Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are meeting today to discuss key priorities for the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces. On behalf of the committee, I welcome the Minister for Defence and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Helen McEntee. The Minister is accompanied by the following officials from the Department of Defence: Ms Clare Tiernan, assistant secretary with responsibility for defence capability and people policy; Mr. Eamonn Murtagh, assistant secretary with responsibility for strategic change and capability development; and Ms Aileen Nolan, assistant secretary with responsibility for corporate affairs. They are all very welcome.

The format will be that I will invite the Minister to make an opening statement. This will be followed by questions from members. 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 they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, a member who attempts to participate from outside the precinct will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask any member partaking via Microsoft Teams that prior to making their contribution to the meeting, 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 relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative 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 the Minister to deliver her opening statement.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am very pleased to be here, for the first time as Minister for Defence, to engage with the committee in relation to my priorities. I look forward to working with the committee in general in the time ahead.

The committee has an important role to play in the public discussions on defence in this country. I hope that by working together, we can facilitate such a debate that will be beneficial to all of us who care and are committed to the defence of the country and the vital role that Óglaigh na hÉireann currently plays and will have to play in the future, particularly in the context of a rapidly evolving international security environment. I will take the opportunity to outline my priorities as Minister for Defence. I assure the committee that I am fully committed to the continued transformation of the Defence Forces into a modern, fit-for-purpose organisation capable of defending our State.

Earlier this month, I met with my EU counterparts at a meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council, FAC, defence configuration. I also attended the Munich Security Conference, at which I had the opportunity on many occasions to speak with a number of international defence partners. It is very clear from my engagements with those counterparts that the changing geopolitical situation – the war on the Continent of Europe, the increasingly complex hybrid threats and the presence of the Russian shadow fleet in our waters - means that we all share a commitment to enhance European defence capabilities. These engagements have reaffirmed my belief that Ireland needs to be more ambitious in delivering the necessary capability, infrastructure and personnel to meet the security challenges not only of today but also of the future.

The Government and I are fully committed to strengthening Ireland’s defence by continuing to increase investment with a view to achieving a significantly enhanced capability by 2028 and beyond. Thereafter, we will be moving as quickly as possible to develop defence capabilities that would match those of other small western European countries. The Government’s commitment to enhancing investment in our Defence Forces is demonstrated by the significant increase in funding over the past number of years. In the period 2022 to 2026, the funding allocation for defence increased by €338 million, or 40%, from €836 million in 2022 to €1.17 billion this year. As the committee will know, I recently published the strategic framework and the updated detailed implementation plan for the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces. This reflects my key priorities for defence. This overall implementation plan brings together a number of key strategies and bodies of work that have been under way in the Department and with the Defence Forces.

Priorities include: continuing to drive the implementation of reform and the transformation of our Defence Forces, particularly with respect to cultural change; supporting Defence Forces personnel, namely the men and women of Óglaigh na hÉireann; ensuring investment translates into real capability, with a focus on the greater use of new technology; progressing an ambitious policy agenda including the implementation of the maritime security strategy, the first of which was published yesterday; and initiating a further defence policy review, which will take place this year.

I also want to advance an ambitious legislative programme, including a Bill to remove the existing requirement regarding the triple lock and another aimed at strengthening governance arrangements and supporting workforce reform through amending high-level structures within the Defence Forces.

Delivering meaningful cultural change for the members of the Defence Forces is a key driving force for me in my role, and I assume for all members of the committee. Transformative change in the Defence Forces involves structures, culture, capability and people management. To achieve this, it is necessary to institute reforms spanning primary legislation, capability development, human resources and culture. We are putting in place a number of crucial human resources initiatives that will bolster the progress already made in this area. Particular emphasis will be placed on enhanced career and talent management policies and practices, as well as revised access to promotion opportunities, a civilianisation strategy and, to complement that, a workforce plan.

Recruitment and retention initiatives are a driving force for the success of all transformation efforts. Improvements in recruitment policies and processes are beginning to bear fruit, with personnel numbers starting to grow again and interest in careers in the Defence Forces strengthening year on year. My priority is to sustain this increase in recruitment, strengthen retention and support long-term career development for the women and men of our Defence Forces. To that end, it is also absolutely essential that the members of the Defence Forces experience and feel a meaningful cultural change in their workplace. I will highlight some of the work that is under way to achieve this.

An external oversight body of the Defence Forces was established in April 2023 and put on a statutory basis from 1 December 2024. The body is critical in the context of driving and achieving the goal of culture change throughout the Defence Forces. A tribunal of inquiry to examine the effectiveness of the complaints processes in the Defence Forces concerning workplace issues relating to discrimination, bullying, harassment, sexual harassment and sexual misconduct was established by statutory instrument on 20 June 2024. A new independent and external grievance system that deals with complaints of an interpersonal nature regarding bullying, harassment, sexual harassment and victimisation in the workplace is available to serving members of the Defence Forces, both in the Permanent Defence Force and the Reserve Defence Force. The new process is available initially on a 12-month trial basis. A review of the process after 12 months will inform the primary legislation required to establish a suitable complaints process for serving members of the Defence Forces on a more statutory basis.

The Defence Forces have developed mandatory sexual ethics and responsible relationship workshops in co-operation with UCC. Attendance at these workshops is mandatory for all personnel. More than 3,000 members of the Defence Forces have completed this training to date. Some 4,600 Defence Forces members have completed unconscious bias training. The recently published 2025 Value our People survey undertaken by the Defence Forces is a critical tool that gives the information needed to understand, measure and implement cultural transformation. The intention is to carry out the survey on a rolling basis.

I want to turn now to enhancing the capabilities of our Defence Forces. I have prioritised the delivery of a military radar programme and am pleased that good progress is being made in this regard. As an island nation, we must be ambitious about our air defence capabilities. The programme will have three elements: land-based long-range primary radar; ground-based air defence, to include counter-unmanned aerial systems or counter-drone capability; and maritime, ship-borne radar. When fully delivered, the recognised air picture will incorporate this suite of military radar systems, which will be able to detect all aircraft traversing our airspace. Full delivery of the programme will be complex. The roll-out will commence this year and has been prioritised with a target delivery date of 2028. Elements will be rolled out in phases, including the delivery of counter-drone technology in the second half of this year.

Another key priority for me is the Defence (Amendment) Bill, which aims to revise how we deploy our Defence Forces overseas. I expect to bring the Bill to Cabinet for approval as soon as possible following the conclusion of the drafting process and, subsequently, to bring it through the Oireachtas. Ireland has a proud tradition of international peacekeeping, and the Government has agreed that a new process is needed to replace the current system governing the overseas deployment of our Defence Forces personnel to take part in peace support operations, which effectively allows the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to bind Ireland's hands in the context of its international engagement. By amending the legislation, we will ensure our continued compliance with the highest standards of international law without surrendering our sovereignty.

I reassure the committee members that the Government remains fully committed to maintaining democratically accountable arrangements that will govern the despatch of Defence Forces personnel overseas and that any legislative proposals will remain fully consistent with the principles of the UN Charter and international law. Furthermore, the Government has been clear that the proposed changes and the removal of the triple lock will do nothing to alter or undermine Ireland's policy of military neutrality. I thank the committee members for the work they have done on the legislation and the recommendations they have made, some of which I have brought to the Cabinet to be accepted. I look forward to working with them on the legislation.

As many members know, I published the first national maritime security strategy yesterday. I thank the members of the committee for attending the related event. In the context of a challenging geopolitical landscape and Ireland's location off the coast of the Continent, this strategy concentrates on securing the maritime domain from threats related to national security and defence. The strategy and accompanying action plan provide a roadmap, over the next five years, to safeguard Ireland's sovereign maritime interests, ensure safe and secure seas and support international legal order in the maritime domain. My immediate ambition concerns implementation and action, moving to deliver a new, whole-of-government approach to protecting the security of our maritime domain, along with developing the concept of a national maritime security centre. A particularly important aspect of the strategy is to ensure that Ireland co-operates with its regional partners and international institutions. This will include co-operating closely with our near neighbours on our new initiatives and exploring the opportunity for Ireland to host or participate in a regional cable monitoring hub for the EU in the north Atlantic.

I am confident and determined that, through the new strategic framework and the updated detailed implementation plan, the Government and the Defence Forces will realise our shared ambition, which will result in clear and irrefutable evidence of change on the ground for serving members. My focus on modernising the Defence Forces, increasing capability and accelerating cultural and organisational reform is being pursued with the aim of creating a more resilient, fit-for-purpose force capable of responding in today's complex security environment. I very much welcome the opportunity to discuss all these points and the committee's priorities.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister and wish her well in her new and important role. Before we hear from the members, I want to flag for the Minister the issue that the committee has regarding defence and national security. For months now, we have sought an extension of our remit to enable us to address the national security element in an effective and efficient manner. We have been constrained by not having the extended remit. We have gone through all the relevant procedures, including contacting the other relevant committees, namely the committees on justice and finance, and have got agreement from them. We made our submission to the Committee Standing Orders and Dáil Reform to extend the relevant order of reference to the committee to facilitate the examination of national security policy.

The committee is very lucky that it has expertise from across the various parties. Deputy Catherine Callaghan has experience with the Air Corps. Senators Tom Clonan and Gerard Craughwell also have experience. We want to be able to do our job effectively. I ask the Minister to do everything within her power to ensure that no more than she can do her job, we can do ours. We have some very serious issues concerning our readiness for the EU Presidency, and we are also awaiting the national security strategy. We need to be able to have oversight of the latter; otherwise, there is no point in calling a committee a committee on defence and national security if it is prevented from examining national security. Will the Minister comment on that?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My understanding is that the decision was taken on the basis of the current Standing Orders but also the current structures of the committee, based on the Departments themselves. While the national security strategy will come under the remit of the Department of the Taoiseach, any of the elements that come from the Department of Defence are matters we could discuss here. More broadly, if it is a matter of the National Cyber Security Authority or anything else that fits under the Department of justice, it would not fall within my remit.

However, I am very happy to discuss any of the matters within my overall remit, for example, the maritime security strategy, which will fit into a national security strategy, or elements of the work of the Defence Forces. I can raise matters but my understanding is that the structures are very much aligned with the Departments, and I will not be able to go outside of what is within my remit. I am happy to discuss any of the elements that fit within my remit, though.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that but as the Minister can see, we are trying to do our job in a piecemeal fashion. A lot of money is being spent here. We need proper oversight of security and we need to be able to do our job in a complete and effective way. I am sure other members will raise that in their contributions as well.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister. Well done on the progress within the Department in her role so far. She has detailed the increased investment, which was badly needed. I welcome that and what it will do for the Defence Forces in making them a more attractive option and giving them better facilities for our recruits.

Congratulations on the launch of the maritime strategy. The Minister talked about the co-operation to protect infrastructure in our waters. When is that envisaged to take place? Is there a formal process with our EU counterparts or even our nearest neighbour in relation to that? In terms of the strategy itself, is there a vision for the number of ships that we expect to have in our fleet in the future? As it is, we do not have the capability to launch more than one at the moment. However, recruitment is increasing to the Naval Services.

