Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 Oct 2024

I want to put on the record of this House the universal sentiment of the Irish people that we are incredibly and rightfully proud of the men and women of the Irish Defence Forces who are serving with distinction in Lebanon as part of the UNIFIL peacekeeping mission. They are part of a long tradition of proud participation in UN peacekeeping missions by the Defence Forces. Will the Tánaiste give an update on the current situation facing our troops?

I also take this opportunity to pay a very warm tribute to our soldiers in Lebanon for their professionalism, resilience and commitment to their peacekeeping role in Lebanon. Peacekeeping is the most noble work one can pursue and our soldiers are doing it in an exemplary manner. The safety and security of Ireland’s Defence Forces’ personnel stationed in Lebanon remain of paramount concern to myself and to the Government.

We have seen a significant escalation of violence across the country in recent weeks, including incursions across the blue line by the Israel Defence Forces, IDF, and reports of Israeli targeting and fire on United Nations positions causing harm to peacekeepers. These actions are a clear and unacceptable violation of resolution 1701.

This is causing both the Government and I to be deeply concerned about this evolving and fluid situation. It is reprehensible and unacceptable to injure peacekeepers and to put them in harm's way and I condemn these incidents in the strongest possible terms.

On a number of occasions over the past two weeks I have been in contact with the UN on this matter, and I spoke directly with the UN Under-Secretary General responsible for UN peacekeeping, Jean Pierre Lacroix. During the calls I took the opportunity to raise my serious concern about the deteriorating situation in southern Lebanon, and to emphasise the Government’s expectation that UNIFIL’s role and mandate and the safety of peacekeepers should be fully respected by all parties.

The Deputy will be aware of IDF activity close to one of the Irish outposts, UNP 6-52, over the past ten days. Two specific diplomatic protests were made by Ireland to the UN headquarters and to Israel in the days prior to the Israeli Defence Forces' departure from the post. Similar action will be taken at diplomatic level in the future in the event of further incidents of this nature. I have made, and will continue to make, the Government's concern on this clear both bilaterally to Israel and to United Nations headquarters. I have reminded Israel of its obligation to protect peacekeepers; and I have highlighted that its actions are in breach of international humanitarian law and that there is a need for full accountability for any actions taken.

There is no doubt that our troops are operating in a particularly challenging environment, but we should remember that all our people are highly trained, professional, and have undergone rigorous preparation to effectively handle the challenges that come with peacekeeping in this volatile region.

I remain in regular contact with the United Nations and with the Chief of Staff with regard to the ongoing situation. My Department is also regularly kept appraised of all developments in those areas where Defence Forces personnel are deployed. I have been advised that all Irish personnel remain in place in UNIFIL positions and these locations have been notified to the Israel Defence Forces, and that all personnel are accounted for and well.

Both I and the Government will continue to monitor the situation closely along with our partners in the UN and the wider international community. I assure the Deputies that Ireland remains committed to Lebanon and to UNIFIL, and that the Defence Forces remains steadfast in its commitment to promoting peace and stability in Lebanon and will remain vigilant and proactive in safeguarding all troops, which is the key priority.

I wish to inform the House that yesterday morning we had an online meeting of the defence ministers of the 16 European Union contributing countries to UNIFIL to discuss the ongoing situation and the need to impress upon all actors in the region the absolute imperative of protecting peacekeepers and ensuring they are not put in harm's way.

I welcome the Tánaiste's assurances on the safety of our Defence Forces. Another very drastic red line was crossed by Israel last Sunday when two Israeli tanks forcibly breached a United Nations base. Two hours, or a little more, later peacekeepers observed the firing of several rounds to the north and despite the wearing of protective masks, 15 peacekeepers suffered skin irritation and gastrointestinal reactions after smoke entered their camp.

The day prior, UNIFIL peacekeepers were hit by gunfire with more troops injured in the days before that as the UN bases were surveilled and then assaulted by Israeli military forces. Israel has blocked UNIFIL logistical movements. These are very serious breaches and attacks on UN bases. Does Ireland intend to take any meaningful action against Israel for what is a very dangerous it has put our peacekeepers in?

It is a very serious situation. It is incomprehensible that Israel or the IDF would put UN peacekeepers generally in harm's way and in some incidents, as the Deputy outlined, UN peacekeepers were injured as a result of such activity.

