Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees
Wednesday, 22 October 2025
Committee on Defence and National Security
Defence Developments at EU Level and Scrutiny of EU Legislative Proposals
2:00 am
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Apologies have been received from Senator Tom Clonan. The joint committee is meeting with officials from the Department of Defence and the Department of Transport for a briefing on defence developments at EU level and engagement on COM (2025) 555.
On behalf of the committee, from the Department of Defence, I welcome Mr. Brían O'Meara, principal officer in the international security and defence policy branch, Ms Siobhan Judge, assistant principal officer in the international security and defence policy branch, and Mr. Brendan Fitzgerald, assistant principal in the EU industry engagement unit. From the Department of Transport, I welcome Mr. Martin Hehir, principal officer in the EU and central policy division, and Mr. Liam Hawkes, assistant principal officer in the EU and central policy division.
The format of the meeting is that I will invite Mr. O'Meara to make an opening statement on behalf of the Department of Defence. This will be followed by questions from members of the committee. Each member has a seven-minute slot to ask questions and for the witnesses to respond.
I advise members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where he or she is not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask any members participating via Microsoft Teams that prior to making their contribution they formally confirm that they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.
Both members and witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction. As the witnesses will probably be aware, the committee will publish their opening statements on the website following the meeting.
I invite Mr. O'Meara to deliver his opening statement on behalf of the Department of Defence.
Mr. Brían O'Meara:
I thank the Chair and the members of the committee for the opportunity to brief them on recent EU defence initiatives, particularly the legislative developments and how Ireland is approaching them in line with our national position in this regard. I am the head of the international security and defence policy branch in the Department of Defence. I will provide an overview of recent policy developments in this regard before handing over to colleagues with specific policy ownership to answer any follow-up questions that members may have on the European Competitiveness Fund, ECF, or wider issues. In the event that we do not have the required information to hand, we are happy to revert to the committee subsequently.
To this end, I am joined by colleagues from my branch and from the EU industry engagement branch of the Department of Defence. I am also joined by colleagues from the Department of Transport. Unfortunately, it was not possible for a colleague from the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment to join today, but I am happy to pass on any questions members may have in that regard.
As the Tánaiste said when looking ahead to the Irish Presidency of the EU next year, Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine has fundamentally altered the European security landscape, and over the past two years in particular the EU has substantially accelerated its work on security and defence in response. This broadened agenda means that responsibility for various initiatives now extends across a range of other Departments and is not strictly limited to the Department of Defence.
In terms of the high-level policy initiatives, the EU’s strategic compass on security and defence, agreed in 2022, was aimed at establishing a common strategic vision and concrete objectives to strengthen the EU’s security and defence policy by 2030. The compass set out a multifaceted approach that integrates diplomacy, humanitarian aid, development co-operation, climate action, human rights advocacy, economic support and trade policy, covering all aspects of security and defence policy, and is structured around four pillars aimed at enhancing crisis response, resilience, capabilities and global co-operation.
In March 2025, the Commission and High Representative set out a White Paper for European Defence – Readiness 2030, signalling a push to deepen a single defence market, aimed at streamlining rules through a proposed defence readiness omnibus and aimed at spurring investment and military mobility while keeping member states in the driving seat. This White Paper outlines a strategic direction with proposals aimed at closing critical capability gaps, enhancing military mobility and strengthening the European defence technological and industrial base, and encourages voluntary co-operation among member states to strengthen their security.
It has three key elements, the first of which is a focus on closing critical defence gaps, such as cybersecurity and infrastructure protection, through voluntary co-operation. The second is strengthening the European defence and industrial technological base by mobilising up to €800 billion in defence investment across the Union. Legislative proposals such as the defence readiness omnibus and the security action for Europe, SAFE, regulation are designed to streamline procurement, simplify investment rules such as permitting and provide long-term, low-interest loans to member states for defence capability development.
The SAFE financial instrument is aimed at supporting defence investment among member states and allowing member states to benefit from the national escape clause of the Stability and Growth Pact. It is also aimed at allowing member states to deviate from certain financial constraints in order to boost production, innovation and strategic autonomy across member states. The third element is supporting Ukraine and partnerships deepening defence co-operation with Ukraine and global partners to reinforce European security and resilience. The Preserving Peace - Defence Readiness Roadmap 2030, a joint communication by the Commission and EU High Representative for Foreign Policy, was published by the Commission last week on 16 October and is aimed at setting out objectives and milestones to achieve defence readiness by 2030 as outlined in the White Paper. Ireland has engaged constructively with these developments through close co-operation with colleagues across Departments where matters proposed within these communications feature on the agenda of the various relevant Council formations.
Earlier this year, the Government confirmed its intention to participate in the SAFE initiative, with participation at this early stage focused on collaborative procurement opportunities that may arise under the initiative. This reflects a pragmatic approach to ensure that our Defence Forces can access critical capabilities more efficiently and cost-effectively. It also aligns with Ireland’s broader commitments to European solidarity and security, particularly in light of the ongoing war in Ukraine and the increasing threats to critical infrastructure, including undersea cables vital to the EU’s and Ireland’s digital economy. Our engagement with EU defence initiatives is always carefully calibrated to respect Ireland’s long-standing policy of military neutrality. In this regard, we continue to contribute meaningfully to EU missions under the Common Security and Defence Policy, CSDP, including through peacekeeping, humanitarian support and crisis management operations. This was exemplified by the Defence Forces participation in Operation Irini in the Mediterranean, which is aimed at enforcing the UN arms embargo on Libya by inspecting vessels and supporting the UN resolutions against illicit petroleum exports from Libya; Operation Althea in Bosnia and Herzegovina, BiH, which is aimed at maintaining a safe and secure environment, supporting local authorities in tasks derived from the Dayton Agreement and training the BiH armed forces; and in the EU’s Military Assistance Mission in support of Ukraine, EUMAM Ukraine, which provides training to the Ukrainian armed forces to improve their military capabilities and support their defence against Russian aggression. At the level of EU capability co-operation, Ireland engages on a case by case basis where this can benefit the needs of the Defence Forces. For example, our PESCO participation remains voluntary and project specific. It focuses on capability development, for example in the cyber and maritime areas.
The focus of today’s briefing request was the European competitiveness fund, ECF. As part of the proposals for the EU's new seven-year budget, known as the EU multi-annual financial framework, MFF, due to commence in 2028, the European Commission proposed in July the creation of this fund to strengthen Europe’s long-term industrial and technological base. Negotiations on the fund are led by the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, although the Department of Finance has responsibility for the multi-annual financial framework in general. It is important to stress, however, that the European competitiveness fund, like all aspects of the MFF, is a Commission proposal at this point and negotiations among members states have only just commenced. The fund consolidates multiple existing programmes into a single instrument with the aim of enhancing European competitiveness in key sectors and supporting the investment journey through research, innovation and deployment to market. The fund aims to support innovation in four key areas: clean technology to support the green transition, digital technologies, health and biotechnology, and security, defence and space.
