Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 2 Jul 2024

I propose to take Questions Nos. 66 and 85 together.

The Naval Service is currently adopting a three-ship operational posture, which sees the four P60 class vessels on patrol in operational rotation. The decision to reduce the number of operational ships was made as a result of the previously acknowledged recruitment and retention difficulties in the Naval Service, in particular for specialist positions. The following ships make up that operational posture: the LÉ Samuel Beckett, the LÉ James Joyce, the LÉ William Butler Yeats, P63, and the LÉ George Bernard Shaw. In addition to the four OPV classes, the LÉ Róisín is currently in operational reserve while the LÉ Niamh is in the process of completing a mid-life extension programme, after which she will enter operational reserve. Two inshore patrol vessels were purchased on a government-to-government basis from New Zealand in 2022 and were delivered to the naval base in Haulbowline in May 2023. The LÉ Aoibhinn, P71, is subject to final assessments and completion of any necessary works to ensure that it will be operational by the end of July. The deployment of the LÉ Gobnait, P72, will follow entry into operational service later this year.

There is no easy fix to the current retention and recruitment challenges facing the Naval Service and the wider organisation, which are well documented, but the commitment, courage and excellence of our serving members is clear. I am committed to radically overhauling both the built environment and working conditions for the men and women of the Defence Forces throughout the country. I am ramping up investment in every aspect of the Naval Service in order to address the current recruitment and retention issues. Earlier this year, I announced the doubling of the patrol duty allowance paid to Naval Service personnel. This measure took effect from 1 January 2024. This measure provides greater clarity on the overall package available to our Naval Service personnel and potential recruits.

There are a number of initiatives currently under way to counter ongoing staffing challenges. These include bespoke Naval Service recruitment advertising to augment the ongoing recruitment campaign, which remains open throughout the year. Proposals for direct entry competitions within the Naval Service have also been progressed and implemented. I have instructed that the recruitment function for the Naval Service be outsourced in line with the recommendations in the CPL report. Third, a contract has been awarded to a marine recruitment specialist company to target individuals with the skills and expertise required by the Naval Service. A seagoing naval personnel tax credit of €1,500 has been further extended into the 2024 tax year. A further increase in the retirement age to 62 years will be made when relevant enabling primary legislation is introduced by the Department of Public Expenditure National Development Plan Delivery and Reform.

This will greatly enhance retention levels.

There has been a substantial capital investment in my Department, with over €147 million worth of Defence Forces infrastructure development plan projects currently under way. Many of these are specific to addressing operational and living-in accommodation requirements. Some €97 million worth of projects included in the IDP relate to naval base infrastructure projects, which are at various stages of the design and procurement process. My focus remains on stabilising the numbers of personnel in the Defence Forces and thereafter increasing strength to meet the agreed level of ambition arising from the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces.

Will the Tánaiste comment on reports about his plans to purchase a multi-role vessel, perhaps with helicopter capability, to replace the LÉ Eithne? Would he agree with me that it would be very important to have a vessel that can actually carry helicopters, especially in light of what happened recently in Cork where a large shipment of drugs was captured using a land-based helicopter? Does he agree it would be important to have one that will be based on, and can be deployed from, a ship? Where are the plans to purchase a multi-role vessel?

We are proceeding with that but as with the purchase of any major defence platform and complex project, it requires the finalisation of required capabilities to enable the specification of requirements to be defined before a tender competition can go to the market, and work is ongoing in this regard. An estimate of the cost of the MRV will only be known, of course, once the tender competition is concluded. It is important to note that while the MRV will operate as a naval asset, its role is very much a whole-of-defence one, with the capacity to contribute to the wider maritime domain. The project is being progressed as a major project under the infrastructure guidelines. These are projects with an estimated capital cost in excess of €200 million. A prior information notice published in January gave an estimate of €300 million for the MRV. This estimate, which is based on an independent assessment, was provided for guidance purposes only for the prior information notice.

Will the Minister comment on whether if he feels it is important that such a vessel could carry helicopters? What other tasks would he envisage such a vessel performing? We have seen reports in the past of hospital ships, ships that can carry out rescue missions such as those we have had in the Mediterranean in the past, and ships that can carry cargo and so on. Will he give us an outline of what his thinking is with respect of the tasks such a vessel might perform, in particular with respect to the aerial capabilities of carrying helicopters that can be deployed as we have seen recently?