We will work in consort with the UN, with the force commander of UNIFIL in Lebanon.

We will co-ordinate our approach. I believe that the international community, through the United Nations and European Union, can collectively keep pressure on with a view to ensuring those red lines are not crossed into the future and that UNIFIL is allowed to continue to fulfil its mandate, which is a difficult and challenging mandate and has been for quite some time. Over the past 12 months, Hezbollah has been violating that mandate as well. More than 10,000 rockets have been fired from southern Lebanon into Israel with the result of up to 90,000 Israelis having to flee their homes. Likewise, in southern Lebanon, a similar number of Lebanese have had to flee their homes because of this conflict. We will do everything we possibly can in the context of UNIFIL and our peacekeepers and their safety to keep the pressure on to protect them.

Notwithstanding any appeals that have been made to the Israeli Government, it is fair to assume, although disappointing that it is the case, that Israel is unlikely to heed the calls of the international community because the evidence we have, not only over the past year but for much longer, is that Israel does not need any words, only significant sanctions. There is no indication that such sanctions will be deployed against that regime. With the prospect of further attacks or further situations whereby peacekeepers are forced to return and remain in base, have there been any mitigation proposals to ensure an increase in supplies at each base so that in the event UNIFIL troops are expected to remain in base for a prolonged period, they will be adequately supplied?

The Defence Forces have advised that there are sufficient supplies of both water and food in Camp Shamrock as well as the availability of contingency food packs, and that further deliveries were made to Camp Shamrock over the last weekend. This is in addition to a contingency supply chain that is in place to allow all of UNIFIL to remain in place for up to 30 days. These contingency arrangements were enhanced during the summer period. Our Defence Forces took proactive action in the summer period in anticipation of potential issues arising to make sure there were sufficient supplies for 30 days. That said, the force commander will have to engage with all the actors in the region, including the Israel Defence Forces, IDF, with a view to logistics around resupply of the outposts. Even though there are sufficient supplies for the moment, that is an issue that will have to be addressed. In the first instance, the force commander will engage on that issue on the ground and, obviously, the two contributing countries will also be putting pressure on diplomatically in respect of that issue.

I wish to discuss this issue further and put on record my and our deep appreciation for the valuable work Irish peacekeepers do as part of the UNIFIL force. In the Tánaiste's view, where do we go in terms of UN peacekeeping? It feels that we may be at a tipping point with this mission and the direct attacks from Israel, which may be geographically in the Middle East but culturally places itself with its allies in the West. With attacks on peacekeeping forces such as those mentioned, where are we going with UN peacekeeping in general?

There is a fundamental issue in terms of Israel's approach to the United Nations more generally. We might remember that UNIFIL is there as a result of the UN Security Council. In my view, Israel cannot continue to undermine UN agencies. We see what is happening in the Knesset in respect of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, UNRWA, for example, which is a vital UN agency in bringing humanitarian aid to Gaza and Lebanon and across the Middle East. Without UNRWA, we could never contemplate the reconstruction of Gaza. All UN agencies and external agencies are absolutely clear on that, and other countries are as well. We had the description of the UN Secretary General as persona non grata by the Israeli Prime Minister. We have had these unacceptable attacks and, essentially, the crossing of a red line in respect of the firing on UN outposts in Naquora, which resulted in the injury of UN peacekeepers. Those are new departures in many respects. We have to uphold the primacy of the UN and the multilateral system. Israel has to be very conscious that the rest of world cannot tolerate an undermining of the rules-based international order because if that is allowed to happen here, it can happen elsewhere in terms of the primacy and importance of the United Nations.

We are, therefore, at a crucial tipping point in respect of the status of the UN and of peacekeepers and peacekeeping roles. This is a crucial moment. That is why all the troop-contributing countries are co-operating with a view to maintaining the mandate, imperfect as it is, but are also conscious that in the aftermath of this conflict, they may very well be called upon again to mediate and make sure we can keep and ensure the peace.

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. We have all been ranging from disappointment to being aghast in this country at the continued support for Israel, either militarily or politically, over the past year as its massively disproportionate response to the attacks on 7 October continues to bring death and destruction for the people of Gaza and now Lebanon. If the burning of people alive in the Al-Aqsa hospital and all the other atrocities were not going to kick the western allies of Israel into action, then maybe attacks on UN peacekeeping forces might do that. However, it seems Israel is operating without a leash and with no brakes on its atrocities. Ireland has a unique role to play, or a near-unique role, to push our western allies into cracking down hard on Israel, bring it into the multilateral system and, ultimately, stop the violence and genocide.