As a small, open economy with strengths in digital services, advanced manufacturing and research, Ireland is potentially well placed to leverage the fund to deepen its integration into EU industrial value chains. The simplified access rules combined with the fund's emphasis on projects of common European interest may make it easier for Irish companies, particularly SMEs, to join international consortiums and secure opportunities in high-value sectors.
Chapter VII of this proposed fund, on which the committee requested a specific briefing, establishes the framework for funding projects that enhance Europe’s defence industrial capacity or security industrial capacity, strengthen supply chain resilience and reduce dependence on external actors, for example, for critical raw materials. It will also finance the EU’s space programme. This includes civilian programmes such as the Copernicus and Galileo. The negotiations have not yet commenced on the breakdown of the financial envelope among the four objectives of Chapter VII.
Ireland’s approach to EU defence co-operation is defined by our legal and constitutional obligations, our national interests and constructive engagement across Departments and respective teams in Ireland's permanent representation to the EU in Brussels. Our approach to new EU instruments will remain consistent. We will support measures that improve resilience, including maritime security, cyber defence, protection of critical seabed infrastructure and so on, strengthen supply chains for defensive procurement for our Defence Forces, and open opportunities for Irish SMEs where possible. This increasingly broad agenda covers a wide span of Government Departments and requires continued engagement with colleagues across government where issues are led by Departments other than the Department of Defence, such as the Department of Finance and the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation on budgetary and financial obligations, the Department of Transport on military mobility and the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment on the ECF aspect of the multi-annual financial framework.
Today presents an excellent opportunity for the Department to hear from Members of the Oireachtas on their views with respect to this landscape and we look forward to their questions.
Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the witnesses for coming. European security and defence is a current issue and.the more opportunities we have to discuss it in detail, the better for our politics and Legislature.
Given the EU is increasing its funding for defence and considering the recent maritime activity and attacks that have taken place in the EU, will the witnesses give an update on Ireland's maritime defence development and how we are collaborating with our EU partners to strengthen our maritime security?
Mr. Brían O'Meara:
I am aware that the committee recently received a briefing from Dr. Margaret Stanley, who is head of our maritime security branch in the Department and has overall responsibility for this area. It does not fall within my area. However, the key points in this regard concern the development of the maritime security strategy, first and foremost, and looking at how we avail of opportunities to address capability gaps identified via risk assessment or, for example, by the Commission on the Defence Forces. One of the key aspects on which we have engaged to look at maritime capability gaps heretofore has been PESCO, under which we engage in three maritime projects. The capability development side of the Department is currently looking at a range of capability areas, such as subsea sonar, protection of critical underwater infrastructure and maritime radar as part of the Department's primary radar project, so the Department, the Defence Forces and Naval Service are taking a range of measures at the moment in this regard. We would be happy to provide a more rounded picture from the maritime security branch of the Department in conjunction with the Naval Service if it would help.
Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
No, I thank Mr. O'Meara. Dr. Stanley gave us a very interesting briefing the week before last.
On the White Paper on European defence, in PESCO or NATO partnership, Ireland is elective and country specific and we have control over what we engage in. With the direction of travel in broader Europe on defence and in the course of the White Paper to 2030, is it the view of the Department that we will be in a position as a country where there will be more obligations on us which we will not have as much of a choice over, such as being involved with common defence strategies or operations? Do the witnesses think we will be able to hold on to that independence of action in the second half of this decade?
Mr. Brían O'Meara:
Absolutely. The first thing to state with regard to the White Papers and the follow-up to the readiness roadmap is that they are essentially in a basket of proposals. They are in a joint communication from the Commission and high representative. At the moment, they are just a communication and proposals.
There may be a range of developments coming down the line that we will engage with on a case-by-case basis, as we do with everything in this area. The key point of defence remaining a member state competence for all EU member states is central to this process. Our position is known and recognised by our partners and is directly referenced in the White Paper. Generally, the line used in these initiatives is about respecting the security and defence policies of all member states, or a variation of that. I do not see any obligations arising on this into the future. Again, it is important to say that, at present, the White Paper and the readiness roadmap are communications. They have the status of proposals. Once negotiations on specific aspects are required for something for member states to sign up to, we will engage in that process, in the same way in which we engage in all negotiating processes.
Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is good to hear, and it is important to state. I was part of a delegation with this committee, although I was on it as a member of another committee, to a recent conference on European security and defence. We in Ireland are having a debate about these issues in the political space, whereas European countries are on a direction of travel. The debate is over for them; they are not having a debate. I do not think we see that as much in this country, and we certainly do not feel it. We have concerns, and there are concerns out there. They have been aired in the current presidential campaign regarding neutrality and so on. I am comforted by what Mr. O'Meara said in his opening statement and in his answers to me about member state competences and where we are with this process. This is a basket of proposals. We all know where Europe is at. Particularly on the eastern borders of Europe, they obviously have a different view and their immediate threats are very different from ours. However, we need to take our own security and defence strategies more seriously and it is about finding that balance. I will leave it there. I thank Mr. O'Meara for his responses to my questions. I appreciate it.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome Mr. O'Meara and the other representatives from the Departments of Defence and Transport. Do the SAFE regulations require transposition to Irish law or are they just regulations?
Mr. Brendan Fitzgerald:
That is correct. EU regulations do not require transposition. Throughout the negotiation stage of any of these regulations, there will certainly be considerable oversight by Department officials across the board and co-ordination in Brussels and Dublin to ensure there are no difficulties with any of these regulations from the Irish perspective.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The €800 billion fund is obviously aimed at the areas of cybersecurity, critical infrastructure and, I suspect, the most recent issues with drone attacks. Over what period is that available and how is it anticipated that the drawdown will be managed?
Mr. Brían O'Meara:
I will come in again on the €800 billion figure and pass over to Mr. Fitzgerald. The €800 billion is largely a notional figure. It includes €150 billion of leveraged finance that is a loan mechanism under SAFE. There is also a calculation in the event that member states exercise their national escape clause, and it touches on scenarios where there is leveraged finance under the European Investment Bank and potential private finance.
Mr. Brendan Fitzgerald:
The SAFE regulation is a fund of €150 billion. It is off budget in that it is not an application of the Union budget. It is a loan mechanism guaranteed by the Union's budget. The loans will commence repayment within the eight- or ten-year period on the principal of that loan. The interest incurred will have to be paid by the member states that draw down those loans in that first ten-year period. The loans themselves have to be repaid within 45 years.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What was the breakdown of the €800 billion? I know Mr. O'Meara said it was largely hypothetical.