The Minister might provide an update on the security action for Europe, SAFE, EU funding and accessing it.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Kyne. There are a number of elements within the maritime security strategy that would relate specifically to protection of our national infrastructure but also protection of the critical subsea cables that are part of that. Some of the actions include the development of a new forum that would involve the private sector, which owns a lot of the subsea cables that feed into much of the work that we do on this island and carry much of the data that is essential to the day-to-day workings of our economy. This forum would give us an opportunity to work more closely with the private sector to identify the risks and challenges and how we could work more closely in protecting that critical subsea infrastructure. I will be moving to try to establish that forum this year and to engage with partners at the earliest stage possible.

In terms of working with international partners, including our European partners, we already have a number of different structures that we are engaged in around training and intelligence sharing specifically. There is more we can do, though. For example, the joint expeditionary force, JEF, is a current format that brings together ten countries, including the UK, the Nordic and Baltic countries and a small number of others. These are all NATO countries but it is not a NATO programme. Without impacting on our military neutrality, there should be a way for us within the next year to engage with the programme to see whether can we do more on training, intelligence sharing and co-operating more broadly.

In regard to the number of ships, we currently have eight, four of which are the P60 fleet, including the one we were on yesterday for the launch. We have the LÉ Aoibhinn, the LÉ Niamh, the LÉ Gobnait, which is due to come on stream later on this year, and the LÉ Róisín. We are awaiting our Naval Service regeneration plan. I am working closely with the Defence Forces, including the chief of staff, on that and I expect that I will receive a copy of the Naval Service regeneration plan in the coming weeks. The capability development plan will look at exactly what our future fleet needs are. It will be completed this year. Separate from that but as part of the overall capital plan, it is intended there will be investment in further regeneration of the current eight-ship fleet in the latter part of the national development plan.

Separately from that again but connected to the national maritime security strategy and the capital plan, there is a clear commitment to deliver new sonar capability. This is really important. When we talk about working hand in hand with our colleagues, we need to make sure that we are sharing information with them and that we have the greatest picture as to what is happening on our seabed. The investment in our sonar capability is already under way. The contract was signed last year. Funding has already been spent and more money will be spent this year and next year to make sure we have that capability in situ within the next year to year and a half.

More broadly on the timelines for our implementation of the national maritime security strategy, it is a five-year strategy but my intention is that the implementation plans would work on a yearly basis. To accompany the strategy, our plans and my objectives for the next year were published yesterday. My intention is that, towards the end of this year, we will start to revise and to see what next year looks like in terms of implementation, whether we can move forward, whether we have been delayed in any of the areas and whether there are things that we need to change. It is important with any strategy that we be adaptable, given that our global and geopolitical environments are changing at such a pace.

On SAFE, and as colleagues will be aware, Ireland took the decision last year not to participate in SAFE. However, it would be my view and that of others, the Tánaiste in particular, that we should, if the opportunity arises again, look to participate in SAFE and access the funding that is available to us as it is to other member states. There is a possibility that this will reopen in the near future. That is something we should consider.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for those responses. On a more parochial matter, the Minister visited Dún Uí Mhaoilíosa in Renmore, County Galway, a couple of weeks ago to open the new officer accommodation block. It was certainly money well spent on a top-class facility. Councillor Shane Forde and I have raised the issue of the walkway between the barracks and the rail line, which was being used to access the St. James's GAA club. It was a great amenity in the locality. The closure of that walkway, which I understand was for security reasons, has meant that there is now a car journey of a number of kilometres that has to be done to access those lands. This pathway along the rail line was a great shortcut and a great route of exercise to St. James's and Ballyloughane. What engagement has the Minister had so far to try to either reopen that or look at alternatives?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge the ceremonies that took place two weeks ago in which four members of the Defence Forces, including a member of the clergy, were given honorary medals in recognition of their bravery in the significant incident that happened over a year ago. The event was to acknowledge the importance of that, not just for them and their families, but also for the barracks and the wider community.

My priority, and I think that of others, is to make sure that we can find a way forward so that the walkway can be delivered and developed for the wider community but also that any concerns that the Defence Forces may have can be addressed. I have asked my colleagues to engage with the Defence Forces and the local community to see whether we can find a way forward and a solution as quickly as possible. That work is under way and engagement is happening at the moment. I am hopeful that we will be able to make progress, but I recognise the concerns of the Defence Forces. Where we have such investment and important plans within the community, it is really important that walkways of this kind can be delivered and sit side by side with such an important piece of infrastructure.

Maeve O'Connell (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for joining us today. The work the Minister does and the work we in this committee do is of huge importance. The primary duty of a state is to protect its citizens. That is where the Minister's role and what we do is of great importance. I often think it is something that we have not paid sufficient attention to over the decades. I can understand why we focused more on the economic aspects, certainly in the latter half of the last century. If we could not keep our people in the country because we were not able to provide for them, then the other aspects of their security effectively became moot. Fortunately, we have become a very powerful and prosperous country, one that is seen as a leader in the world.

That has required us to step up to the new challenges of providing that protection for our citizens and assuming that role. The formation of this committee is very much an indication of that. The Minister being here today and talking to us about this is really important for sending the signal that we are taking this matter seriously. The issues of safety and security come up among all my constituents all the time now. Regardless of what I start the conversation on, it inevitably drifts towards this because people want to know whether they and their children are safe. People want to know that they are going to be protected. As the Minister pointed out very eloquently, we are living in a very changed geopolitical world and the rules that applied before no longer apply today. People are very concerned about how we are going to navigate that space. That is where the Minister coming here today and us having this committee sends a really important signal to the general public.

I have a range of questions, but the first is on our Reserve Defence Force, RDF. There are some anomalies in terms of pay and conditions. I know it has been engaging with the Minister's Department. It is of particular concern in the run up to the EU Presidency because we will be relying on the RDF to step up and fill various opportunities because of the increased focus around the Presidency. Where are we in terms of our engagement with the RDF on pay and terms and conditions?

We have a lot of indigenous industries that could engage and provide services and products in the security sphere but there are some legislative barriers around their ability to do so. What is the Minister's position? Is it something she has looked at and is it something she is looking to change? There is a significant opportunity offered by the SAFE fund for our industries to grow and take advantage of that.

My colleagues have asked questions about the Naval Service, so I will ask about the Air Corps, which will be moving to the title of "Air Force" in the future. We have invested quite significantly there. I have repeatedly asked questions about that investment in terms of Airbus and the Falcons. I know it is part of the general plan but what is our plan around combat aircraft and when we will look to secure any of those?

We visited Casement Aerodrome last week. The staff there were very good to host us. What are the plans and timeline around establishing a base at Shannon?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with the Deputy. We are all finding that conversations we have more generally with our constituents focus more and more on security and defence. A natural reason for that is the war in Ukraine, the fact that we are seeing more continents with conflicts than we have had since the Second World War and the fact that it has just become a more hostile environment. It is important that we have an opportunity to meet and engage on this and that we collectively contribute to the safety of all the people we represent.

I acknowledge the important role that Reserve members play. Only last night, I spoke to a young man who wanted to become a Reserve member and contribute. It is a very busy job but he sees the benefit of becoming a Reserve member. I want us to be more ambitious in increasing our numbers and supporting the Reserve. We have a regeneration plan that was published in, I think, July 2024 and sets out how we can be more ambitious. The focus now is on making sure that it is implemented as soon as possible.

I also met the representative groups recently where they raised a number of issues touched on by the Deputy with regard to the types of pay and support that are provided, what the duties of Reserve members are and how people can become reservists. We had an intake of about 300 just before Christmas, who will now be going into training. If I can at some stage, I will inform the committee about when the next recruitment campaign will be opening up. The security duty allowance is only provided to permanent members of the Defence Forces but the Defence Forces' representative association, or the Reserve Defence Force, submitted a business case to extend this allowance to members of the Reserve. This is particularly where they are engaged in garrison security duties in support of the Permanent Defence Force, PDF. The proposal has been approved in principle and there are discussions between my Department and the Defence Forces to determine essentially how this could be applied or what the appropriate mechanisms for administering it are. It is important that where certain work is being done, we recognise that. This is why the proposal has been agreed in principle and why it will be progressed.

The conditions under which they are paid for certain activities are prescribed in Defence Forces regulations. A letter was issued relating to various different payments recently. While there was an issue with that, all of these matters have been resolved and I will work closely with the Reserve Defence Force Representative Association, RDFRA, to see that we progress them.

All of the activities more generally are under review and the process to do that is happening, but it is important that we continue to review the way in which our reservists are paid along with the types of duty they do, particularly given that so many of them have such a level of expertise that they can contribute. I recently met the Swiss minister for defence. Switzerland has a very good programme in place. If members leave to go to, for example, the private sector, there is a very good structure whereby they can come back and contribute to the reserve because of the types of qualification they have in cybersecurity or other areas. I am really keen to see whether we can do more of that with members of the Reserve.

The Deputy is right about our indigenous industries. We have a lot of companies that would like to play a greater role. There are companies that would mainly be engaged in maintenance when it comes to our equipment or technologies, but where there are dual-use capabilities, I do see more of a role for Irish companies, be it in the maritime space, radar technologies or drone advancement. Each contract is taken on a case-by-case basis, so companies are not prohibited from engaging in various contracts and tendering. There are instances, particularly where there are specific requirements, where we could prioritise or identify Irish companies that would be able to partake in those tenders or contracts.

I am working closely with my colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, Peter Burke, on legislative barriers. The main concerns that have been raised are from the various different agencies, such as IBEC and Enterprise Ireland, which feel that because of the legislation, it is not within their remit to be able to support some of these companies, which is causing some of the barriers. I will work closely with the Minister to see whether that legislation can be progressed so that these agencies can support companies.

Companies have the ability to apply on a case-by-case and contract-by-contract basis and I would encourage those that feel they have something to offer, particularly in the tech or AI space or when it comes to our maritime domain, to engage in tenders or other opportunities.

The focus with regard to the Air Corps is on level of ambition 2 in the first instance. There has been significant investment to date. There is the Falcon and four helicopters will be delivered in 2027 and 2028. We will have eight super-medium helicopters after that - when we get the four, we will have eight in total. The future fleet will be set out in the capability development plan from 2028 to 2040, which will be announced later on this year. We will be setting out how we will further enhance our aircraft capability.

In terms of the Shannon base, the focus is on Baldonnel at present but we are working on a master plan for the Air Corps. When that is completed, it will set out what more we can do to expand. The Naval Service regeneration plan is under way. We have just developed a maritime security strategy. Similarly, the Air Corps is working on its own future-looking plans setting out what more we need to do. I expect that this would be addressed in that plan.

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

I congratulate the Minister on the national maritime plan that was launched yesterday. It was a fine piece of work. It raises many questions, not least of which is the funding of some of its elements.