In respect of the mandate more generally, the international community has put pressure on Israel in respect of the attacks and the firing on UN outposts. That is having some impact, and that needs to have impact, although, again, the Deputy made some important and valid points. What is happening in northern Gaza is quite shocking and reprehensible in respect of the ordering of 400,000 people to leave their homes, and I will call that out myself. It is collective punishment of a people. It is not justified, and it is completely disproportionate and discriminate. This is language we use in the context of international humanitarian law. In respect of the peacekeepers, however, we are very clear that the IDF has contacts with UNIFIL. It knows where UNIFIL is and has all the co-ordinates. There is no excuse. There is no basis for any attacks or firing on UN positions. Likewise, Hezbollah is saying it is there to observe and will not put peacekeepers in harm's way. That would not have been the case maybe one year ago.

This question is fairly straightforward. At a time when we continue to see more members of the Defence Forces leave than join each year, could the Tánaiste outline how much money from his Department was actually surrendered back to the Exchequer in 2023, the reason these allocated funds were unspent and whether he expects his Department to surrender further funds in 2024?

The Defence Vote group comprises of two Votes: Vote 35 - Army pensions and Vote 36 - defence.

The 2023 Vote 36 – defence net surplus surrendered to the Exchequer was €18.1 million. This figure includes surplus appropriations-in-aid of €9.1 million, which, as the Deputy will be aware, cannot be used to fund additional expenditure and must be surrendered to the Exchequer. Appropriations-in-aid on the defence Vote primarily comprise of superannuation receipts and UN receipts, the timing of which can be difficult to predict. Surplus appropriations-in-aid are not unique to defence and are a common occurrence across all Votes.

Excluding surplus appropriations-in-aid, the surrender on the gross defence Vote allocation of €915.4 million was €9 million or 1% of the gross allocation.

During 2023, underspends arose across a number of subheads, most notably on subhead A3 – PDF pay, due to the Permanent Defence Force strength falling below its target. In line with public financial procedures, and with the approval of the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, most of these savings were redirected to meet spending pressures elsewhere on the defence Vote, particularly on capital. Investment in a number of significant projects, including the inshore patrol vessels, military aircraft and software defined radio, resulted in total capital spending of €208 million, more than €30 million in excess of the allocation.

This prudent approach ensured that any underspends arising were used effectively to meet spending challenges elsewhere across the Vote in 2023, while also fully adhering to all relevant public procurement guidelines and the public spending code/infrastructure guidelines.

With regard to 2024, while expenditure is currently slightly behind profile, latest projections are that the end of year spending position will align very closely with the allocation.

With regard to Army pensions, in 2023 the net surplus surrendered to the Exchequer was €3.4 million, amounting to 1% of the gross allocation of €294 million. Expenditure on the Army pensions Vote is predominantly demand-led and non-discretionary. A similar outcome is expected for 2024.

People will be astounded to see the Department of Defence surrendering any money back to the Exchequer, considering the challenges that the Defence Forces are currently facing in the retention and recruitment crisis and the ambitions that have been set out, particularly in the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces.

I have raised with the Tánaiste on a number of occasions the fact that now, into the third budget following the Commission on the Defence Forces, he has missed by quite a wide margin the additional capital funding targets that were set out in the commission's report. In his first year as Minister, he underreached the ambition by €70 million. The Tánaiste, again, underreached by €70 million and in this year's budget, he has missed the mark by a further €30 million.

In terms of current expenditure, the Tánaiste mentioned the €9 million predominantly made up of pay. Will he clarify whether that money remained within the Department and precisely how much of that money remained within the Department or within the Defence Forces overall?

We have actually expanded expenditure. The bottom line is, in terms of capital expenditure, procurement is an issue in terms of the time it can take to procure, particularly C295s. The bottom line is we are committing to a lot of expenditure, which will come on stream. It does not necessarily fall in any given 12 months. I do not accept the Deputy's characterisation of the budgetary situation.