Mr. Brendan Fitzgerald:
The €800 billion is an indicative figure of an accumulation of a number of current European Union regulations that will transfer into the new MFF. It also includes member states' national budgets and possible investment by the European Investment Bank. That would be the drawdown and application of loans to industry directly or by member states directly for any infrastructure projects they intend to proceed with. It also includes a leverage effect. Where, for example, the European Investment Bank is releasing so many billions for security purposes or security applications, the intended purpose is that this will de-risk investment. It will make investment in defence-related products, infrastructure or dual-use industries and open up commercial markets that would traditionally be closed to SMEs or mid-caps. We are not necessarily talking about big prime industries. We are looking at mid- to low-level industry that on an ordinary basis would not have access to funding. In some regards, while I am not saying our dual-use industry in Ireland will draw down that funding or look for funding from other means, this is the target market this €800 billion is looking at.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
To clarify, is it the member states or the companies that are drawing down?
Mr. Brendan Fitzgerald:
The €800 billion is a combination of a number of factors. It depends on which configuration the drawdown comes from. If it is from SAFE, which is part of the €800 billion, then that is the member states that have signalled an expression of interest to draw down. The rest of the €800 billion is the member states' own budgets, so it would include our own budget for defence purposes for the next number of years. It will also include the element from the European Investment Bank. It would not necessarily include capital markets because it is too early to see what their interest would be or what the expression of interest for loans from them would be.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Maybe it is just me but I am not fully clear on the whole thing, to be honest about it. The officials have said it is hypothetical and a whole range of factors come into it. Is it included in the MFF?
Mr. Brendan Fitzgerald:
No, MFF contributions such as the European Competitiveness Fund, which is €234 billion over the coming MFF period, would be included in that. It is an indicative figure, but we do not know what the private sector will bring to it. We do not know what the drawdown from the European Investment Bank's loan mechanisms will be either. This is a potential application of loans or financial mechanisms that member states and the industry could apply for or have available over the coming number of years.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Why use the €800 billion figure? Mr. Fitzgerald is talking about a €150 billion loan mechanism. It sounds as though this is a huge investment in defence capabilities in Europe, but Mr. Fitzgerald is saying that is possibly not the case.
Mr. Brían O'Meara:
The important fact on the €800 billion is that it is a notional figure. The most concrete aspect of this in terms of the four areas it sets out is probably the SAFE regulation and the €150 billion identified under that, under which a range of member states have taken loans. That is the most concrete figure available at the moment. It is important to understand that the €800 billion is a notional figure using an estimation putting SAFE, the national escape clause, the national budgets and potential European Investment Bank broadening of finance opportunities together to come up with the €800 billion figure. The most concrete example of the figure within that is probably the €150 billion SAFE figure.
Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Will the officials comment on the drawdown and how projects and applications are assessed?
Mr. Brendan Fitzgerald:
The drawdown is a loan. The member states will indicate the objectives of that loan, which must comply with the two elements detailed in the SAFE mechanism. There are two categories of funding. For ammunition and missiles, it is very prescriptive and member states cannot go beyond that. It cannot be used for general defence or for any other purpose. It has to be for the objectives of the loan application. What member states then do with regard to individual items is for the member state to decide. These are loans rather than a Union grant or Union funding.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome the witnesses. I have a number of questions. I might not get to them all. There might be a second round.
Where co-operation with other European countries is in Ireland's interest and does not conflict with our neutrality then we should co-operate but, obviously, it has to be through both of those lenses. We have had a lot of discussion about neutrality. I am not sure that it is necessarily as complicated as some of the contributions from guest speakers have suggested but it may be complicated to ascertain whether a legal commitment or entering into a particular programme may have consequences for neutrality when we try to consider all the potential ramifications. Does the Department have a particular test or approach? How does it evaluate proposals that come from a European level as to whether or not they are in compliance with the Irish policy of neutrality?
Mr. Brían O'Meara:
Regarding defence and financing issues, it involves not compromising Ireland's position of military neutrality, which is set out in the Constitution and is essentially to do with a reference to potentially a common European defence. In general, PESCO does not contravene Ireland's policy of military neutrality. If we are looking to take part in a particular project or initiative, that project or initiative is analysed on the basis of whether it contravenes our neutrality and if it does not, we take part in it. Government has been very clear that our participation in EU programmes is guided by principles-based pragmatism ensuring that any co-operation respects Ireland's sovereign decision-making and legal obligations. That is the lens through which the Department, other Departments and our staff in the permanent representation in the EU would negotiate.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Could Mr. O'Meara come back to me in writing with a bit more detail? It sounds like if it is, it is and if it is not, it is not. I am not clear about the approach. When a proposal from the Commission lands on the Department's desk, deciding what the criteria are and what they are being measured against is complex. Different programmes and proposals have different cases. It is not defined in the Constitution. It might be defined in statute law but what neutrality means is not defined in the Constitution and that is part of the debate we have had.
Regarding the SAFE regulation, from what the witnesses are saying, a lot of it is focused on armaments and ammunition. In terms of our own capacity, a lot of the focus is on forms of infrastructure such as the full radar picture. That kind of stuff does really not come into SAFE. SAFE is being challenged by the European Parliament not necessarily on its substance but procedurally and legally - an ultra vires kind of thing. If the Parliament is successful in that legal action, what happens at that stage? Is it a case of start again? Is it reconstructed or half formed? What is the expected outcome? The Parliament's action may not be successful but if it is, where does that leave the regulation?
Mr. Brían O'Meara:
In terms of SAFE in general, Ireland is not availing of the loan facility. A decision was made that we are not going to avail of the loan facility but it may provide opportunities for us to engage in common procurement projects to link up with other member states that are doing something in a particular capability area where there is a capability gap in the Defence Forces. It may provide opportunities for procuring at scale. That would be the limit of Ireland's engagement in SAFE. I will hand over to Mr. Fitzgerald in respect of the second aspect of the Deputy's question regarding the European Parliament challenge.
Mr. Brendan Fitzgerald:
The Deputy is very well-informed. What the Parliament is looking at is the legislative procedure that was applied to SAFE. This concerns Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Parliament's position relies on a 2020 joint regulation between the Parliament, the Council and the Commission that budgetary scrutiny of proposals based on Article 122 would involve the Parliament where there is an applicable implication for the budget. It is that piece in respect of which it has sought advice. That advice has come from the Parliament's own committee on legal affairs and the Parliament is now pursuing that through the Council to take it further. It has said that until the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled on this or until a case has begun, SAFE will continue as it is. It would be premature to speculate on what the outcome of that will be. What is important to remember is that the Parliament has been very supportive of SAFE. The procedure is a different matter but the Parliament has been the strongest supporter of the aims and objectives of SAFE and a number of iterations or types of defence-related finance instruments and regulations over the past three years since Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine.