I will cut to the chase. With regard to the EU Presidency, there has been a lot of talk about co-operation. The Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, as far as I recall, and perhaps the Minister adverted to the support that was offered to Denmark by Germany when Denmark had problems.

This brings me to the constant mantra about co-operation with other countries. Has anybody briefed the Minister on the difference between non-executive postures and executive postures? For example, if we are relying on the French, will they be outside the 12-mile limit? Will they have rules of engagement where they can take lethal force if they need to do that? Has anybody discussed this whatsoever with the Minister? The case of Denmark is very clear. Denmark is a member of NATO and Article 5 requires NATO countries to come to the assistance of other NATO countries. When we are talking about co-operation, are we talking about ships, personnel and aircraft that will have access to lethal action should it be required? For example, if there is a French or Northern Irish police person or whatever else in this country and somebody makes a run for a Prime Minister's car, are they allowed to shoot them? Are there rules of engagement there? I am deeply concerned that we are masking what is a constitutional requirement by calling it a non-executive posture. I would be interested in getting an answer to that.

After the Minister left yesterday, we did raise the issue of cadets' pay, which is €26,000 a year. The Minister is expecting people as old as 39 to join the Defence Forces and then she offers them the post-2013 pension scheme - she does not, but the Department of public expenditure does - which is repugnant to anybody wanting to spend a life in the public service. She speaks about the Government's commitment to the Defence Forces. I can tell her that following the launch of the maritime strategy yesterday, I have had dozens of phone calls from people, not so much complaining about the maritime strategy but complaining about the Government and its lack of interest in the Defence Forces.

The Tánaiste went on the record as saying he wanted €3.4 billion for the Defence Forces. That is about the budget that is required to meet LOA 2. He was given €1.4 billion. When in God's name did we ever see a situation in this country where a Minister said he was looking for A, B or C and he was told by somebody else - a civil servant - that he could not have it? This is outrageous. I want to know where the difference is going to come to meet LOA 2.

Of the naval ports that are mentioned in the national strategy, there is no funding for Dún Laoghaire or Galway. I am more than interested to see how that happens. We hear about primary radar at every meeting. What do we do if we find something flying into Irish airspace at 40,000 ft? What exactly do we do with it? Do we send a strongly worded letter? We do not have the capacity to go up there.

I have mentioned the single pension scheme. The other thing that was mentioned is the co-operation with other countries with respect to the sharing of intelligence. NATO countries cannot share intelligence with non-NATO countries. I would be interested in knowing how we will manage to get around that one. Given the time allocated to me, I will leave it at that.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

First, in relation to the Presidency and co-operation, these are all the matters on which I am currently engaging to identify what we could possibly do and what the possible options are given that we are not a NATO member and that we are a neutral country. This is what is being explored at the moment. There is no agreement, despite reports today that we have made an agreement with France and the UK that we would have ships in our waters, in our EEZ or within our 12-nautical mile limit. I am exploring what options may be available to us should we require assistance. Whether we compare ourselves to Denmark or anybody else, what I am looking at is the fact that we have a maritime domain seven times the size of our land mass. We have certain capabilities, but if we require additional support, we should not be afraid to ask for it, if it is within our constitutional limits.

There is an onus on us to make sure, particularly during the Presidency, when a huge number of visits will take place, including a high-level meeting of 47 Heads of State, and Ministers coming for six months, that the security not just of our own citizens, but of all of those who come here are taken extremely seriously. I am currently engaging on what powers may be available to us and what possible options may be available to engage with other colleagues and other allies essentially to be able to provide support if needed. That is under way at the moment. When that concludes we will be able to engage further with colleagues on it.

In terms of the general responsibility for security and what happens if something goes wrong, be it on the ground or in any other way, An Garda Síochána is leading out on the security more generally, but it is working very closely with the Defence Forces. The Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces has met quite regularly with the Garda Commissioner. Their teams are engaging and of course we are assisting however we can when it comes to challenges on land and in the maritime domain. This is where the Defence Forces have the responsibility. It is really important that we do everything we can to protect our skies and our seas during those six months. I met with the Minister, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, last week as well just to make sure that good progress is being made and that there is as much co-operation as is necessary throughout the six months between the Defence Forces and An Garda Síochána.

I really want to make progress on cadets' pay. We have been directed to engage in local bargaining where, for the most part, this issue has been addressed. I met with the unions only recently and this issue was discussed. I have asked my officials to look at whether there are other ways in which we could respond to the need for an increase in pay overall. That work is under way. I am not saying we have an answer here, but I would like to see if there is something outside of the local bargaining that we can do to respond to this. The pension scheme applies to everybody post-2013. We are all conscious of the limitations that are within it, but that would have to be a whole-of-government initiative and a change at a much wider level as well.

In terms of our budget, having been involved in the education budget last year when I did not get everything I asked for - I certainly felt that I needed all of it and more - I think we all face the same dilemma when it comes to budget time and trying to get as much funding as possible given the competing needs. I commend the Tánaiste for the work he and the Department did. The capital budget itself has increased by 55%. While I accept that we are starting from a low base, that shows the really clear outline of how determined we are to increase it. Certainly in my term, I will do everything I can to increase the budget further.

Our current spending has gone up by almost €400 million in a very short space of time. I again appreciate that we are starting from a low base but that increase in itself allows us to increase the number of members that we have and to spend it on other ways that we do not with the capital budget more broadly.

The maritime security strategy, and any of the other strategies that were launched, are all dependent on the budget we have, so we have to prioritise. I have said clearly that radar will be prioritised first and then sonar in terms of the maritime area. Any of these projects, be they new developments or purchasing, take a long time. I will work to get us to the point where if we have more money, I am ready to spend it. That is what I will be doing. We will now examine the potential new bases to make sure that if we have access to additional funding, whether through SAFE or our own budget, that we are ready to go in terms of the extra vessels. That work is under way now so that when we have access to more funding, we will be ready to go, but we have to work with what we have. We have to make sure that we spread it out in the best way possible and that we prioritise it. Of course I will be looking to get more funding.

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

I want to go back to the issue of foreign troops or foreign security people on Irish soil. Are we working on the rules of engagement? We do not need to know what they are. Are we working on rules of engagement that allow for the use of lethal force should it be required at sea, in the air or on land?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At this stage we are exploring what may be possible. If a decision is taken, the Defence Forces would obviously be responsible for the operational side of it. That would then have to be developed in line with what is legally possible, but we are not at that stage. We are at the stage where we are exploring what may or may not be possible. Do we then need to ask for that assistance? That has not happened yet. If that is the case, then it would be for the Defence Forces, with An Garda Síochána, which is the lead for overall security, to set out what those operational procedures would be. However, we are not at that point and no decision has been taken.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Therein lies part of the problem with the remit of this committee and the constraints in terms of the overlap with An Garda Síochána and us being able to provide as much transparency and accountability as possible to the public.

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

Four months out, we do not have that.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Craughwell did ask a lot of questions.

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

I am sorry.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He should have concentrated on that particular issue.

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

I will be back with more.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I echo the point on the remit of the committee. I think we all know with regard to committees here that, generally speaking, public bodies appear before several of them. I know the artificial division being created here is not the direct responsibility of the Minister but she does have influence. If we are serious about national security we need to be serious about national security oversight and this is the reality. We need the committee to have an adequate remit. I also echo the point made by Senator Craughwell. I welcome the fact that no agreement has been made. We need to be very conscious of the need for respect for our sovereignty and for our Defence Forces in any such arrangements with military forces from other countries. I ask that briefings be provided to the committee, in public where possible and in private where necessary, in relation to any such agreements as they are being reached. It is vital that the committee is part of it.

One of the areas of national security getting the most attention recently, following the visit of President Zelenskyy, was the controversy that arose in relation to drones. A week or two before that, the Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, was before the committee to discuss a Revised Estimate which related to the CUAS, the counter unmanned aerial system, which is an anti-drone system. At that stage it was already a year behind. The Minister of State was looking for a Revised Estimate. We received assurances that it would be in place by the start of the Presidency. The Minister has provided similar assurances but the implementation plan for the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces states very clearly it will be implemented for September while the Presidency clearly starts in July. This is an area that an awful lot of attention in Ireland will be on, as will attention right across Europe. It is vital that Heads of State can arrive here without being concerned about interference at Baldonnel, Dublin Airport or any of the summit or venue locations. How can the Minister reconcile the fact the implementation plan states September 2026 and statements have been made that it will be in place for the Presidency? Will the Minister state very clearly this will be fully operational by 1 July?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The timeline for Defence Forces counter capability is September but they are not the only agencies providing this. The Defence Forces are supporting the work of An Garda Síochána, which will have a significant amount of counter drone technology. The Defence Forces have responsibility for Baldonnel and they have given a clear commitment on responding to it. Dublin Airport and other areas will be responded to by An Garda Síochána. To be clear, the Defence Forces do not have sole responsibility.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it not fair to say also that the primary location where Heads of State will arrive into Ireland is Baldonnel?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not necessarily the case.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Several Heads of State are likely to arrive at Baldonnel during the course of the Presidency. Is that fair to say?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They will absolutely but I reassure colleagues there will be no Heads of State coming through where there are not the appropriate security mechanisms in place to support them. Dublin Airport will be the main conduit for many Heads of State and others arriving during the Presidency. This makes sense as it is our largest airport. Whether other airports will be needed throughout the Presidency is being worked through at present. September is the timeline that is set and it will be in place then. This is to complement and support the work of An Garda Síochána, which itself has a quite significantly larger amount of counter capability than the Defence Forces. This is to support its work.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister agree the disbandment of the air defence regiment in 2012 is now something that the Government would regret? It has caused a situation whereby the Defence Forces are curtailed in their ability to respond to such threats.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What I can say is that my focus and priority, irrespective of what has happened in the past, is to enhance and grow our strength. We all agree and accept the focus was not where it should have been many years ago. We all accept that we need to do more to invest in our Defence Forces. This is why I have said from the outset that I want to be ambitious. I want us to grow not only in funding but in our overall strength so that we continue to take huge pride in the fantastic work the Defence Forces do. We cannot change what happened in the past. We need to be more ambitious. I wish we were starting from a better base but we are not. The very clear direction in recent years has been to do more and invest more.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister described the implementation plan as ambitious. There are 130 recommendations from the Commission on the Defence Forces. How many timelines are delayed in the revised implementation plan?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will have to come back to Deputy Ó Laoghaire on this.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think there are 43 delayed timelines. Will the Minister tell us how many of the timelines are delayed by more than two years?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will have to come back to Deputy Ó Laoghaire on this.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think 29 of the timelines in this ambitious implementation plan are delayed by over two years. Some of these are significant. I want to highlight in particular that we have our maritime security strategy; elements of it are positive and there are elements that I have concerns about. In some respects it was very high level and some of it was quite abstract. Some of it was detailed. One crucial element, surely the Minister would agree, in terms of being able to monitor our seas at speed and at range, is the medium-lift helicopter. Would the Minister agree that this is a vital project?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is also the case that this project has gone back to 2028.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What I can say is that the strategy itself was not published until the capital plan was allocated to complement it. As is the case with any strategy where we have more than one iteration, and this is the second strategic framework and second implementation plan to complement the work done during the Commission on the Defence Forces, it will always be the case that projects change. It will always be the case that we have to work within our budget. What I have done on coming into the Department is to prioritise certain areas based on the fact that I believed our priorities needed to change and our focus needed to change. This is why the radar in particular has been brought forward and that will, of course, impact on other areas.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The radar is welcome but it is very concerning to see so many of the key projects delayed. Some of this goes to a pattern of big announcements and then a retrenchment. It is disappointing. Crucial to maritime security is that we have the personnel. What is the projected strength of the Naval Service by 2028?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At the moment our strength is 747 and the total strength is 807. Total strength is higher because we have quite a number in training, some of whom were on the ship yesterday. The ambition is that we reach just under 1,100. We are at about-----