Again, those specifications are being worked on but the multi-role nature of the vessel is important. Drug interdictions generally are intelligence-led. They have been extremely successful in recent years, notwithstanding all the negative commentary. The bottom line is that the Defence Forces, including the Naval Service, the Air Corps and the Army Ranger Wing, worked exceptionally well together and were instrumental in a successful and highly publicised seizure of the largest cocaine haul in the history of the State from the vessel MV Matthew in September last year. An Garda Síochána, of course, and Revenue worked with them as well. Yes, a multi-role vessel would give extra capacity, safety and backup without question. Given what we discussed earlier in committee today, the whole area of maritime surveillance and indeed security as regards subsea cables and so on, clearly it can be deployed in different roles.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 63 and 88 together.

I thank the Deputies for raising these questions. As I have publicly stated, since becoming Minister for Defence 18 months ago, I have been absolutely clear on the need for urgent transformation of the culture in the Defence Forces. As I have done earlier this evening, I wish to again reiterate in the strongest possible terms that the Defence Forces is a place where no one convicted of serious physical assaults, sexual offences or domestic or gender-based violence can be allowed to continue to serve.

As the Deputy may be aware, the Defence Forces is a disciplined service with an extensive suite of regulations which govern all aspects of military life. Defence Forces regulations are amended on an ongoing basis and recent examples of such changes include changes to senior promotion competitions, mandatory retirement ages and grooming standards. Such amendments are also invariably informed by military advice from the military authorities.

The Deputy may also be aware that the Defence Act 1954 provides for the dismissal of members of the Permanent Defence Forces for prescribed reasons. Accordingly, subject to the provisions of Defence Forces regulations, DFR A.15 paragraph 18(1)(e), an officer of the Permanent Defence Force may be retired "in the interests of the service". Section 50 of the Defence Act provides for the dismissal of officers by the President. In the case of enlisted personnel, DFR A.10 paragraph 58 (m), provides for discharge as a result of conviction by the civil power. While I am satisfied that there are existing mechanisms in place to deal with such cases, I am open to considering proposals to improve and streamline these mechanisms. As already outlined, Defence Forces regulations are reviewed and amended on an ongoing basis. What is of critical importance, however, is that the regulations are applied in a consistent manner by the military authorities. Separately, all serving personnel who are currently before the courts on serious criminal charges including assault and sexual assault, or who have been convicted and are awaiting discharge, are to be put on local leave with immediate effect on a without prejudice basis. This measure is already provided for in the regulations.

I have appointed Mr. Peter Ward SC to undertake a high-level analysis of the application of military law in circumstances where personnel have been convicted of serious offences in the civil courts. Mr. Ward will be asked to come back with an outcome of this high-level analysis, along with any recommendations and any enhanced powers that may be necessary to improve processes, regulations, legislation and reporting arrangements. The terms of reference are almost finalised in this regard. However, we will look at the issue of suspension, whether those regulations are adequate, and we will also look at the issue of the role of the military liaison officer. As was articulated earlier, that has been, to a certain extent, clearly misrepresented in the public commentary around that. It is by regulation that the Defence Forces military liaison officer, under military regulations, is required to attend the courts. The officer is there not to give references as such but to be there and if required by the court has to respond to the court. The prosecution or the defence can question. As I said in an earlier reply, that officer will have the file of the officer who is before the court on a charge and will literally give that material in the file, either verbally or in whatever way, to the court. In some cases, I understand this would be under cross-examination or indeed at the request of the judge in a particular case. However, we are going to review that because the perception of this in recent times is not the reality but neither was it the intention. We just have to be clear on that role into the future. I look forward to the senior counsel's recommendations on that.

I thank the Minister. First, I condemn gender-based violence. There is no space anywhere for it to be tolerated. In the strongest possible way, I commend Natasha O'Brien on her approach and the way she has pressed things forward recently, and also on the way she handled herself when standing up for another victim on the night of her violent incident.

I want to ask about people who are convicted and the way the current system is operating. I understand that there are convicted people still within the military. Is there an indication of how many? Similarly, have there been other people discharged in recent years because of convictions?

What kind of threshold was required to bring about those discharges? Was it particular offences or sentences? What is the threshold expected to be with the revised approach?

Yes, members of Defence Forces have been discharged as result of criminal convictions in the courts. Apart from the discharge process, there is an existing local leave mechanism that can be used. On 27 June, lest there be any doubt, I instructed that anyone who had been convicted and is awaiting an appeal or is before the courts on the charge of rape or sexual assault be immediately placed on local leave. From the reports we got back, there was a degree of inconsistency, although, having had further discussions with the Chief of Staff, my understanding is that all are now on local leave and not in service. There have been issues raised as result of recent events around the power of suspension. The Defence Forces regulations state that the discharge process may begin after an appeal. I stress that the local leave mechanism was there all the time in respect of sexual assault or a serious section 3 offence. Those are the ones that are horrific in terms of what we witnessed in the Natasha O'Brien case and other cases.