The budget of the recently adopted European defence industry programme, EDIP, where Ireland's national delegate has been over the past two years in Brussels is €1.5 billion but the Parliament wants to increase it to €20 billion. This indicates the level of support among the MEPs that is the probably the right direction. Yes, it is important to follow the legislative procedure or the correct way of doing things but we will let the court rule on that and see where it takes us.
Mr. Brían O'Meara:
I should have said earlier that essentially any engagement we have on any of this is voluntary, project-specific and determined by the capability gaps identified in the Defence Forces or the benefits for the Defence Forces so there is no obligation for continued participation if we do not get value out of it or do not see the value in it. Any participation we engage in is voluntary and project-specific.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The witnesses mentioned the Constitution and neutrality. There is nothing in our Constitution about neutrality nor is there any law. Am I right?
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Regarding SAFE, we are the most defenceless country in Europe. A total of €150 billion was available from which this country could have drawn down funds to help it. Who prevented it? Who stopped us applying?
Mr. Brendan Fitzgerald:
I do not think it is a correct assessment. In respect of applying to SAFE, what we are looking for is the opportunity for joint procurement. EDIP and SAFE allow for a very important piece, which is the ability of a member state to open up its framework contracts. We are looking to procure body armour. Based on the fifth procurement directive, if another member state wanted to join us and wanted the same products, it would have to go back to the market and do further tendering, which slows down procurement. That is what we are trying to address here. We are trying to speed up procurement, make it easier and remove the administrative burden and those obstacles to obtaining equipment that is urgently required by all member states, including our Defence Forces. We are opening up our body armour procurement contracts to other member states that wish to join us.
If that happens, which I hope it does, we will benefit form the economies of scale and, perhaps, from prolonged contracts. Rather than 20 years, there might be a possibility, for example, to extend contracts where there is retendering. There are more administrative benefits in this to the Department and the Defence Forces. However, because of what is going on in Ukraine, across the full ecosystem that is the defence industry, including body armour and uniforms, a small country like Ireland, when we come to do our orders, is at the bottom of the list. If we can get others to join us, it certainly will help us to get access to that equipment a little more quickly.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Reference was made to the support we have provided to Ukraine. Where two belligerents are having a barney, like what is going on between Russia and Ukraine, the definition of neutrality is that one takes no side. How do the witnesses square the circle of our being neutral or militarily non-aligned, whichever way we want to define ourselves, with providing that training? I do not disagree with providing the training - it is a really good thing to do - but by whichever definition we use, we are in breach either way.
Mr. Brían O'Meara:
I am happy to set out the position on this matter. The Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Government have repeatedly stated that although militarily neutral, we are not politically neutral. Our support for Ukraine follows that principle and it covers a range of approaches, including participation in the EU's military assistance mission in Ukraine, where Defence Forces colleagues have trained members of the Ukrainian armed forces in a range of modules such as combat life-saving care, basic drill instruction and counter-IED and mine flail training. We also have provided a range of material donations-----
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In essence, the State is helping one belligerent. Is that not right?
Mr. Brían O'Meara:
Yes. Ireland and the Defence Forces are helping one belligerent. The policy, which has been set out extensively elsewhere and which we are executing, is, in essence, based on the fact a democracy on the borders of Europe was invaded by its neighbour, and the European Union and democracies around the world have come to its aid.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Our democracy requires that a change of policy that places this country in peril should have come before the Parliament. It was never debated in Parliament; it was simply announced. I do not want to spend too long on this but the fact is we are either neutral or militarily non-aligned or we are not. If we are helping one belligerent - and, by the way, I believe we should be honestly helping Ukraine and providing it with what munitions and other supports we can - we cannot, at the end of the day, play both sides of this coin. We simply cannot do that. I am somewhat concerned about the mixed message that is coming out here. The policy of the State has changed. Importantly, that change has happened without debate in the Parliament. It is Parliament that rules this country, not individual Ministers, as far as I am aware, and, from that point of view, the change needs to be debated. This is not the witnesses' problem. They must implement what is given to them and they are doing so. However, that point must be made.
I have other questions, but I assume there will be a second round.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Senator has 35 seconds left.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will use them to ask one of my remaining questions. Mr. O'Meara mentioned military mobility several times in his statement. To which specific mobility is he referring? Is it armoured fighting vehicles, armoured reconnaissance vehicles, air transport lift capacity or something else?
Mr. Brían O'Meara:
I am referring specifically to a military mobility proposal that is designed, in essence, to ease the transport of member states' military - generally ground but it can also be air - via road, etc., throughout continental Europe but also making it available to our forces in Cyprus. In terms of the bulk relevance of that proposal, it is largely focused on continental Europe.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome the witnesses. There is a lot of vagueness around the €800 billion provision. The only certainty, as was stated, is the €150 billion, which is made up of loans to member states. Mention was made in a vague way that the private sector may see opportunities for investment. I cannot help thinking that the €800 billion represents a huge shift in public funding from other areas. The national cake in any country is only so big. It is as clear as mud where the overall €800 billion is coming from.
I am interested in what is in the briefing documents. Reference is made to mobilising the €800 billion for defence, deepening the single defence market, enhancing industrial capacity and strengthening the industrial base. There is a lot of heavy-duty mobilisation planned. Mention is made of providing training and support for the Ukrainian armed forces to improve their military capabilities. Like the previous speaker, I am not going to say whether that is right or wrong. That is not the debate here. However, I cannot square assisting a party directly to improve its military capabilities with our position of neutrality. I do not know whether there has been any discussion of that at official level. I have heard the political answer in the Chamber but I cannot figure out how that works.
I have huge concerns about the priorities, including within the SAFE instrument. Mr. O'Meara referred earlier to "establishing a common strategic vision and concrete objectives to strengthen EU security and defence policy by 2030". He also referred to "our broader commitments to European solidarity and security, particularly in light of the ongoing war in Ukraine". Mr. O'Meara's submission to the committee, in reference to SAFE, mentions providing "training to the Ukrainian Armed Forces to improve their military capabilities and support their defence". We are not giving them pillows to sleep on at night or anything like that. Military capability is military capability. I have heard the Taoiseach answering questions about this in the Dáil. If I recall correctly, he talked about scanning for mines and the like. That is okay, but improving military capability is a completely different matter. Will the witnesses comment on the phrase "improve their military capabilities and support their defence"? Is it not the case that it can mean only one thing?
Mr. Brían O'Meara:
We would all agree with the assessment that it would be preferable if the geopolitical situation did not require member states to invest in military capabilities to deter a Russian attack, particularly on those member states to the east. Member states, especially those in the east, have made sovereign decisions that they need to increase their defence readiness to enhance deterrents and preserve long-term peace in Europe.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Mr. O'Meara is taking things off in a different direction. I am asking whether he sees a contradiction in terms of squaring what I have outlined with our policy of military neutrality.