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For 2028? It is 1,100 for 2028.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, that is for 2028. It is just under 1,100. We saw an increase last year and I appreciate the numbers had decreased before this. We have a significant number in training already this year and the ambition is that as soon as possible we reach the 1,100 figure.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For the benefit of the committee, that is reaching establishment and the baseline in 2028 when level of ambition 2 was 1,794. We are not even close. We are only just reaching establishment in 2028. This is the concern I have with the maritime security strategy. There are a lot of good targets and good ambitions, some of which I agree with and others which I do not, but the reality is that we have no plan to put the men and women on ships and in Haulbowline, Dún Laoghaire and other places to be able to implement it. This is the big issue. We will be almost 700 people short of the target that was supposed to be there for 2028.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have been working with the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces to make sure we have clear plans as to how we can credibly achieve the overall figures. I appreciate the timelines will be extremely challenging, particularly the 2028 timeline for the level of ambition, and I accept this. What I have done in the short space of time I have been in the Department is to work closely with the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces to make sure we have a number of plans in place. We will have a new workforce plan in the coming weeks which will set out not only for our Naval Service but for our Air Corps and Defence Forces what we need, what type of personnel we need and how we aim to achieve it.

To complement it, this summer I will have a new civilianisation strategy because I believe we need to have more civilian members in the Defence Forces. We have seen their benefit in An Garda Síochána and the way in which they have supported not only in HR roles but throughout the force. If we want to reach the overall number it will not be possible without a civilianisation strategy. Both of these elements are under way at present and I believe they will help us get to where we need to be. I appreciate the timelines are not as were set out previously but I am ambitious that we can do as much as possible as soon as possible.

Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I echo what the Chair said regarding the remit of this committee. I am also on the Dáil reform committee. It seems there will be very little give in terms of what the Government side is prepared to do in expanding the remit of this committee. That is disappointing. We are hoping to have an urgent change to expand the remit. If, ultimately, we almost end up midwifing it towards the next committee, we are here in any case, and we hope we will have the Minister's support on improving the remit. As Deputy Ó Laoghaire said, if we are serious about national security, we need to be serious about the remit of this committee.

I welcome the Minister's statement and the moves she has made in relation to the external grievance system for interpersonal issues, sexual harassment, bullying and victimisation. Given the work she did in this area as Minister for justice, she brings real credibility to gender-based violence and harassment issues. I hope that we see this develop into some real action. I also welcome the publication of the maritime security strategy yesterday.

Does the Minister expect the defence (amendment) Bill to pass all stages in the Dáil before we assume the EU Presidency?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My intention is to bring it to Cabinet in the coming weeks. I would like to see it enacted before the end of the summer term.

Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the triple lock Bill.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it a Government priority that it will be scheduled to finish then?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have to bring the Bill to Cabinet first, but my intention is to move on it and have it enacted before the end of the summer recess.

Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are reports that the Minister will also be bringing an urgent Bill to empower the Defence Forces and Naval Service to board ships - the Russian shadow fleet and, I imagine, other rogue ships. Will this be a stand-alone legislation or will it be included as part of the defence (amendment) Bill? What are the timelines for that?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is being worked through at the moment. I am currently engaging with the Attorney General's office on what the heads of a Bill would look like. We want to be able to progress that as soon as possible. Again, it is necessary to have that in place before the summer recess. A decision has not been taken as to whether it would be a separate Bill or part of the defence (amendment) Bill, but work is already under way on that.

Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the European Presidency timeline related to the Bill, or does it at least have an impact?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to have it enacted before the summer recess. If there is a delay to the other Bill, then I need to be able to bring it separately, but that decision has not been formally taken yet.

Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Minister provide us with an update on the expansion and provision of naval bases on the eastern seaboard, with particular reference to the former Minister for Transport and Green Party leader, Eamon Ryan’s article about Dún Laoghaire and the plans there?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is at the early stages. The work that was done by the committee prior to the publication of the strategy set out and identified the need to expand our naval bases. The east and west coasts were identified as important areas for many different reasons, with recruitment and retention being important, given the current geographic location in Cork. This is at an early stage. Work will now be done by the committee since the strategy has been published. There is no timeline, but the intention is to explore what options may be available. Given the time it would take, it is important that the work starts immediately.

Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Dún Laoghaire a preferred site?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No decision has been taken on any site, but there are a number of areas that would naturally come to the fore in any analysis or identification of locations.

Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would make sense that the capital city has some form of deployment at base level. The Minister is telling me today that it is not necessarily going to be Dún Laoghaire, but all options are on the table.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would not like to pre-empt a decision that will be taken by a body that will look at what is the most beneficial area, but it would stand to reason that Dublin is a logical location. Where exactly has not been decided, nor has any decision been taken more broadly.

Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There have been parliamentary questions in relation to the drone activity that took place over the Irish Sea on the day of President Zelenskyy's visit. There have been reports, and it has been reported to me, that air traffic control in Dublin Airport was not made aware of that drone activity. The Minister replied on this to one of the previous speakers, perhaps Senator Craughwell or Deputy Ó Laoghaire. We will have a lot of dignitaries flying into Dublin Airport. I welcome what the Defence Forces are doing in relation to drone capabilities. Is the Minister satisfied that the communications between air traffic control at Dublin, the Defence Forces and the Naval Service are strong and robust? Will the Minister admit that there were gaps on the day of Zelenskyy's visit? Has anything been put in place to repair that in the future?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The incident is still a criminal investigation and all of these matters are being looked at by the Garda. My understanding is that is still under way. If there are any issues in that regard, it will be a matter for the Garda to respond to. In terms of how communication or engagement happened between the Defence Forces, air traffic control and An Garda Síochána, with any incident, whether this one or otherwise, you have to assess what worked well and what did not. I know a body of work has been done between all of those agencies. There were recent meetings to look at what happened, the communications, the response, whether we need to improve and what we do. That is very much an operational matter. I know it is being prioritised by all of the agencies I outlined, including air traffic control.

Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Minister not concerned that, on that day, air traffic control at Dublin, the airport at which President Zelenskyy landed, was not made aware of that? Regardless of the Garda investigation, would the Minister not want to know what happened? I am sure it is not going to impact any investigation. It is just a piece of knowledge that the Minister should have.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I mentioned the investigation just to say that it is an ongoing Garda investigation. I have no doubt there will be a result to that. Whatever happened during the day in the response from the Garda or otherwise, I know that gardaí, working with air traffic control and with the inclusion of the Defence Forces, have been doing a review of what happened and whether improvements need to be made. My view of what happened on the day was that it was a hugely successful visit and the decisions that were taken were the right decisions. While I am not criticising or saying it was the wrong thing to do, in other countries where there was perhaps a larger number of drones, the airspace was closed down. It caused huge disruption when there was perhaps not the same level of threat or a threat at the time. These are decisions that the Garda and others have to make in these instances. I think the decisions that they took on that day were the right ones. Again, it was a hugely successful visit. My understanding is that the security team of President Zelenskyy were very happy with the way in which it was managed and monitored and the way in which the overall operation was carried out. I always think that lessons should be learned. If there is something to be learned here, whether on communications or otherwise, then we need to make sure that those changes are in place, be it for the Presidency or more generally.

Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for attending. I am heartened by the launch of the national maritime security strategy. It was a very good launch yesterday. My compliments to everybody involved in putting it together. I know it was a long body of work.

To follow up on and support what the Cathaoirleach said about our remit, I acknowledge that this is the first time there has ever been a committee for national security, and we probably need to put that back out there. We are in an increasingly volatile geopolitical situation and it is rapidly evolving. I would definitely want to see our remit increased and expanded. I would also be laying down a marker for the Government in the next term, whoever will be here, to really think about having a separate defence committee and a national security committee in its own right, with the appropriate intelligence vetting and everything else, so matters of national security can be discussed in confidence in a secure environment. We do not even have a SCIF location in this State, or that is my understanding. We are really behind in that regard.

That is nobody's fault necessarily, but it is something that needs to be addressed in the long term.

To get back to where we are today, I will start with Minister’s opening statement. I love to see the ambition and the desire to ensure that the Government is fully committed to the continued transformation of the Defence Forces, and to ensure it is an organisation that is capable of defending the State. For the context of that, it is fair to say that there is no country in the EU that is capable of defending itself on its own. Ireland gets an awful lot of criticism for not having the capabilities to defend itself. No EU state can defend itself on its own. Otherwise, we would not have 100,000 US troops on the Continent of Europe helping the defence of the countries which are involved in NATO.

We have a challenge in terms of recruitment and retention. Ireland is not on its own in that regard. That problem exists in all defence forces across Europe. It is not fair or right to be overly critical of our Defence Forces or our Department of Defence. This is not a specific difficulty for Ireland; it exists across Europe.

The war on the Continent of Europe is increasingly changing and evolving. My focus is certainly on hybrid attacks. We really need to have a larger focus on how we are looking at our structures in terms of defence preparedness. We have our EU Presidency coming up, but I would not like to just keep that narrow focus on that. I would like to think about what is going to happen after that as well and how we are prepared as a State to defend the citizens in our State. It should never be the case that investment in our Defence Forces is investment in us becoming aggressors. That is not what the conversation is about at all. It is about ensuring that we are prepared to deter and defend if needs be. We need to be prepared for that. There are a few different levels of being defence-prepared or defence-ready. We have our material preparedness, which probably makes up the majority of what is in the opening statement about the priorities we are going to be investing in. That is wonderful and welcome but we also need to be looking at our organisational defence preparedness.

In the revised deadlines, I would really have liked to have seen the chief of defence role coming in. It was initially due in July 2025 for our new command and control structure. It has now been pushed back to quarter 4 of 2027. If anything is to be prioritised, that really needs to be prioritised when we are talking about a change in how our Defence Forces are organised. That is a really key piece. We are looking at a bigger challenge when we talk about defence preparedness in terms of our political defence preparedness, because how do we win hearts and minds? It is not just a Department of Defence challenge or difficulty, it is a whole-of-government challenge to try and get that political defence and preparedness in order that the whole of our society recognises that it is critical that we are ready to deter and defend. While there might be an argument from some that increased investment in our defence somehow negatively impacts or is at the cost of our welfare state, I would argue that, in actual fact, it is investment in our defence and national security that underpins all of the structures that allow and enable our welfare state to function in the way that it needs to.