I want to shift the focus to the victims where there is a conviction in the courts or via courts martial and the review that is proposed. Will the military authorities engage with victims? Will they be bringing them forward to provide evidence? Will they engage with victims after they make a decision? Do they currently engage with victims and let them know of the outcome of courts martial or do victims end up having to hear it informally? What is the plan with the new revised regulations and the sanctions that are in place? What will be the role of victims in that regard? It is very important for them to have a central role and be recognised.

When the report of independent review group of 12 months ago was published, I immediately took the decision and gave an instruction to the military that all sexual assault allegations were no longer to be dealt with by the military courts or under military law and that all sexual assault and rape cases were to be referred to the civil courts. That has been the position for over 12 months. I can get precise dates on that. I asked for clear specific reasons. Any case in the military that relates to sexual assault must now be referred to the Garda Síochána for criminal investigation.

In the context of other offences, such as abuse, verbal assaults or physical assaults, that fall within the compass of the military courts, there is within the Defence Forces a stronger focus on the victim. We also have Raiseaconcern, which is anonymous vehicle for members of the Defence Forces to raise their issues with an independent body to give some solace to the victims in terms of cases being identified and so on.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 64, 65, 71 and 90 together.

I thank the Deputies for their questions. As they are aware, the Defence Forces is a disciplined service with an extensive suite of regulations that govern all aspects of military life. The regulations have been used effectively to discharge personnel in cases where such personnel have received a conviction. Subject to the provisions of DFR A.10, paragraph 58(m), an enlisted person of the Permanent Defence Force may be discharged as a result of conviction by the civil power. This regulation refers to all convictions by a civil court of law. In a similar vein, there are provisions in the Defence Act and DFR A.15 to dismiss or retire an officer in these circumstances.

While there is no specific mechanism for suspension in the Defence Forces regulations, the Defence Forces have in the past used and continue to use other mechanisms including specific local leave arrangements which reflect the aim of suspension. Local leave is provided for in DFR A.11. It is essential that this provision is applied uniformly across the organisation. To that end, as already stated, with immediate effect, any serving member who has been convicted of sexual assault or rape and is awaiting discharge or trial is to be placed on local leave on a without-prejudice basis. This approach is in line with existing regulations.

I have appointed Peter Ward senior counsel to undertake a high-level analysis of the application of military law in circumstances where personnel have been convicted of serious offences in the civil courts. Mr. Ward will be asked to come back with an outcome of this high-level analysis along with any recommendations and any enhanced powers that may be necessary to improve processes, regulations, legislation and reporting arrangements. The terms of reference are almost finalised.

I thank the Tánaiste. I want to focus on people who have convictions and who still appear to be serving in the military. Is there an indication of how many such people are involved? Did they have their convictions before they came into the military? Did the military hire convicted people or are they individuals who were convicted while serving? It is very important that due process would be afforded to people. It is very important that a conviction does not happen overnight and that there is a process involved. When a decision eventually arrives and somebody is convicted, the goalposts are moved. I want to make sure that when that time comes, the military authorities move on it and deal with the situation. If somebody is already convicted but the DPP is appealing, for example, the severity of a conviction, does that defer the option of a court martial?

I immediately asked for report on the situation after the court sentence was announced in the case of the appalling attack by Crotty on Natasha O'Brien. As the matter is under appeal, I cannot comment any further on it other than to say that I have received a report from the Chief of Staff identifying 68 cases where there have been some convictions, where some are still before the courts and where some are under appeal. I also asked for a separate report on the situation in the Naval Service in respect of one individual. There is a process under way in respect of that individual internally within the Defence Forces. Again, I have been warned by the Attorney General that I cannot comment until that process concludes. Based on both reports, I think it is fair to say that there was a lack of proactive management in some cases in terms of the how the regulations enable the military authorities to progress a discharge. The regulations allow for discharge.

Enlisted personnel in the Defence Forces can be discharged for any one of the 26 reasons identified in Defence Forces regulation, DFR A10. There have been gaps in some of the cases, and that is not satisfactory.

They are not all in service. Is there an indication of how many people have been completely discharged and removed from the military as a result of different convictions, and what kinds of convictions they were removed for? Was it gender based? What kinds of thresholds were there? Were they discharged for particular offences or is there any information on the types of sentences? The Minister may not have it to hand, but perhaps he might give an indication afterwards of the kinds of thresholds for people to eventually be discharged. How quickly was that brought about following their conviction?