Mr. Brendan Fitzgerald:
I apologise to the Deputy, but I am coming around to my answer. Those same defence capabilities are the capability requirements of the Defence Forces. These mechanisms are being designed to support all member states. As Mr. O'Meara pointed out, it is a voluntary arrangement. There may be projects we will look at engaging with to see whether they meet our capability development needs. The system is for us to step into; it certainly is not something being handed down or dictated down to us by the Commission.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Mr. O'Meara mentioned deciding everything on an individual basis. At a high level in Europe, if the direction of travel is very much in that direction, will it mean, for example, possible involvement in EU battle groups and the deployment of Irish troops on the ground in Ukraine?
Mr. Brendan Fitzgerald:
I will add a little bit onto my piece and then I will hand over to Mr. O'Meara on the European battle group. In 2024, it is estimated that European defence funds or investments in military and defence equipment was about €340 billion. Approximately 80% of that went outside the European Union. These industries are already in existence. The main objective of the regulations we are talking about is to present opportunities to Europeanise supply chains on behalf of member states. Why would we send so much of taxpayers' money outside of Europe, for example to the United States, Canada, South Korea or elsewhere that produces a large number of defence products, when we could have our own domestic capability or manufacturing? It is one of the core points here. We are talking about taxpayers' money and perhaps this is the correct vehicle. We want a good vehicle to try to keep those opportunities here. One of the angles mentioned by Deputy Smith is what Ireland's policy is when we sit at the negotiating table during negotiations. What are we looking for when we read these regulations? One of the key policies is economic. Is there something here that is inclusive of all member states, even the smaller ones that do not have a big prime industry? Is there a small SME in Limerick, Shannon or Cork that could avail of European funding and develop high-end jobs here?
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am sorry but the question I am asking is this: could this lead to a deployment of Irish boots on the ground in Ukraine and possible engagement with Russian forces?
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have heard a number of answers but my question has not been answered.
Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I understand that the fund is for companies to invest.
Mr. Brían O'Meara:
There are two questions - one on the possible participation and one on Ukraine. In terms of the battle group, our EU partners accept that defence and security are a national competence. The Irish protocols to the Lisbon treaty specifically state that the Lisbon treaty does not provide for the creation of a European army. The battle group is not seen as that. Participation in it has no effect on our traditional policy of military neutrality. Our participation in the current iteration of the battle group takes place on a training basis. Were it ever to be deployed, Ireland's participation would be considered on the basis of our current legislative provisions with regard to overseas deployments. Potential Defence Forces' participation in any peacekeeping mission in Ukraine is a whole other matter. The Taoiseach and Tánaiste have said we would potentially be open to participation in that, but the circumstances are not there at present. There would need to be a ceasefire and a UN Security Council mandate for the participation of the Defence Forces currently. Those circumstances are not there.
Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the witnesses very much for the opening statement. The fund of €800 billion has been described as a notional amount. There is a lot of uncertainty as to how and when it is to be made up. It seems to me to be more of a fictional amount than anything else. In fairness, Mr. O'Meara has emphasised that Ireland's participation is more about the procurement process and getting benefits in that regard.
At one stage, economies of scale were mentioned. Body armour was mentioned. The question that arose for me is whether we are getting quality in connection with economies of scale. We want quality as well as economies of scale. We want our Defence Forces to be properly protected.
Are there examples or is there a methodology by which this process could reduce the bureaucracy involved in the procurement process to make it quicker?
It was mentioned that the fund consolidates multiple existing programmes into a single instrument. What are the multiple existing funds? I would welcome a broad outline of them.
Mr. Brían O'Meara:
I will take the first part and then I will hand over to Mr. Fitzgerald. I am fully in agreement with the Deputy in terms of the point around body armour. Neither myself nor Mr. Fitzgerald is in the capability development side of the house. Where a project such as this is undertaken, it is done with civilian and subject matter experts from the Defence Forces involved on the spec and quality of what is required. The Department would be heavily involved in that. The Deputy's point about quality would be absolutely central to that.
In terms of the SAFE figures, it is probably simpler to set out that the €150 billion proposed under the SAFE loans is one aspect and then the national escape clause is essentially almost an opt-out in terms of allowing member states to spend above their budget. If all member states activate the national escape clause for defence purposes, it could theoretically go up to something like €650 billion. That is where the other figure is coming from. The most concrete figure at the moment is €150 billion from SAFE. I will hand over to Mr. Fitzgerald to add something else on that.
Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Just a brief outline.
Mr. Brendan Fitzgerald:
I will call them out, so I ask for the Deputy's patience. We have Horizon Europe, the Innovation Fund, the Digital Europe programme, the Connecting Europe facility, the current European Defence Fund, the Act in Support of Ammunition Production, the European Defence Ministry Reinforcement Through Common Procurement Act, the European Defence Ministry programme, EU4Health, and the EU Space programme. I am not sure of the breakdown of IRIS. There is also the InvestEU Fund, the Single Market programme, specifically the SME strand, and the LIFE programme, which is funding for the environment, nature conservation and climate actions.
Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will go back to the quality issue. If an expert from the Defence Forces is outlining the spec and it is to be done on a broader basis to achieve economies of scale, I presume there would have to be consultation with various defence forces in the EU to pick a particular spec for pieces of equipment.
Mr. Brendan Fitzgerald:
Like Mr. O'Meara, I am not too familiar with the intricacies of the procurement piece. My understanding is that this is body armour being designed for the Defence Forces and we are inviting other member states to buy it from us also. It would be our spec. There would probably be some discussion with the manufacturer if a member state wants something tweaked or amended. That would be normal within our own contract as well that there is a possibility to amend or adjust, depending on the person, the format or what the body armour is to be used for.
Tom Brabazon (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That would be great.
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the witnesses for coming in and giving us all that very important information.
I am curious about SAFE funding. We have spoken already about €800 billion. How come Ireland did not take advantage of the €150 billion loan? It was said that the decision was based on calculations made on the basis of the benefit to the Exchequer and that we could have got the same funding at a cheaper rate elsewhere. Is that it in its entirety? Is that the reasoning for it?
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is that based on the current position? Was the long-term repayment taken into account? My understanding of the SAFE loan is the interest rates were to remain steady; they were not going to increase with the market, as would happen for other loans. I thought the SAFE loan was created in that model to make it most attractive for defence forces across Europe. Is that correct or incorrect?
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
If Mr. Fitzgerald could check that, I would be very interested. It might give the fuller picture. I would like to be able to defend why we did not take advantage of the €150 billion or even a portion of it, especially when our Defences Forces are so in need of extra investment. It was mentioned that part of the SAFE regulation is to open up opportunities for Irish SMEs, where possible. That will be determined by the Department of enterprise and trade. Is there any feedback as to how many companies are in talks with the Department? What products or services do they produce?