To get back to my questions for today, I will ask about what I always ask about: cadet pay. There are a number of things we can do in that regard. Our cadets are coming in on €25,000. If somebody has been enlisted, even if they attend recruit training for six months and then join the cadetship, which is actually what is being suggested as a course of entry into the cadetship, they are going to be on €41,000 while in the same class we have people who are on €25,000. They can be up to the age of 39, as we now know. There was an issue raised in the Air Corps last week in terms of the last remaining apprenticeship class, the 80th apprentice class. Its members are actually on a lower scale of pay than their juniors. They entered on a different contract - I accept that - but there is no risk of contagion in that regard. It is a small class, and if was balanced out, that would go a long way toward retention. If we are talking about developing the culture, esprit de corpsand the honour and respect that is given to members of the Defence Forces and encouragement to continue to serve, a step like that, while in the grand scheme of things a small investment, would foster benefit and goodwill and would be an important thing to consider.

I would also like to ask about representation for our chaplains. The Minister referenced Father Murphy who received the medal of honour in Galway last week. It is important that chaplains are fully looked after in our representative bodies. I have about ten more questions, but we might have to come back to some of those.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with the Deputy. No country can defend itself. If we look at Ukraine, with a million soldiers, it is having to rely on the support of others. I appreciate that is a pretty different scenario or context but we all have to work with each other more broadly.

In terms of command and control, that is another piece of legislation I am working on. I have to make some final decisions on key parts of the legislation, but I want to progress that this year. Obviously, an important component of that is the chief of the Defence Forces. That is progressing and I want to move that along with the other amendment Bill.

In terms of being prepared more broadly and political defence preparedness, people are moving with the movements more broadly. If we look at more recent polls, people want us to do more. They see there are changing threats. We have to have more conversations based on that. While the Presidency should not be our sole focus for everything and I know it comes up a lot, it is an opportunity for us not to just focus on how we are going to keep people safe during the Presidency but to have a wider discussion. That is why the three key priorities I have outlined, the overarching priorities for the Presidency, are competitiveness, human rights and security. It will allow us to have those conversations with our other European colleagues. Many of those conversations people here at home do not hear. If you go to a Council meeting, depending on who they talk to, you will hear that the focus of the vast majority of countries is on spending on defence, how they can do more and how they can prepare people for the possibility of a ground invasion. There is a very different conversation happening in Europe to perhaps one that is happening here. It is important during the Presidency that we are able to have these honest conversations and to see what exactly others are doing and how then we respond to that, given our neutrality, the position we have had for years, and the fact that people want us to do more and to co-operate more generally.

In terms of cadet pay, as I referenced earlier, I really do want to try to make progress on this. While there is a particular structure through the public sector pay agreement and that has always been the route to try to address these issues, I have asked some of the team here with me to see if there are other ways in which we could explore levels. They might go into different ways in which we could look at trying to address the pay overall.

In terms of the apprenticeship class, as Deputy Callaghan said, this is a different contract, so the terms and conditions are somewhat different, but this is in an IR form, so we need to work through it and see if there is something that could be responded to there. As for the chaplains, and again, these are all issues I have discussed with the unions more recently, the chaplains form something that will require legislative change so I am looking at what that looks like and how quickly I can bring it forward. Obviously the Deputy is talking about perhaps bringing them in as members of the Defence Forces and all that entails. It is very much on my radar and is something I have discussed recently with the unions to explore what legislation would look like and how we could progress it more generally.

Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We had an opportunity to discuss some of these issues yesterday. We talked yesterday about cadetship pay as well. I welcome the fact the Minister has given a commitment to look at that. It is an issue that needs to be addressed if we are serious about trying to progress people in careers within the Defence Forces.

While I am on that subject, the other issue my colleague alluded to is the single pension scheme. I appreciate that covers more areas than those the Minister has responsibility for, extending to the Garda, the fire services and prison officers. It is an issue that will only increase in size. For anybody who joined any of those occupations post-2013, the single pension scheme is a huge issue. They are specialised and dangerous careers. For that reason, these occupations have a fast accrual system when it comes to pensions. They are being left in limbo. When many of them reach the age of retirement after working the correct number of years, they still have responsibilities such as the costs of children going to college, mortgages and so on. This is only going to snowball. I know the Minister only has stewardship over her Department, but I would like her to give a commitment to have a conversation about this issue with the Minister, Deputy Jack Chambers, and other Cabinet colleagues whose responsibilities the area I am discussing.

I welcome the increase in funding and procurement. We have loads of dedicated people in SMEs who specialise in equipment for the Defence Forces. I would like to see a detailed local participation strategy outlined. While we have to buy equipment from overseas, how can our SMEs get involved in that? It is important that we have a strategy in that regard. What are the Minister's thoughts on that?

Huge levels of business are facilitated daily by undersea cables. The figures change every day but I have heard up to €1 trillion of business is being transacted through these cables every day. We have responsibility for our territorial waters with regard to that. Are we asking questions of other countries and companies that benefit from those cables? Can they, or should they, make a contribution to the State to secure those cables? It is in everyone's interest that they are not interfered with.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator said it himself about the single pension scheme. While I do not want to cross into another Minister's remit, we appreciate there are different terms and conditions for anybody who comes in under the single pension scheme. Decisions were taken at the time because those kinds of decisions had to be taken at the time. Over the years, we have seen significant improvements in public sector pay and agreements. The Government's ambition will always be to try to improve them where we can. My previous ministerial roles involved An Garda Síochána and education, and I appreciate and can see the impact the scheme has, particularly on younger people.

On the increase in funding and procurement more broadly, I believe there are a number of ways in which our small and medium enterprise sector can benefit from, co-operate and be part of our greater focus on security and defence. At European level, a programme - I think it is called the AGILE project - that will probably be concluded during our term in the Presidency will allow companies to do joint procurement with others on defence and security matters or equipment. Because it is a smaller pot of money, some of our small and medium enterprise companies should have the ability, if they want to, to access this type of funding. I am keen to see more of that and to see our SMEs benefit. I mentioned earlier that legislation may be needed to allow our agencies to support some of these companies, particularly if they wanted to scale up or partner with other member states. The Minister, Deputy Burke, and I are working closely to address that and to see what could be done more broadly. In general, the different tenders are always done on a case-by-case basis. Often it is government to government, so there are certain rules around that, but that does not stop Irish companies from applying for those tenders or looking to procure more generally.

On the undersea cables, the forum that has been set out as a key action in the maritime security strategy will enable us to sit down with a lot of those big industries and sectors to get as clear a picture as possible as regards the cables and the significance of the data that is traversing the Atlantic. We can see clearly that a huge number of cables come directly into Ireland and support industry here. There are many that traverse our economic waters and go straight to the UK and beyond. It is important that we have a clear picture of what others' capacity is to monitor and manage them. I know many companies have two cables so if one is damaged they are able to move to the other while one is being fixed. Those companies are already investing in protecting their own cables and responding and repairing them. The question is whether we need to do more and how we can work more collectively on this. That is really what the forum is about.

As Deputy Callaghan mentioned, our economic security is essential. As the Taoiseach said yesterday, if some of these cables were damaged, there could be huge disruption, not just here but in mainland Europe. It is important that we do everything we can to protect them and that we are able to respond. Sometimes damage to cables is accidental, for example, where trawlers pass over areas which they should not trawl. Whether it is the shadow fleet or other malign actors, we know there are those who intend and hope to intentionally cause damage. The forum will be important but, more broadly, the work with other defence forces and other structures already in place will be equally significant.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister and her officials. This is her first visit since she her appointment so I congratulate her. I concur with what was said. Some matters were raised about the remit of the committee at its first meeting. I think all members, whether Opposition members, Independents or members of parties, are at one on the need to protect the integrity of the committee and want to expand its remit to have a realistic role for good purposes. I ask the Minister to use her influence as a member of Cabinet to ensure that happens. It is not acceptable that a committee is called the national security and defence committee and one part of that is sawed off. The two go together. In other democracies that is how it works.

I have a question about the incident with drones and the investigations into it. What we have learned from having senior members of the Defence Forces here is that the four drones were flying underneath the flight path at a low level above a Naval Service ship. It took us a long time to find this out. A decision was taken not to take down the drones, and that may be for good reason. That is a military decision, not our decision. It has already been said that Dublin Airport air traffic control was not notified. The Minister has clarified that this matter is under investigation to determine how that can be improved. I accept that. Is she aware at this point if the four drones were of likely Russian origin, or can she rule out that they may have belonged to another state?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I cannot give the Deputy an answer on that. That is being investigated by An Garda Síochána at the moment. I would not be able to answer that.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand that the drones may be Russian because there are different games going on. We all know that the biggest casualty in war, along with the unfortunate thousands of young working class people from Russia and Ukraine who are losing their lives in this awful war caused by invasion of Ukraine by Russia, is truth.

We all accept that. None of us here knows, but I am interested because it is three months since this serious incident which could have had serious consequences in terms of loss of life or injury on a catastrophic scale underneath a very busy flight path. At this point, our national security committee and the Minister for Defence are not able to say that these we Russian drones. I take that from the Minister's answer. Is it correct? Is the Minister able to rule out to the committee that these drones could have belonged to another state?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would not be helpful for me to speculate when I do not know. The Garda investigation is under way and this is a matter for the Garda to determine. It can then say whether it wants to release that information. There is a possibility that they could have been drones from Russia. There is also a possibility that they were more localised or from other actors. I do not want to mislead the committee when this is something that An Garda Síochána is investing.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They could have belonged to the intelligence service of another state. The puzzle is that a lot of people are pondering how it would have served Russian interests to carry out an operation like that. It may serve Russian interests. Russia obviously has its own mind on these things. There is a bit of a puzzle around that. It may leave the question open as to the origins of these drones. We were told at the committee that there was a commercial Russian ship somewhere in Irish waters around that time. Has it been determined if there were commercial or military ships belonging to other states in Irish waters, particularly in the Irish Sea, at that time?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not aware if that information has been provided. My understanding is that there were no malign actors within the sea area at the time. Again, that would be a matter for the Garda or the Defence Forces.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister will have received briefings on this from the Defence Forces. Have the Defence Forces clarified to her that there were ships - military or commercial - belonging to other states in Irish waters at that time?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not in a position to repeat here any security information that has been provided to me by the Defence Forces. My understanding is that there were no malign actors in the sea at that time.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is not able to rule out at this point that the origins of these drone may be another state.