In fact, I have made it clear to the military leadership and to the Department of Defence to keep investing in the barracks, Haulbowline and Baldonnel. For the first time ever, we are developing master plans for Baldonnel and Haulbowline to give long-term certainty to our facilities so that we can plan accordingly and spend, and that will be done with a value-for-money focus.

Just because we have €9 million or 1% left at the year, we does not throw it at anything. The Estimates the subsequent year are increased over and above the previous year. This year we have a significant increase on what we are allocated and on the output of last year. There is no issue here.

I assure the Tánaiste that I would not suggest to the Government to throw money anywhere because it is quite good at doing that of its own volition, but here is the crux. For the past number of years on budget day or in the budget documents released by the Department, the Tánaiste has said that the budget includes provision for the employment of 400 additional members of the Defence Forces when everybody in this House and anybody who has been watching the Defence Forces knows that will not happen. The most likely scenario is that there will be fewer members of the Defence Forces than there were the previous year. That is exactly what happened last year. Knowing that the Tánaiste had allocated money for more members and personnel than would be in place, surely it would be prudent to have a plan B to ensure that money was not thrown away and there was provision to ensure that money would be spent. This year, the Tánaiste again announced that he had made provision for an additional 400 members of the Defence Forces. Has he a contingency if that target is not met so that the funding that has been allocated to that need will not be lost to the Defence Forces and will be put to good use?

Every year it is put to good use. That is the point I made in my reply. In 2023, it was put to good use. It was used elsewhere across the Vote. That happens all of the time.

We are down now to €9 million out of a budget that is close to €1 billion. We need to a sense of perspective here in all of this.

I discussed the appropriations-in-aid, which is receipts that come that cannot be used for other purposes. Those are the well-established rules.

The more important point is we have produced the implementation plan in respect of the Commission on the Defence Forces report, we have timelined all of the investments and the drawdown will be subject to proper procurement and proper value for money. That makes sense.

In many respects, we need not to be tied to this idea of the rigid demarcation line every 12 months. The key issue is: are we substantially increasing our capability over the next number of years in line with the Commission on the Defence Forces review? The answer is, "Yes, we are."

Is the Tánaiste satisfied that the Defence Forces, specifically the military intelligence branch, are appropriately resourced in terms of personnel, training and technology to effectively address the increasing demands of counter-espionage operations, and the plans in place to enhance these capabilities in light of evolving threats to national security?

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter, as it allows me to touch, on a high level, on the role of intelligence gathering for and on behalf of the State. As the Deputy will appreciate given the sensitive nature of such matters, I will not be commenting on recent media reports nor would it be appropriate for me to disclose the various briefings I receive as the Minister for Defence from the military authorities. The current focus of Defence Force intelligence functions, is to ensure: the safety and security of members of the Defence Forces operating at home and abroad; the defence and security of the State, its sovereign territory and its citizens; and the safeguarding of the State's national strategic interests at home and abroad.

The Defence Forces intelligence main function within the State's intelligence architecture is to provide its key stakeholders, the Government, the Taoiseach, the Minister for Defence, the national security committee and the Chief of Staff, with independently collected and analysed intelligence at the strategic, national and military levels.

The Defence Forces work closely with An Garda Síochána and other relevant State bodies in respect of any threats identified that may have adverse implications for the security of the State. In response to the persistent and emerging threats and challenges highlighted in the security environment assessment carried our as part of the recent Defence policy review, military intelligence will continue to develop, grow and enhance its capabilities, including counter-intelligence.

The Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces and the subsequent detailed implementation plan identified the strengthening of military as a priority. An evaluation is under way regarding the role and functions of military intelligence, which is also examining the requirement to underpin military intelligence by appropriate legislation. The detailed implementation plan also identified the strengthening of military intelligence capabilities and the establishment of a joint military intelligence service in the context of a revised mandate.

Work is progressing on implementing the commission’s recommendations in respect of military intelligence in line with the timelines laid down within the detailed implementation plan.

I want to make it clear that the Defence Forces intelligence functions are adequately resourced and, with the developments I have outlined above, will be future-proofed in the years ahead to meet emerging threats and robust enough to meet future challenges.