Mr. Brendan Fitzgerald:
As the European competitiveness fund is still being negotiated and probably will be until well into next year, I will not speculate too much on what it can deliver for Irish SMEs. I can talk about what has been delivered based on the European Defence Fund. It is approximately €8 billion divided between two pillars, one for defence research and the other for capability development. The interesting aspect of the European Defence Fund is that industry, especially those looking for research and academia projects, does not necessarily approach the Department. We do not have to give them any clearance or letters of support as such. They can apply directly for loans and receive them. Sometimes we only hear about them when those figures have been released by the European Commission. I will give three examples. I can mention them because they are out there in the public and have been released by the Commission. They are three SMEs that participated in the European Defence Fund and have received funding. One is MBRYONICS which enables satellite communication. It received just over €500,000. Communication Technology Limited is involved in transforming simulation data into actionable insights. It received just over €500,000. Applied Intelligence Analytics received €580,000.
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I think I heard a figure €340 billion of a defence spend which fed into creating these regulations, and of that funding, which is coming out of EU pockets, 80% was going to states outside the EU. What is the ambition in relation to these regulations? How much of that 80% is the Department hoping will now be redirected to EU companies?
Mr. Brendan Fitzgerald:
I believe there was a target value of reducing that 80% to 50% in the defence readiness 2030 announcement. That will be achieved primarily through what the Commission is trying to achieve in changing member states' behaviour when it comes to procurement. Rather than us procuring off the shelf through larger industry outside Europe, we would look inward and see if that product can be built or manufactured through a European alternative. The European defence industry reinforcement through common procurement Act, EDIRPA, is for that purpose. It brings a value of €300 million to help incentivise member states to come together as a consortium to purchase the same product. That has an added value as a number of member states will have equipment that is interoperable and interchangeable. That feeds into the current fragmented market Europe has. Industry is developed and runs along national lines - the French will buy French and the Italians will buy Italian - whereas we should be buying European and not necessarily looking at where it comes from within Europe.
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That brings me to my next point. A small or even a medium-size business in Ireland producing something that can be utilised by other EU members' defence forces will produce it on a smaller scale than a similar company in France. How do we ensure a relatively small-scale SME in Ireland gets a fair share of the EU defence pot or investment? Is there something to make sure that if we support our businesses to get up and running, they will continue to get a fair share of the European spend?
Mr. Brendan Fitzgerald:
How we, as a Department and the Government, can help these SMEs access that funding is an important question. A lot of them are already accessing it without any hand-holding from us. We need to do more. The industry unit is relatively new; it was only established a number of months ago. We are doing a mapping exercise of what is currently in Ireland. We are looking at whether that industry output can meet our own capability needs. When our Defence Forces' and Department's capability development plan is released in a number of months, we will hope and be looking for Irish industry to plug some of those gaps. If we are looking for certain capability, can it be sourced domestically?
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
My point is whether we can be sure other EU states will come to Ireland for that as well. It goes back to the cultural change. France wants to buy French, Ireland wants to buy Irish and we need to change that to become more European.
Mr. Brendan Fitzgerald:
This is where we need to step up a little bit. We have to ensure that when these SMEs submit project proposals for European funding, they hit the mark on exactly what the Commission is looking for and meet the criteria and eligibility objectives or goals of the specific instrument. The best thing about these funding instruments is they encourage collaboration. SMEs should be reaching out for whether there is a similar SME or industry in Europe so that they can join and develop this together and have a European footprint - I will not say pan-European - on Irish SMEs. The reason Europe is targeting SMEs is that is where the innovation is. It comes from the bottom up. Large providers are fine. They are self-funding. They produce tanks, and we know that. New, disruptive technologies come from the ground up, from those innovators and SMEs. From Ireland's perspective, we are not looking at traditional weapons or a defence industry as such. We are looking at civilian applications in the defence domain, dual use, anything to do with medical or anything that protects the soldier. I will give an example. In the United States, the main funder of heath research is the Department of Defense.
Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is interesting. I have probably had my second round as well, a Chathaoirligh. Go raibh maith agat.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
To clarify, Ireland is a net contributor to EU budgets. Is that completely separate from what we are talking about in terms of military spending?
Mr. Brendan Fitzgerald:
There is a difference between defence spending and what the Commission is putting in place, which are structures to enable the manufacturing capability of European industry to produce to meet the urgent needs of member states at times of crisis. We have seen that with Ukraine. As member states supplied their stockpiles to Ukraine-----
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
People want transparency. The idea of today's session is to scrutinise this. Can assurances be given that money that could be spent on the Common Agricultural Policy and other things is not being spent on military operations?
Mr. Brendan Fitzgerald:
The definition of military operations comes from Article 41.2. It is a definition that could do with some further clarification.
If you look at the legal basis of the instruments that have gone through Europe since the war in Ukraine, such as ASAP, EDIRPA, the European defence industry programme we are talking about now and even the ECF, it is an industrial focus. The Commission has no role in defence and security. Primarily, and until that is changed by unanimity through member states and their own legislative processes, it will always remain a domain and competency for individual member states. Please rest assured that what we are looking at here is applying the Union budget to industry, and that industry specifically as industry, but it is a result of what happened in February 2022.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yes, but I am just trying to get clarity on this. As regards Ireland, as a net contributor to the EU, that money is not spent on weapons but already spent and categorised like the CAP and so on.
Mr. Brían O'Meara:
There is a prohibition on that in terms of any spending on weapons, etc. As regards even our participation in the CSDP missions and operations, the actual cost of that is either met by an off-budget fund, the European PEACE facility, which involves member state contributions, or by common costs whereby member states bear their own costs in terms of participation.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is important to clarify that because sometimes people can get confused about it.
Mr. Fitzgerald mentioned Horizon. Obviously, Israel benefits quite substantially from Horizon. It does research and everything else. Will Israel benefit from this €800 billion in funding we are talking about?
Mr. Brendan Fitzgerald:
I cannot talk about the ECF, which we are here today to discuss, but I could certainly refer you to the SAFE mechanism. There are a number of restrictive measures in there, safeguards, not targeting anybody but certainly that would exclude them from funding. Only member states can avail of the loans, and the procurement opportunities can be filtered down to member states and those who are in the European Economic Area. It is possible for subcontractors from Israel, where a small component of a larger European product could be eligible, but it is not SAFE funding. Germany, perhaps, would get the funding, and part of the component it is buying - for example, a spring - is produced in Israel. It is possible but at the subcontractor level.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
So it is possible. I will move on to the members. Deputy Ó Laoghaire is first.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have a couple of questions. I will try to be as concise as possible, and I hope the witnesses might be in a position to be as well. On the EU funding side of things, we regularly see resolutions in the European Parliament. Obviously, they do not have any legal effect, but it is a regular aspect of the discussion about the need for member states to increase defence spending to a particular amount. To be very clear, I support the position that we invest in our Defence Forces to bring them beyond the current period of neglect that they have experienced and to ensure that they get to the level they ought to be at. I am not putting that on the witnesses; I am putting that on the Governments that have failed to invest over recent years. From a legal point of view, is there any requirement in any of the EU programmes for an Irish Government to spend a certain amount or to increase expenditure on defence other than the rhetoric of resolutions and so on?