I will move on to the topic of the United Nations. We can all agree that the UN has been damaged and that the world order has changed for the worst. The UN has been trampled on and undermined. It has held the centre for 70 years or so in terms of multilateralism and being a forum in which matters can be sorted without necessarily full-scale war. What is the best approach at this point? Should Ireland play a role in re-establishing the primacy of the United Nations?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with the Deputy in terms of the UN. It is still one of the most important global forums we have to deal with significant challenges and issues, be it from a humanitarian perspective, the conflicts we are discussing today or any other issues. It needs to be reformed. There is a general acceptance from within the UN and among the member states that there needs to be reform. In recent years, there was an attempt to do that. I do not believe it was successful. Our focus needs to be on a number of different strands, be it the Security Council or otherwise, and how we play our part in that regard. We are making a bid for a seat on the UN Security Council in the next year. We have always used that as an opportunity, not just to focus on the issues, but to use our voice in terms of what reform might look from within as well.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I had a question around NATO, but I will not ask it. On the UN, we can agree that it is very important. Most people would concur on the need to try to re-establish that role. At this point, is Ireland actively engaging diplomatically with other countries that are somewhat like-minded, unaligned or neutral at UN level? Regarding interactions between the Government and the Ministers, is there a strategy from the Government to try to enhance the credibility and role of the United Nations to get the centre, for want of a better term, back together? We agree that the Board of Peace is one effort. Russia is at it from the other end, trying to sideline and pull the middle out of the United Nations. There are forums like the Board of Peace being established. The UN is the body that would have dealt with all these matters until a short time ago. Is there a strategy there? Is the Government actively working with other states that may be somewhat like-minded to re-establish that primacy?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no specific strategy that we have with other countries. What we are doing and have consistently done is highlight the need for reform, but also highlight the benefits of the UN as a body more generally. Particularly when it comes to humanitarian assistance and support, as a country we have probably been to the fore, so where the US, unfortunately, and other countries have pulled back from providing huge funding and support for UN agencies, Ireland has not only increased our funding but has paid up on time.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is welcome.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have also encouraged other member states to do that. During the Presidency, the intention under the human rights pillar of our overall priorities will be that we continue to focus on the role of the UN and its humanitarian bodies and try to bring other countries on board where perhaps they have been pulling away. While Ireland's voice is strong, we cannot do it on our own.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it time for the State now to do this? We have a proud record with the non-proliferation treaty and the work that Ireland did in the fifties and sixties when we were a much poorer State. Is it time now for Ireland to get involved in a strategy, with other states, to do that?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hope if we are successful in our bid for seat, it will allow us an opportunity from within to make greater progress. That would include reforms that are already being planned. It is not that they are not there. There was a lot of discussion happening at every level within the UN on the need for reform. We certainly want to be active and will play our part.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Stanley beat the record. Deputy Scanlon is next.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are all working now this morning.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Stanley was not in the Air Corps, whereas Deputy Callaghan was.

Eamon Scanlon (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for being here with her officials. A lot has been said over the past hour and a half. I have a few comments. I welcome the €338 million in extra funding for the Defence Forces. Everybody realises that the Defence Forces have been the poor relation over the past ten years. I welcome the extra funding. Ukraine had 1 million soldiers at its disposal to defend its borders and it is struggling to do so. If Ireland was attacked, we would need every friend we have in Europe to help us to defend our country. We look at the number of people who have been slaughtered every day during this war.

The Minister sated: "The Government has been clear that the proposed changes and the removal of triple lock will do nothing to alter or undermine Ireland's policy on military neutrality." Deputies and, I am sure, Senators are getting a lot of emails and texts in relation to this. Will the Minister expand on that? It is important that a clear message should go out to the general public that what the Minister is stating is fact and there is no threat to our neutrality.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A couple of members have commented on the war in Ukraine. While we all utterly condemn what is a completely unnecessary and barbaric war, between 40,000 and 50,000 Russian soldiers are being sent to their deaths every month by their President. The loss of life more generally is truly devastating. Every month, between 30,000 and 40,000 Russian soldiers and many thousands of Ukrainian soldiers are being killed.

Until this war ends, we will not really see the scale and the loss of life but there are a lot of people suffering unnecessarily at the hands of a very small number of people who are waging this war.

In terms of the triple lock, most colleagues will be aware that it was introduced at a time Ireland was looking to sign up to a number of treaties. The treaties themselves are very explicit as to what our neutrality means, namely that we cannot join any military alliance. That does not prevent us from investing in our defence or engaging with other countries on defence matters, sharing of intelligence, training, security matters, hybrid threats or cybersecurity. We have been doing that over time. We have just discussed the UN and the Security Council. When it comes to the deployment of troops, it was not envisaged that new missions would be blocked or not even voted on because of a threat of a veto by one of the five permanent members, but times have changed. Since that legislation was introduced, no new mission has been agreed since 2014. The UNIFIL mission that Ireland has been a significant part of for many years has come to an end because the US would have blocked its progress last year. We can either change our legislation to be able to respond to that changing dynamic or we can do nothing and find that our troops, who are renowned worldwide and many of whom got into the Defence Forces because they wanted to be involved in these types of missions, are no longer able to do so.

To clarify and to reassure people, the changes that are being proposed are not changes to our Constitution or to the treaties. They are changes to legislation that was introduced at the time, which specifically focus on how we deploy our troops. Taking on board some of the recommendations from the committee here on pre-legislative scrutiny, I have said that we will clearly define what the missions can be allowed for. They will not be solely for security matters. There has been different language around security and that could be interpreted in a different way. These would have to be peacekeeping missions and that would not impact in any way the role they currently have. This is about changing the way in which they are deployed, not the reason for which they are deployed, nor does it impact our neutrality because in order to change that, we would have to have a referendum to change the Constitution. There have been requests for a referendum in the current context but actually there would be nothing to change, because there is nothing in our Constitution that tells us how we deploy our troops. It just sets out that we cannot join a military alliance. That is what we would be changing if we had a referendum. I am not, nor is anyone here, suggesting for a second that we would change that particular position.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I go on to the second round, I would like to take my own few minutes. When will the criminal investigation into drone activity be completed? Is there a timeline on that?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is with the Garda so we do not have a timeline for it.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the Garda were here, we could ask them that. It is critically important that we have that thorough investigation but that we have it completed as the learnings from it need to be enacted in time for the EU Presidency. It is time-sensitive in that sense.

Coming from Deputy Scanlon's mention of the triple lock, the Minister might outline for the committee the different activities that are permissible with the triple lock in place in terms of training, humanitarian missions and all of that. Sometimes people are not fully aware of the unlimited activities that can be carried out for our Defence Forces to go abroad.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry; I should have that and I do not. I had it in responses to parliamentary questions last week regarding the various missions. What I do know is once our troops pull back from UNIFIL, which will most likely be in March of next year as the last troops go out later on this year, there will be 85 different troops partaking in various missions. Some of those troops are in Brussels in different positions while others are in the western Balkans where there are smaller training missions.

We have 362 personnel deployed on UNIFIL; three people deployed on the UNDOF mission to maintain a ceasefire between Israel and Syria; 12 people who are deployed on the UNTSO mission established following the 1984 Arab-Israeli war; and five personnel deployed to the EUFOR ALTHEA mission, which is specifically to follow on from the implementation of the Dayton agreement to maintain safe and secure environments in Bosnia. We have 13 personnel deployed on the KFOR mission, which is to maintain safe and secure environments and freedom of movement for citizens within the region. Four personnel are deployed to Operation IRINI, which is focused on Libya. One person is deployed to the UNMAS mission around explosive devices and training in respect of land mines. Four personnel are in EUMAM, a Ukraine mission focusing on strengthening the capacity of the Ukrainian armed defence forces. One is in the OSCE, seven in Brussels, 14 to the EUBG Germany, 15 to the EUMC Brussels and 11 operate as military representatives at various overseas locations. That is specific to training. If we take out UNIFIL and the others are added up, it is quite a small number on these missions. There are other ways, which are listed in the document I do not have, and other programmes that over time we have not been able to join because they do not have a UN mandate. We would be looking to see if we can explore some of these mandates but I can get the Chair those specific missions as well.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are no limitations on secondments to international organisations, participating in training, carrying out ceremonial duties, participating in exchanges, undertaking visits of reconnaissance, fact-finding missions and undertaking humanitarian tasks in response to actual or potential disasters or emergencies. There is an awful lot that can be done with unlimited Defence Forces abroad as it is. It is important to have that recognised.

I have a question on the protocol for barring orders within the Defence Forces. I am asking this in the context of the case of former Garda Margaret Loftus, whose former husband, a member of An Garda Síochána, had threatened to kill her and then was issued with a firearm. An Garda Síochána does not have a protocol in relation to barring orders. I had a reply from a question to An Garda Síochána that the document outlining this protocol is not a public-facing document and cannot be shared externally. I am finding it very difficult to get the information. I asked the same question of the Minister and was told there is not an onus on serving members to inform the military authorities of such orders against them and the Defence Forces cannot provide complete information in this regard. As a Minister and as a woman, does she think it would be appropriate for the Defence Forces to have a protocol in place whereby if members are issued with a barring order, they report it to their superior so they can take that into context if they are issued with firearms or engaged with weaponry?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely, yes, I do believe so. I believe there are changes under way at the moment but more work needs to be done to respond. A lot has emerged, through the Women of Honour and just more generally through issues that have arisen publicly in our courts in recent times. The defence (amendment) Bill, will also have elements relating to the suspension of member where they are currently engaging in the courts or are accused of certain types of offences. At the moment there is only an ability to put them on a certain type of leave but there needs to be a greater structure in place. I intend to bring forward an amendment in this regard to the legislation. I hope to have it enacted before the end of the summer. The new Bill will also require members, where they are charged, to communicate this offence.

Where there is something like a barring order, that would be included in this legislation as well.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We do not have a requirement as it is that could be inserted into the legislation.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We do not, but I am determined that will be included in this legislation, which I hope to have enacted by the summer.

Separately, I am looking at the need for a victims' charter within the Defence Forces. That is currently available to anybody who is a victim of a crime but in particular, where there is a sexual or domestic violence crime, a similar charter should be available to members of the Defence Forces. At the moment, the Defence Forces try to mirror, insofar as possible, the charter and to apply it in any of the instances going through their military courts. What I want to do is introduce legislation to make sure those supports and that victims' charter is applicable to everyone in the Defence Forces as well. I am absolutely determined to make sure that we can respond to any of the issues and the really serious matters that have been raised, not just by the Women of Honour but by many others as well. If we need legislative change, that is what I will do as well.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is very important. I certainly welcome that legislation. Of course, it also pertains to women who are not members of the Defence Forces but are, or have been, in a relationship with a member of the Defence Forces. That legislation is critically important and I certainly welcome it. I hope the same thing will happen within An Garda Síochána.

