the point made by the Cathaoirleach. Do we have to wait for the primary legislation that may be introduced sometime in the next 12 months? The Minister has authority to appoint an acting Army commander, an acting Air Corps commander and an acting Naval Service commander, along with the appropriate enlisted senior leaders. Should he not do this from a Defence Forces regulation point of view, with a view to regularising it in a couple of years' time when the primary legislation comes through?

My next point is probably the most important. We are very glad Ms Sinnamon and her team are here, but I wish her job was not needed. The Commission on the Defence Forces was utterly unnecessary. These oversight groups are necessary now but they should not be. What is needed is political governance. All of the issues that have been raised are day-to-day governance issues. From every Department we hear of Ministers bringing proposals to Cabinet and those proposals being approved and implemented. Happy days. There is no need for these elaborate commissions. My view is that the military chiefs should be empowered to do their job. We should have a dedicated stand-alone Minister for Defence, which we do not. With respect, the Tánaiste and his predecessor are competent individuals but if they are spending only a couple of days a month doing a job they cannot be expected to get around to doing everything. I do not envy their schedule and that is for sure.

We also have in law a Minister of State at the Department of Defence. One has been appointed but no powers whatsoever have been delegated. I know this is beyond Ms Sinnamon's remit, but it is a general point. There is a reason we should have Minister for State at the Department of Defence. There is a reason such a person should be appointed. It is because we need a senior politician in Newbridge every day, be it a Minister or Minister of State, lifting up the bonnet and preventing these issues happening in the first place and then driving change. We seem to have replaced ministerial oversight with ad hoccommittees that are now implementing measures in lieu of Ministers. There is no substitute for ministerial direction. This is just a general point.

I agree with Deputy Stanton and I certainly agree with Senator Craughwell. I take the points made by the Deputies from the Border region on access to the Reserve Defence Force. It is a pity the Commission on the Defence Forces was even necessary. All people had to do was listen to the military chiefs and implement what they have been requesting for the past two decades.

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

With regard to change in the Defence Forces, in recent years there have been 12 reviews of the Defence Forces. We appointed a head of strategic HR, much to my annoyance, in 2017. I am not aware of a single issue or change that has been brought since then. I do not know why we placed strategic HR outside the Defence Forces. It should be in with the people who understand the Defence Forces. As Deputy Berry said, the Chief of Staff should have the right to run his organisation.

I have a question on exit policy. Deputy Stanton mentioned the first line reserve. What effort is made when a soldier or a member of the Air Corps or Naval Service is getting ready to leave? What effort is made to retain their skills through the first line reserve? I am not sure any such effort is made.

We are about to enter a debate on neutrality and Ireland's future in the international arena. This matter probably falls outside the remit of Ms Sinnamon. I visited Tallinn in Estonia last year. The message I brought home from there is that there are no borders when it comes to cybersecurity. Whatever about NATO, I hope Ms Sinnamon's organisation is overseeing where we stand in the world of cybersecurity and, in particular, in the context of alliances with countries of like mind. I do not care whether they are in NATO. Ultimately, we are too small to stand alone. We are a small island and we need everybody possible to help us. Ms Sinnamon might come back to me on these issues. I do not expect her to respond to them today.

Ms Julie Sinnamon:

I thank the Chair for inviting me to come before the committee. It has been great to get the views of committee members, particularly at this time as I take over as chair of the implementation group. Some of them are beyond the remit of the group but I have heard many points that I will take back with me. They have given me great insight. I do not think we can underestimate the scale of the work involved. While Deputy Berry might say we should not have needed a commission report we have one that has been developed with 130 recommendations.

Senator Craughwell spoke about the number of reports that have been compiled over the years. We have the IOG. The high-level steering board is chaired by John Callinan of the Department of the Taoiseach and includes the Secretaries General of all the relevant Departments. There is also the external oversight board arising from the independent review group. There is a focus on the various reports that have been done. The transformation agenda has been set out very clearly and everybody is unanimous on the fact that it has to happen. This covers everything from HR and culture through to the budgets, capability and the investment required.

From my discussion with the Tánaiste, I believe there is a commitment to delivering. That fact is on the public record in many places. This is one of the key reasons I am happy to take on this role and ensure that when we have a detailed implementation plan, we have a very specific agenda of what needs to happen and when it needs to happen in order that we will hold the system to account and ensure that the plan is delivered. This is my objective.

From my dealings with those with whom I have interacted so far in the Defence Forces and the Department of Defence, I am satisfied that there is a real commitment to making it happen. However, I do not underestimate the scale of the challenge. From all of my work with transformation change, be it with companies in Ireland, Enterprise Ireland or anywhere else,I know that real change takes a lot of time. I understand the frustration that it has not moved as fast as people might have hoped. When we track through the number of initiatives that have been progressed over the past 12 months, we can see that it is much deeper than we might appreciate.

I thank the committee members and look forward to coming back at a future date with a report on progress made on the implementation plan. I will take back with me the various comments and inputs of the committee members. I really appreciate them.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Sinnamon, Mr. Murtagh and Mr. Byrne. On behalf of the committee, I express our appreciation to Ms Sinnamon not only for her comprehensive opening statement but also for the manner in which she dealt with our questions and for her offer to come back. We will gladly accept it, perhaps at the end of the year or in the new year. In the meantime, we wish the IOG every success and good fortune in the very challenging task that lies ahead.

Is it agreed that the committee go into private session? Agreed.