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is fine. On co-operation, there has been a fair bit about different programmes we opt in and we opt out of. A significant part of defence co-operation is intelligence sharing and so on. Could the witnesses just say a brief word about what level of co-operation happens between Ireland and other EU countries in terms of intelligence and information sharing? What mechanisms are we a part of in that regard? Some of that is probably in Ireland's interest in terms of the maritime situation we face and so on, but I just want to get a sense of the frameworks that are there at the minute.
Mr. Brían O'Meara:
That is an excellent question. Unfortunately, however, it is not something I would have the expertise to opine on at the moment. We would be happy to revert to the Deputy on that. For example, there is a PESCO project on maritime awareness information sharing and that sort of thing. If the Deputy is looking at the intelligence angle, however, that is not necessarily something we would have a capacity to comment on.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is fine. Mr. O'Meara mentioned PESCO and that if there were anything beyond the current training exercises, a subsequent decision would have to be made. Is that a ministerial decision or a Government decision? Would it involve a vote of the Dáil and the Seanad? What is the mechanism should there be a proposal for further participation in PESCO beyond the current training mechanisms or whatever?
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am talking about the battle groups.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This is covered by what was said earlier about the communiqués and so on. There has been some discussion about co-operation in relation to drones. That is a very significant challenge that European countries face at this time as well as a lot of provocative actions by the Russian Federation in eastern Europe. That is something we need to be conscious of ourselves here. As I understand it, that is just at the level of initial discussions, but has the Department, even in anticipating further co-operation or anything like that, undertaken any work or is it very much a wait-and-see kind of approach?
Mr. Brían O'Meara:
We are all very conscious of that in terms of provocations, particularly Baltic countries with drone provocations. Most recently, at the European Council in Copenhagen in the past couple of weeks, Copenhagen Airport was closed and a number of other Danish airports subsequently were closed as well, along with a number of Norwegian airports as a result of these drone provocations. Under the readiness roadmap following the White Paper, there are proposals for a number of key projects. One of those was initially termed a drone wall by Commissioner von der Leyen. The Deputy may have seen some of the commentary and pushback it received from a number of EU member states. Certain EU member states would want any kind of project that is developed to have a 360° focus, as opposed to, say, an eastern focus.
As to what we are doing in the Department with regard to the primary radar project, there may be some potential if there are developments of a drone project for us to engage there, but it is as the Deputy said. It is very much a case of looking at proposals that come out, seeing if there is a benefit for us and seeing if we can engage. We are potentially open to it in the context of the primary radar proposal, something of an anti-drone nature. Again, these are the very early stages. Any kind of drone project is at the moment just a proposal from a European angle. In terms of lead nations, how it is handled, the administration funding, etc., that all would have yet to be defined and we would need to examine it to see if there is benefit from it or if we could feed into a particular aspect of it.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not need a particular response to the following. The witnesses may respond if they wish, but I will just make two statements. First, in terms of SAFE and talking about the potential for Irish business to become involved, it is important that, at a governmental and departmental level, consideration is given to whether there will be an industry of whatever kind, and it might be more on the smaller components side of things, but that there is an ethical framework or an infrastructure. Clearly, even where it comes from private industry, if components are ending up in places where a genocide or war crimes are taking place, that has political and moral implications for Ireland. If we are looking at more businesses becoming involved in things like this, there has to be a framework, and the Department needs to look at that.
Second, in this committee, certainly, and I think probably to some extent across the Oireachtas generally, there is consensus on a need to invest in our Defence Forces. It is vital that we address, as I said, the failure to invest in recent years on the part of recent Governments, but it is also important, given that we are speaking as some of the people who will be responsible for this, that there will be an awareness to ensure that expenditure is cost-effective. Increasingly, there is a concern about the public sector as a whole and excessive spending on projects in the context of targets being missed and so on.
There is definitely support in the committee for investment in our Defence Forces. It is important that it is cost effective and taxpayers' money is well spent. We are trusting the officials in the Department to ensure that is the case. I thank the witnesses for all their work.
Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome Mr. O'Meara and his colleagues and thank them for their contributions to date. As Mr. O'Meara outlined, the security landscape across Europe has changed with the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine. It has made us all sit up and take stock of the country's security and critical infrastructure and how best to protect it.
Our undersea cables have been mentioned. Is Mr. O'Meara happy with the level of security regarding those cables? He has spoken of the need to invest further - in what? Will he expand on that? Are we vulnerable currently? It seems we have got away with one up to this point, if I can use that expression. All of a sudden, we have to get into the real world as regards our security from an island perspective. We seem to be the sick cousin of Europe in relation to defence, whether we like it or not. Will Mr. O'Meara expand on the undersea cables? Who are the beneficiaries of those cables? Is the section of cable in Irish waters totally our responsibility or do others contribute, including the UK?
Mr. Brían O'Meara:
Thank you, Senator. I am sorry to say I probably will not be able to provide a full answer on that because it is very much outside my area of expertise. We are happy to revert subsequently. Protection of undersea cables and critical underwater infrastructure is relatively new for all EU member states. We are not on our own in this regard. We are looking at how to enhance co-operation and share information where it can be of benefit in terms of critical underwater infrastructure protection. Under PESCO, we engage with three projects in the maritime area on maritime domain awareness. From a capability development point of view, developments are ongoing on procurement with regard to the naval service - that is in maritime awareness as well - as well as with the primary radar aspect.
On specific issues around cables, I would only be engaging in conjecture if I went in but we are happy to take it away and get a response from the maritime security side of the house in writing.
Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is fine. I would welcome that.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I propose to list a number of questions because we are tight on time but I want the answers. If the witnesses cannot deliver them today, will they provide them afterwards?
The EU strategic compass for security and defence was agreed in 2022. It was, as Mr. O'Meara referred to in his opening statement, a high-level policy initiative. From recent briefings and discussions I have been party to, both nationally and internationally, it is apparent to wise and informed observers that the said compass is already significantly dated, as it remains solely aspirational. Senior serving and veteran military leaders refer to the compass as mere symbolic policies and believe the focus needs to be urgently and solely on EU defence readiness. Do the witnesses agree? If so, what ramifications does this have for our Defence Forces capability attainment, seeing as most operational units of the Defence Forces across the three services are judged against the internationally accepted norm of 50% leadership strength and are, in fact, non-operational as the leadership strength is in the late 30s or early 40s, in percentage terms, as outlined at the recent RACO conference? Essentially, we are saying our Defence Forces are non-operational.