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

I will address the issue the Chair just mentioned. There is a special grievance procedure and all sorts of things for the Defence Forces. The points made by the Chair are very important, but sexual harassment, bullying and all sorts of maltreatment of people take place in every organisation in this country. Why are we just looking at the Defence Forces? Why do we not look at hospitals, the Garda, teaching services and prison services when it comes to sexual harassment, bullying and horrendous treatment? The case the Chair referred to is particularly horrific and I compliment her on her support to the individuals involved at the time. I take issue with the fact that members of the Government made statements following the independent review, which should not have been published in the way it was, prior to a tribunal having taken place. This issue goes on in every aspect of life and we need to address it from that point of view.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will make a point of order. What I was getting at is the State issuing a firearm to somebody-----

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

I do understand that.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----when they had a barring order. It is quite different when there is a State issue.

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

It is no different from issuing a syringe with drugs in it. The same outcome can be there.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is different, but carry on.

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

On the people for the battle group we are trying to put together, today or yesterday was the closing date for volunteers. I have dealt with officials of the Department. They are decent hard-working people who try to support questions and support people when issues are raised. Who is blocking the subsistence allowance for the battle group volunteers? If it is the Department of public expenditure and reform, who runs the Minister's Department? Is it DPER or is it her?

I will again address the triple lock issue. I am at odds with the Chair and other members of the committee on this. The triple lock is a childish and almost infantile approach to the deployment of troops but it is going to overshadow the good things that are coming and the things that need to be questioned in the defence (amendment) Bill. There is a constant misconception about the triple lock. First, it has nothing to do with neutrality. The two things are mutually exclusive. Second, under international law, we are not a neutral country. We do not qualify under international law. We never lodged our neutrality in the Hague. We do not meet the requirements, from a defence point of view, on neutrality and there is nothing in our Constitution that stops the Minister and the Government, tomorrow morning, having a military alliance with anybody they want. We need to be honest about it. I dread the legislation coming through on the triple lock. I wish the Minister would pull it out of the defence (amendment) Bill and bring it in as a separate Bill entirely. Let us have the blood on the floor, kick it all over the place and get rid of it, but we are going to lose out on proper debate on the important issues that are coming in the defence (amendment) Bill. I ask the Minister to reconsider how she brings that forward.

To go back to the allowance for the battle group, will the Minister give a commitment that she will see to it that the allowance is paid? Will she give a commitment to this committee that she will come back to us to let us know if and when agreements are being put in place on whether foreign military personnel be used? Have rules of engagement been agreed? We do not need to know what they are. We just need to know whether they have been agreed.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not going a second over seven minutes for the question and answer.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In relation to the battle group, there have been no changes to the way in which subsistence is paid. There have been no changes to the way in which various allowances can be paid. It is still in line with public sector pay policy. For our part, on my side and that of the Department in terms of the funding of these-----

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

I am sorry; the last group that went out got €175 per day. Let us remember when they go out, they are going for seven weeks, they have nowhere to go and are locked into this situation they are in. They have one day off but that day off means hanging around the place. I understand that they pay for their accommodation and food out of that €175. We are asking people to go overseas. Will any civil servant or politician travel overseas without subsistence? None of us will.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am saying that what is happening overseas is any payments for travel and subsistence are in accordance with the rates and how they should be paid out. These are being paid out as they should be. The rates have not changed and the way in which public sector pay and subsistence should be paid is not changing.

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

The Defence Forces have been told there will be no subsistence. They have been told there will be no allowance.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What I am saying to the Senator is we have not changed the way in which public sector pay should be paid and is paid. That is not changing. There have been no changes to how it can be paid. It has to be in line with public sector pay, as the Senator said.

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

Is the Minister saying the allowance will be paid?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What I am saying is there are no changes to the rules as to how they should be paid, but any other changes may be based on changes to circumstances generally and the way in which-----

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

Will the Minister explain why the previous group got €175 per day and this current group are getting nothing?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Again, these people are being treated in the same way in which public servants are paid. I cannot speak to the circumstances as to where they are going, where they are staying and how that is being worked out.

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

There will be no volunteers. There will be none. We will be once again embarrassed on the international stage. Who is blocking it?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Nothing has been blocked. The terms of the conditions have not changed at all. The conditions, perhaps, have.

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

I am so disappointed in that answer. We want to retain people in the Defence Forces and to have people proud to serve in the Defence Forces, but we will not pay them the same way we pay civil servants, politicians and anybody else that travels.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is time-----

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will just say that people are paid based on their accommodation and food. If a civil servant went somewhere, and their accommodation and food were paid for, they would not get that. I am just saying-----

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

It is deducted out of the subsistence.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am just saying there is no change here. I have asked for a report from the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces on this, but this is not something we have directed to change. There is no change in how this is done. If a civil servant were going on this trip, it would be applied in the same way. I wanted to say that. It is based on accommodation and food and what is paid for that civil servant or not.

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

There will be no one.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is where the shift has happened.

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

There will be no one.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Both the Senator and the Minister have gone over time.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will ask a question on neutrality. I have two further questions as well. We will have a lengthy discussion about the triple lock, which puts us at risk in terms of our neutrality and the situations it would potentially put Irish personnel in. We will have that debate in due course.

Recently, the Government and my political party had a disagreement as to the implications for neutrality in respect of the €90 billion loan. We have had our disagreements on that. Nonetheless, Ireland should be militarily neutral but not politically neutral.

We should exercise every diplomatic and economic pressure, including sanctions, on the Russian Federation in relation to its war of aggression against the people of Ukraine. Would the Minister agree that Ireland should continue to have that position of not being politically neutral but being militarily neutral? Is that how she would articulate Ireland's position?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have been very clear that we are not politically neutral. We are militarily neutral but that has not stopped us from providing almost €500 million in funding, some of which was humanitarian and some of which went towards defence spending. I completely disagree with the position that the Deputy's party has taken to reject the €90 billion loan because that is stopping really vital and essential defence and humanitarian funding from getting to those in Ukraine who need it.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My question relates to a statement from the Taoiseach that "we stand with Ukraine politically, economically, militarily and diplomatically". I ask the Minister to articulate how those two positions can be reconciled. How can we be militarily neutral while standing with Ukraine militarily?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have provided non-lethal military support. The key request from our friends in Ukraine is that we would provide them with support when it comes to counter-drone technology. It was made clear to me by the Minister of Defence in Ukraine that the Ukrainians have been able to withstand the consistent bombardment only because of the counter-drone capabilities that they have. We are in this Chamber talking about our own investment in counter-drone technologies and how important that is, given the changing complex environment to which we are now responding. Supporting Ukraine from a military perspective is investing in capabilities like drone technology. We are also providing training when it comes to de-mining and support for Ukrainian defence forces members. That is military training but obviously it is not impacting in any way on our neutrality. Those providing that training are not going to war and are not the front line. They are supporting the troops in a different way. The two positions are wholly compatible and in fact we should be spending more on non-lethal military support for the Ukrainians because that is exactly what they need.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister has our full support in providing things like de-mining training but, prior to now, that was always framed as humanitarian and civil assistance. The reframing of it, when we are talking about being militarily neutral, is concerning. It is important that the Government remains militarily neutral for a whole variety of reasons, not least in the context of future conflicts. We should be mindful of that. Things like de-mining assistance can be provided and it is important that they would be provided. However, they should be provided in the context of our desire to assist in a humanitarian and civil way.

I really appreciate the assistance and availability of departmental officials in relation to my concerns around past issues of chemical exposure in the Air Corps. I thank the officials for their time in relation to that. The issues involved are significant. There is a concern that there is a significant correlation between illness and potential premature death, and chemical exposure, as highlighted by campaigners. I am not a clinician and cannot confirm or deny that but a significant number of people have raised concerns in relation to this. I know that the Minister cannot get into individual cases and that is fair enough. I am not asking her to do that but other Departments have been in a position to offer support and redress to a whole category of people while cases are still going on. I understand that a memo is going to be brought to the Minister relatively shortly. It is important that the memo has something similar to what the Australians had, in terms of their study of health outcomes and efforts to identify a potential connection between chemical exposure and ill health. The key point is that healthcare support is provided, as well as other appropriate forms of redress. Can the Minister give me an update on that?

Finally, the European Committee of Social Rights, ECSR, in its review of the Organisation of Working Time Act has found that Irish Defence Forces personnel were denied overtime payments that were due to them and that the recording of overtime was not adequate to ensure that personnel could seek out appropriate overtime. We are talking about keeping people in the Defence Forces at a time when our personnel numbers are under pressure so we have to respond to that and ensure that people are paid for the work they do.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have discussed the chemical exposure issue a number of times and I am very aware that a television programme on it will be aired tonight. I am also mindful of the fact that there are various litigation cases going on at the moment. I have asked for a detailed report from my officials. I want to look at this more broadly to see if we can consider questions around harm or alleged harm that would have been a direct consequence of exposure to harmful chemicals and what the potential options are there outside of the litigation process. I expect to have that report soon and will be able to engage with the Department then on the potential next steps forward, separate from any litigation that is taking place. That work is being done and I expect to have that report very soon.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could we reasonably expect that to go to the Cabinet in the next two months?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not know if a decision has been taken to bring it to Cabinet. A decision will be taken when I have the report on what we do next. Obviously, I am happy to communicate on it or engage in whatever way I can with the committee and the Deputy. In response to an earlier question from a Senator, I am happy to engage where I can within the limitations of the information I have on any matters.

In terms of the European social committee, I received the report in early February. What we are doing now is determining whether what we currently have in place complies with the findings because a claim was taken and a number of changes and amendments have occurred. There is a particular payment structure in place for people if they are doing overtime, working on bank holidays or on bank holiday weekends. We are currently determining whether that aligns with the overall ruling. While the ruling is not legally binding, we want to be able to comply with the committee and make sure that any of its recommendations align with the structures that we currently have in place. If they do not and there are changes that need to be made, we will assess that.

Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to go back to the issue of recruitment and retention, even though I acknowledge that it is not just an Irish difficulty but is a difficulty across Europe. In her opening statement the Minister referred to a focus on revised access to promotion opportunities. I ask her to expand a little on that. Would it include the introduction, for example, of a lance corporal rank? The Minister also spoke about improvements in recruitment policies and in that context I want to refer again to cadet pay. There are a number of options available, including paying cadets as three-star privates after six months because they will have an equivalent level of training. They are still operational. At previous defence committee meetings the argument made for not paying them was that they were not operational but that does not seem to be the case. They are often brought out for ceremonial duties. During Covid-19 cadets were a stand-out cohort among those doing contact tracing. They are there and in cases of emergency, they absolutely can and will be drawn on and utilised. Maybe we could pay them as three-star privates or as two-star trainees for the entire duration of their cadetship. Another option would be to give them a military service allowance. These are just three of the options that could be used to address the lack of parity of pay with other members of the Defence Forces who have equivalent levels of training.

On page 3 of her opening statement the Minister refers to strengthening retention and supporting long-term career development. I echo what other members of the committee have already said about pension provision. There has been much discussion about the single pension and the career-averaging pension scheme that applies to post-2013 service personnel.