I appreciate that the Tánaiste cannot comment in detail on specific incidents but, looking at some incidents over the last four or five years, we seem to have a very cavalier approach to counter-intelligence and threats to the State. The Tánaiste obviously cannot comment on the recent example of Cobalt, although he did comment in the media. He said he was not briefed although a previous Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, said he had been briefed. That presented an image of nobody really knowing what was going on unless they had access to some whispers in the corridor. The HSE cyberattack was another example. When that attack happened and decimated our HSE, we looked to the Minister for Defence for information, and then it was the Minister for Justice. All of a sudden it was discovered that it was the responsibility of the Minister of State, Deputy Ossian Smyth, in the Department of communications. There are other examples such as munitions being flown through our airspace and nobody knowing what is or is not inside the planes. Changes in policy have happened in the past 18 months. It is the Minister for Transport, Deputy Eamon Ryan, asking about munitions being transferred using our airspace. In a collective sense, who knows what is going on in terms of threats to our national security or infringements of our sovereignty? I understand there are different Departments but there does not seem to by any single line going through them.

There is a national security committee which co-ordinates all of the work. I think there are issues in terms of an accountability chain to the Oireachtas and the Government of the day. That is why there is an examination under way. There needs to be work done on ensuring a proper accountability chain and a framework governing both military intelligence and intelligence activities more generally. An Garda Síochána has a key role in domestic intelligence. Military intelligence is important in terms of external factors and anything which threatens the security of the State. I was not happy with the precise manner in which that article ended up on the front pages. I do not think it is satisfactory, to be frank. There comes a time when you need to be honest with the Oireachtas and say these things, which might be uncomfortable for some, but I believe in the formulation of a developing policy for how we work in the future. We have to take a more substantive and mature role. It is a vital area for the protection of the State. We need to know the guard rails that should surround a proper intelligence function within the State and behave responsibly as a consequence of that.

The Tánaiste might give us some timelines in respect of the evaluation that he spoke of. It is important that this is not used as a political football and that we approach it in a mature way. There are some examples that take us by surprise. Last month, my constituency colleague seemed to come under some sort of misinformation attack from outside the State. A report came in that the Minister for public expenditure, Deputy Donohoe, had given assurances to the Israeli State in 2019 in respect of the occupied territories Bill. I found that very shocking, as did many people in Irish society. Paschal Donohoe rightly said he did not have that meeting. Does that not raise more questions than answers? Who did have the meeting, then? This was a high-level meeting. The Israeli department of justice said it had been given assurances. Are we not going to ask what happened there? At a time when our election process is about to get under way, we have a Minister for public expenditure who had to answer questions from the media. Have we had diplomatic engagements with the Israeli Government asking why such a false statement exists in its archives? In any other State this would be taken more seriously than it was here.

We have good quality intelligence networks in the country. An Garda Síochána does a very good job, as does military intelligence. The Commission on the Defence Forces outlined significant reforms in respect of military intelligence and the majority of its recommendations were accepted by Government. These include strengthening military intelligence capabilities; the establishment of a joint military intelligence service in the context of a revised mandate underpinned by new legislation, which is being progressed; the establishment of an intelligence school with shared programmes which would facilitate and enhance co-operation and joint training opportunities between military intelligence and its Garda counterparts, which was accepted in principle; for the role and functions of the military intelligence bureau to be clarified and underpinned by appropriate legislation within the context of a coherent national intelligence architecture, which is being further evaluated and will have to happen; and the overarching legal and governance framework to ensure optimum co-ordination and collaboration between the Defence Forces and An Garda Síochána on intelligence matters. That was accepted by the Government along with several further recommendations. All of these issues are monitored, as the Deputy noted. When reports like that emerge in respect of the alleged phone call, which did not happen, between Paschal Donohoe and others, none of us should jump to conclusions. There is a tendency for people to jump to conclusions and accept everything that is asserted.

This question is to adjudicate the performance of the Government in respect of the Defence Forces. Sometimes the Tánaiste says there is unfair criticism. It would be important to set out for the Dáil, in each year of this Government from 2020, the target recruitment for the Defence Forces and, in each year, how many were actually inducted and how many left, in other words, the net recruitment figure for each of those years.

The military authorities have advised me that as of 31 August 2024, the latest date for which such information is available, the strength of the Permanent Defence Force stood at 7,426. A table containing the requested induction and discharges figures for each year from 2020 to 2024 will be provided to the Deputy.