Mr. O'Meara speaks about infrastructure. Is he referring to bricks-and-mortar infrastructure, energy infrastructure, power generation structures or airports? My colleague referred to the issue of drones. The situation is that a ship 12 miles off the coast of Ireland could set what we might call a drone swarm on all of our airports on the western coast and on Baldonnel in Dublin during the EU Presidency. We do not have an anti-aircraft regiment any more. It was stood down and abandoned in 2012. What policy is being put in place to re-establish such a regiment?
We constantly refer to the Defence Forces in the peacekeeping role. What is the primary role of the Defence Forces?
I am rather shocked to hear Mr. O'Meara say primary radar is not yet purchased. We were told on live radio three years ago it would take 36 months to purchase primary radar.
I do not want to put Mr. O'Meara on the spot with the next question but I tend to do that anyway, so I am sorry. The word on the street is the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces wanted to use the SAFE money that was available. Deputy Callaghan said the money was a 45-year loan, so it was a soft loan, and would have been easy to use. My understanding is the Department of public expenditure and reform killed that. Is that true or false?
We are looking at the end of UN service. We have been involved with NATO and EU missions in the past. Where do the costs lie? How will troops be remunerated for their time serving with some other organisation? It might be a bit ahead of time because we have not yet abandoned the triple lock. If we do, how will it be done?
Those are questions I feel need to be on the agenda. I would be particularly concerned if the Department of public expenditure and reform were in a position to shoot down a plan by the Department of defence for defence spending. The Minister and Tánaiste is on record as saying he sought €3.7 billion for defence this year and as saying we would buy a couple of squadrons of fighters. Our sister European country Finland spends €6.77 billion on defence. I think it is €7.2 billion for 2026. We are spending €1.49 billion. I still have not figured out exactly how we are spending that money. Have we actually increased spending? That money may very well be absorbed by pensions, pay and standing charges like electricity, power and petrol. We need a breakdown of that €1.49 billion to see, percentage-wise, how much of an increase there has been in defence spending.
I know Mr. O'Meara has to work with what is laid in front of him and build policy around that – and Mr. Fitzgerald likewise – to get as much as we can out of the European Union. However, if the Department is being impeded by others, we need to know that. We need to be aware of what is going on. I will be making a recommendation that we bring in the Department of public expenditure and reform to discuss defence spending because it is an important issue.
I am sorry for asking so many questions. The witnesses can take their time and write to us if they want or they can try to answer some of them now.
Mr. Brían O'Meara:
Thank you, Senator. I will do my best. Sixty minutes - what is it, the old Larry Gogan thing? I absolutely agree on the strategic compass. Its development was very unfortunate. The final stages of its drafting were in spring 2022. I was in Brussels at the time negotiating it and it was 99% done when all of a sudden the Russian invasion of Ukraine impacted on it.
There is a school of thought that it needs to be considerably revised. In terms of looking at the initiative since, in the context of both the White Paper and readiness, that is what we are seeing. One of the key aspects of the compass would have been the risk assessment at the start to identify the risks facing Europe. Part of the compass was a mid-term risk assessment. This was almost repurposed for the White Paper. Theoretically, it could be said that the White Paper was a development or redrawing of the compass, but the Senator is correct in saying that the timing was very unfortunate. It did not necessarily get the chance to take account of the turmoil that erupted in the spring of 2022.
In terms of the primary role of the Defence Forces, obviously it is the defence of the State. The Senator also asked about UNIFIL, overseas deployments and allowances. The UNIFIL mandate renewal this summer was very tricky. We were coming from a space where we thought that it might end immediately and people would have to be brought home. The fact that it will run until the end of 2026 at least allows time for planning an exit strategy that can potentially be implemented in the early part of 2027. It also allows for other future overseas deployment for Defence Forces' personnel, but, obviously, that is something that the Department and the Defence Forces are considering in terms of where such personnel may be deployed. The Senator referenced the fact that, historically, the Defence Forces would have taken part in a particular NATO mission. They are still actually involved with KFOR in Kosovo, which is NATO led but which has a UN Security Council mandate.
The Minister has put in place a range of measures to improve recruitment and retention in the Defence Forces. At the same time, a number of Ministers have also accepted that there are challenges in recruiting and retaining personnel, but there is a hope that we are starting to turn the ship around. Some of the key initiatives introduced initially related to the pay and conditions of Defence Forces personnel. It is probably worth making clear again what those initiatives are, particularly in the context of the starting salary. A recruit on completion of training after 24 weeks will commence on €41,800 in year one. In year two, it will be €43,300 and in year three it will be €44, 600. The starting pay of a private three-star has risen by approximately 49% since 2019.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yes, but we did not keep the differentials. As a result, when someone becomes a corporal, there is not a great increase in salary.
Mr. Brían O'Meara:
There is a project to look at that. One of the recommendations in the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces relates to long-service increments. Hopefully, if that is progressed, it address this issue. School-leaver cadets, on commissioning, are now paid €45,700 and where a graduate cadet joins, the starting salary is €51,180. Other measures have been brought in as well, like the doubling of the patrol duty allowance for the Naval Service and the extension of private medical care across the Defence Forces to all members. Other incentives include technical pay and allowances, duty allowances and so on, which, if they are pensionable, increase in line with public pay agreements. Indeed, public pay agreements obviously apply as well, so there is a range of measures in relation to pay.
The defence budget has increased, as the Senator correctly pointed out, from approximately €1 billion to €1.49 billion. We are happy to seek a breakdown and provide that to the committee. The Senator's final point was on SAFE and the decision on whether Ireland takes part. Colleagues from the Departments of Finance, public expenditure and reform and defence attended a meeting of the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure, Public Service Reform, Digitalisation and Taoiseach last week at which this matter was examined in some depth. Given that this is finance regulation led, it was decided by the three Departments involved that Ireland will not be availing of SAFE. That was made clear last week and we are happy to say why. We are not taking part in SAFE, I should add, in terms of the loan aspect but certainly we are open to taking part, at this stage, in common procurement opportunities that will arise under it. Mr. Fitzgerald may correct me on this but those common procurement opportunities will arise where we are part of a consortium and one member of the consortium is drawing down funds from the instrument. That will then allow us to take part.
Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We are being seen as freeloading on the member that is using SAFE money to buy military equipment. The Irish come in behind and avail of the cheap price without having taken out the loan. They buy what they can afford. It is like going into Tesco and standing beside someone at the checkout and asking, "Do you mind if I throw my pint of milk beside yours?". It is outrageous that we did not avail of SAFE. I know the witnesses cannot answer that and that is fine. I accept that.
Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We will conclude there, unless anyone has anything to add. On behalf of the committee, I thank the officials for their time and engagement this evening. We will suspend briefly to allow the witnesses to leave and then meet in private session.