However, I would like to see a conversation about the reintroduction of the supplementary pension scheme because our uniformed service personnel do not have the option to keep working until 66 years. They have to retire at 62 and there is a gap between 62 and 66. If the supplementary pension was reintroduced it would be one additional measure to consider for retention purposes. We must also acknowledge the pension would only be paid if the person did not continue to engage in work after their retirement. We see a lot of personnel who retire at 62 years, or maybe earlier, do go on to other work. If we are talking about increasing respect and the value placed on our service personnel, measures like this would go a long way for morale in our Defence Forces. As part of the retention area, I would also like to see a service commitment scheme for specialised personnel across the forces.

The Minister’s opening statement referred to the complaints procedure. Can she give an update on the appointment of an adjudicator for the conciliation and arbitration, C and A, scheme? I understand the role is vacant.

The opening statement mentioned cultural transformation that is hoped to be achieved in the Defence Forces. What kind of a culture are we hoping to create? Are we actively putting in measures which will change the culture such as the ones I outlined around pay and conditions that would go towards increasing morale?

What would we spend the SAFE funds on if we availed of them in the next round?

I understand local bargaining worth about 3% is due but 1% is outstanding that should have been paid on 1 September 2025 under the public service pay agreement. Can we have an update on that?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will link two of the questions together on the cultural transformation and what will make a meaningful difference in career progression. For me when it comes to women in the Defence Forces we do not have enough women going through and getting to the top ranks. That is important in trying to instil and embed cultural change in the organisation and particularly where women have highlighted some of the more challenging work environments they have been in. That is not to say some of the concerns raised have only come from women but we need to accept first and foremost that there are changes that need to take place. We need to understand the way people feel and the working environment they are in. The value for people survey which was recently published is a good first indicator. It was taken by over 60% of Defence Forces members which is the highest they have had. As well as getting into pay and conditions it also showed concerning figures for those who have experienced or witnessed sexual assault or inappropriate behaviour. We need to make sure we have a clear picture of what is happening and how we respond to that. The follow-on survey will delve deeper into that. The external oversight body, chaired by Patricia King, is working on a number of key actions - I mentioned some already – around training and making sure these types of behaviours are unacceptable from the outset but also making sure we have appropriate structures in place, particularly from a complaints perspective. Therefore that is cultural from a perspective of sexual misconduct, inappropriate behaviour, bullying or harassment but also to improve the overall environment within the Defence Forces. There are other areas that have been highlighted in the value our people survey as well.

On the promotion systems, there is a lot of work that has been done on recruitment and retention initiatives which I can give to the committee. At the moment work is being done that will be submitted to me by the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces setting out new policies to transform career and talent processes and promotion systems. It is not specific to women but, rather, includes all members. That will include looking at some of the areas the Deputy mentioned as well. That work is being undertaken by the Defence Forces and will be provided to me shortly.

On SAFE, I mentioned earlier that we have a very ambitious programme under the strategic framework. We have a budget there that will allow us to do so many of those priorities but I want to ensure that if we have access to more funding, be it through the national development plan or SAFE, that we are ready to spend that money, whether on our naval fleet, more helicopters or our ground fleet as well. I have been to a number of barracks already and I know that a lot of investment is needed there too. I have no doubt we will be able to spend money. It is a matter of making sure we can access it as soon as possible.

On the C and A scheme, a name is with the Department of public expenditure and reform at the moment. I hope we will get approval for that. I am conscious having spoken to the unions that we can make progress in that regard.

On the supplementary pension, as the Deputy said, it is not just a matter for the Defence Forces but also the Garda, fire services and others. There is a fast-accrual pension scheme there and people can retire earlier. That is the benefit and that is why it stopped at 62 but I appreciate that is an ongoing concern and it has been raised not just by Defence Forces members.

Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do they lose their fast accrual at 60? I do not know what the benefit is between 60 and 62?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They do but it does not stop them from still being able to accrue it over the 30 years. If they joined 28 years before 60 then obviously at the 60 mark that does not continue but it does not stop them from accruing it over the previous 30 years if they joined when they were 30 or before that as well.

Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If they chose to retire at 60 years there is still a gap of six years between 60 and 66. If we could fill that gap-----

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do appreciate that.

Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In relation to all the matters like cadet pay, local bargaining and the C and A scheme that are with Department of public expenditure and reform at some level, is there a level of engagement with that Department to get some of these across the line?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have the same engagement as other Departments. A really positive departure since the last public sector pay agreement is that now the Defence Forces can have representation or are part of ICTU so they can have the voice around the table that they did not have before. That is an important change.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have asked some questions on drones and the United Nations. I have further questions on NATO and our alignment. We are not members of NATO, and the Government says we will not join it, but realistically we are involved in a number of NATO-led missions and we are very much aligned with it militarily. We supply resources, not directly to NATO but to countries where the state is on the same side as NATO. To me it looks like over the past 40 years the NATO chiefs are looking at us and thinking it does not need the Irish State as a member because it is so closely aligned. We are in the NATO box in all but name. Is that not the case?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I do not think so. I met the deputy secretary general of NATO recently at the Munich security conference. NATO is keen that we would do more with it and participate more in line with our position-----

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sure but my point is-----

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and that we do bring something very valuable to the table.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

However, we are very closely aligned with it in terms of how we do our business. The leadership of NATO might accept that while we may be neutral in name we are so closely aligned that we do not really have to be a member. That is my point. Does the Minister agree?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The decision was taken and it would have to be a wider conversation as to whether we decide to change that relationship. We have a relationship through what is known as Partnership for Peace. That works well but within that relationship and structure there is more we can do and I would be keen for us to do that but we need to have those conversations here as to what that looks like and how we could participate more within that structure.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the improvements to the Defence Forces in terms of capability but also conditions generally. Some of this has been addressed and I do not want to go back over it. As a neutral country, we need to have the capacity to defend ourselves.

Could I just ask the Minister a very simple question? If Ireland had to involve itself in a mission to rescue citizens abroad, similar to what happened in Afghanistan, how many members could be deployed? What is the upper limit?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is currently 12.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a rescue or humanitarian mission, we can deploy only 12.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine.

May I deal with the triple lock? In reply to a parliamentary question I asked last week, the Minister said the triple lock is a statutory mechanism rather than a constitutional one. It is not enshrined in the Constitution and it originated as a political commitment during the Nice and Lisbon treaty negotiations, not as a constitutional requirement. The Minister went on to say it does not require a national plebiscite. I disagree with Senator Craughwell’s comments on the problem being that we kick things around. The fact is that there were two national declarations, not just Government declarations, on behalf of the Irish people attached to both the Nice and Lisbon treaties. The Minister will recall that, at the time in question, both treaties were originally rejected by the Irish people and that the Government, not just people outside it, identified that the central issue was neutrality, the triple lock, etc. This was accepted and solemn declarations or solemn guarantees were stitched into appendices to the treaties to the effect that the triple lock would be protected. Now we have reached a point where the Minister says the triple lock is not enshrined in the Constitution, which I accept is technically the case, and that it does not entail a constitutional or legal obligation. Does the Minister not envisage difficulties in this regard?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not proposing to change the triple lock by ministerial direction. This is a change that would have to take place with the support of both Houses of the Oireachtas. Each of us represents people in our constituencies and it is incumbent on all of us to engage with those whom we represent to have these conversations and highlight in particular the fact that-----

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With respect, my point is that-----

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The point, though, is that the commitment was given at a time when members of the Security Council were not blocking missions from going ahead. The legislation is specific to how troops are deployed. The solemn commitment in our Constitution on our military neutrality has not changed and will not and cannot be changed without a referendum. I am not suggesting we change it or have a conversation on that but I do believe people want us to be able to continue to deploy troops. At the moment we cannot, so we do have to have a conversation about this. I am not suggesting we make a change without engaging with people and discussing the proposed change in the Chamber, committee room or elsewhere. It is a change that I believe will only allow us to continue doing what we are doing now. I actually believe people support that for the most part.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister said a minute ago that the provision would be changed by both Houses, in which the Government has a majority. We are all elected and the procedure for doing things is fair enough, but it is a matter of national declarations made on behalf of the Irish people, not just the Government. I have read the two declarations very carefully and although I am not a constitutional lawyer, I note the language in them is very clear, along with their intentions. So too are the statements made at the time in question by the then Government, which included senior people like Brian Cowen, the then Taoiseach. What I am saying is that I do not think it is as simple as saying there may be no constitutional implications. Both treaties were put to the Irish people and rejected by them. Both required commitments regarding neutrality and the triple lock. In this regard, solemn commitments were stitched into the treaties as national declarations. They were recognised by the EU at the time and still are. They were made on behalf of the Irish people. The point I am making is that the answer to the parliamentary question does not deal with this, and there may be an issue in that regard. Does the Minister see an issue here?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My view is that we all represent the people of this country and live in a democracy. It is incumbent on us to consider legislation enacted decades ago, as we do in many different areas, and determine whether it is fit for purpose. The current legislation is quite simply not fit for purpose. It simply does not allow us to deploy troops-----

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

But this goes beyond legislation, way beyond it. These are two national declarations.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It does not change our neutrality and this is where we have to dispel the disinformation. Our neutrality is embedded in our Constitution and in the treaties. We are not proposing to change them. How we deploy our troops is a matter for legislation. The idea that we would not even consider changing legislation when the world has changed so much, when Brexit has changed things and when people want us to consider these types of issues, is questionable. I cannot speak for everybody and will not try to speak for everybody here but I believe there is an onus on us to ensure our Defence Forces members can continue to do what they have done for decades. At the moment, because of the legislation, they cannot.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That may be the case but there was a democratic decision. Democratic decisions were taken by the Irish people not once but twice in the decade in question.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the Constitution, not on the legislation, though.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There were solemn declarations on behalf of the people of this State, underwritten by the Government.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want clarification on one point. It relates to Deputy Stanley’s question on humanitarian rescue missions, as happened in Afghanistan. I understand that the number is unlimited and that when there was an incident involving a rescue mission, there were 30 troops. Therefore, we are not restricted to 12 in the case of humanitarian rescue.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will clarify that. There are different limits in some cases, but if I was incorrect I will clarify the matter.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I heard the answer as well and that is the reason I asked my question. It is important that we clarify the exact position.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, but I will have to come back to the committee on that.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister said she will come back to us on that.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not want to mislead the committee.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the opinion of the Chair?

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I believe the number is unlimited for humanitarian rescue missions.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is in line with an answer given in this room by a senior military official. Is that not correct?

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, specifically in relation to Afghanistan. That was the case where there was a number of troops-----

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A humanitarian rescue mission.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will seek clarification because I am not sure if the number is unlimited.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before we leave, we should note it was stated in this room by a senior member of the military that the number was unlimited in the case of humanitarian missions. Did I hear correctly?

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. That is my understanding of it.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is my memory as well.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister can clarify it.

On behalf of the joint committee, I thank the Minister and her officials for their time this morning and the materials circulated in advance of today’s meeting. The joint committee will now adjourn until it meets again, in public session, at 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 19 March 2026.