I have acknowledged in the past the recruitment and retention challenges in our Defence Forces. To address these I have introduced a number of measures. These include an increase in recruitment age to 39 years for those roles that had a recruitment age below that, and to 50 years for direct entry specialists. The mandatory retirement age has been increased to 62. Private secondary healthcare has been rolled out to all PDF members. The patrol duty allowance payable to Naval Service personnel at sea has been doubled after ten days at sea in a calendar year and the Naval Service tax credit has been extended for a further five years. There has also been significant progress on pay in recent years. Recruits on completion of training now start at €40,297 in year 1, while school-leaver cadets upon commissioning earn €44,216, while in full-time education.

I also instructed the military authorities to increase their recruitment targets beyond those originally projected for 2024, and some positive trends are now beginning to emerge. The latest strength figures represent a net month-on-month increase of 105 personnel. As of 30 September 2024, 494 personnel had been inducted and the latest advice from the military authorities indicates that they plan to have a further 250 further inductions in 2024. There had been 443 discharges as of 31 August, 35 fewer than at the same time last year. Interest in a career in the Defence Forces continues to rise, as evidenced by the total of 10,387 applications received across all competitions as of 30 September. This is more than the total number received for all of 2023.

It is hard to ask a supplementary question when I do not have the substantive response to the question I asked. I take the Tánaiste's commitment to provide the precise figures. Here is what we do know from the Tánaiste's response. There are currently fewer than 7,500 members of our Defence Forces, 2,000 below the establishment figure and a whopping 4,000 below the two-figure level cited as necessary by the Commission on the Defence Forces. I welcome the increase in the mandatory retirement age but that is not the problem when it comes to retention. The problem is that members who are not anywhere close to retirement age in some instances, and who are necessary within our Defence Forces, are choosing to leave. There have been 443 of those this year. Some 10,000 people applied or expressed an interest in joining the Defence Forces this year but only 434 were actually inducted.

Does the Tánaiste not see that is a really big problem and that the Government has failed, under any metric, to get a handle on the recruitment and retention crisis over the past five years?

I have been less than two years in this portfolio but recruitment is stabilising and turning a corner, with a narrowing of the gap, and this year may see the first time there will not be a net reduction. The figure is currently 7,426. We have looked at all the recruitment methodologies. We were not satisfied with them or the manner in which people were being recruited, and we have changed that. We have introduced a lot of reforms on the recruitment side. We want to convert more people who show an interest in joining into inductions, and a lot of work is being done in that regard. We are also increasing capacity in training and improving the situation relating to instruction.

The Deputy should not underestimate the retention issue. He is saying it is not an issue at all but it was an issue, and everybody cited it as such, including the Deputy for the past two years. Likewise, all the representative organisations cited the need to extend the retirement age to 62, which is what I managed to get done. The need for that change had been around for years but could not get done. I got it done very substantially and that will help retention figures. There is a further issue, relating to broader pension entitlements, which is not specific to the Defence Forces but applies to the entire public service.

To be clear, I am not dismissing the retention issue whatsoever. I am saying we have a big retention issue, on which the Tánaiste has failed to get a handle. I have also said I welcome the increase in the mandatory retirement age but have said that will not, in itself, deal with the retention issue we face. The truth is that as of today, more people have left the Defence Forces this year than have joined. That is a fact the Tánaiste has confirmed to this House, and it was also a fact last year and in the previous year.

The Tánaiste might have been the Minister for Defence for only two years but he was Taoiseach, the Head of Government, before that, so he cannot absolve himself of responsibility for the crisis. He has announced the recruitment of 400 net additional members of the Defence Forces in 2023, but he missed that target. He set the same target for 2024 and missed that target too. By his own admission, there is no prospect of there being 400 additional members of the Defence Forces by the end of this year. Nothing the Tánaiste has said here gives me any confidence he will hit the same target he has set for a third year next year. We need a bit of honesty that the current approach is not working as effectively as it should and that a change of course is needed.

There have been 443 discharges, which is fewer than last year. This year could be a turning point in the recruitment story. We hope that in respect of the retention issue, successfully raising the retirement age to 62 will have a significant effect next year and in the following year. Moreover, there are other measures we want to introduce, relating to instructors and so forth, that will have a beneficial impact. We have forced this pace, changed the modalities of recruitment and introduced significant incentives, as I outlined, such as private secondary healthcare, the patrol duty allowance and the extension of the naval tax credit.