I have listened to the Tánaiste's comments about questions and I understand the point he is making that he is limited in what he can say because some of these cases are in front of the courts and others are probably being looked at by senior people in the Defence Forces. I understand he is in a particular situation in that regard. I also listened to his comments about trying to change the whole culture within the Defence Forces. It is a huge job of work. I have been a Member of the House more than four years and I remember the first time I met the people involved with the Women of Honour and how they fought and are still fighting for justice, fairness, transparency and the change of culture they believe needs to happen. We can disagree on politics and we have different opinions, but the Tánaiste has a huge job of work to change the whole culture in the Defence Forces.

I again clarify for Deputy Moynihan that enlisted personnel can be discharged for any one of 26 reasons outlined and identified in Defence Forces regulations. Of the 68, somewhere in the mid-40s are still before the courts. We have to allow due process to take its course. I take a view, which I have made clear to the Chief of Staff, that where someone is guilty, particularly of a section 3 assault, which is a very serious offence - an attack on a woman or a male, or rape or sexual assault, there is no place for that. There cannot be a place for that within the Defence Forces. That is the bottom line. The regulations facilitate discharge but after the appeal process is concluded. In the context, I have asserted, certainly in terms of sexual assault and rape, that notwithstanding regulations, there are other mechanisms such as the regulation of local leave that should be deployed and used immediately in respect of sexual assault and rape. That is just for being charged, as happens in other areas in the public service.

I stay with the same issue. I am asking for details of the Tánaiste's engagement with senior management in the Defence Forces with regard to the number of serving members who have convictions for gender-based violence, and his plans to publish the recent audit carried out by the Defence Forces in this regard. I am asking this question in the context of the Women of Honour documentary in October 2021. Shockingly, the Commission on Defence Forces shockingly made no reference whatsoever to members charged or convicted of serious criminal offences, and it was asked to look at structures.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 67, 75 and 91 together.

I thank the Deputies for their questions. I can confirm there has been engagement with the Chief of Staff and we yesterday to discuss these very serious issues. Following a recent case, I was informed on Friday, 21 June of another case involving a member who is still serving after being convicted of assault causing harm. In light of this, I immediately requested a report from the Chief of Staff to find out how many serving members of the Defence Forces have civil convictions or are before the civil courts on serious criminal offences. I received an initial report on this matter. I was not quite satisfied with the first report and sought a more detailed version and further clarification. On Wednesday last, I was informed of 68 Defence Forces personnel who have been convicted or are currently before the civil courts on a range of criminal offences including public order, drink-driving, drugs offences, physical assault, sexual offences and others.

Recent events are, without doubt, extremely concerning and unacceptable. As already stated, I have issued an instruction that, with immediate effect, all serving personnel, either convicted of sexual assault or rape and awaiting discharge or currently before the courts for such offences, are to be put on local leave on a without prejudice basis. There are provisions in the regulations to allow for this. It is essential that due process in these serious cases is followed on a consistent basis across the organisation. I have a concern this has not been happening, and I discussed this with the Chief of Staff and made that point clearly.

I have appointed Peter Ward, senior counsel, to undertake a high-level analysis of the application of military law in circumstances where personnel have been convicted of serious offences in the civil courts. Mr. Ward will be asked to come back with an outcome of this high-level analysis along with any recommendations and any enhanced powers that may be necessary to improve processes, regulation, legislation and reporting arrangements. The terms of reference are nearly finalised.

I welcome that the Tánaiste is taking a hands-on approach, but can he imagine? We have had a commission on the future of the Defence Forces. We have the documentary on the Women of Honour. We have a tribunal set up. However, he, as Tánaiste of this country, the second most important role, has to repeatedly ask the what the situation is. He gets a report, and he is not happy with it, so he gets another report. He is then told there are 68 Defence Forces personnel who have been convicted or are before the courts one way or another. What period of time are we talking about with the 68? Is it one year or two years? How does he explain different discrepancies where 68 was given and a lesser number was given on another occasion? It is absolutely unsatisfactory. If the Tánaiste remembers with the Women of Honour, trust was the biggest thing. It was to have trust in a system and that they would be believed and listened to. Here we now have a situation on a drip-feed basis related to the most serious offences, all arising from a courageous woman, Natasha O'Brien. Once again, it is women coming forward courageously but there is nothing proactive. I think the Tánaiste is on record as saying there is no proactive mechanism. Can we have clear details, please?

As the previous speaker stated, this is about the fear generated by some of the activities that have gone on unknown to the public. It is the fear of women who are obviously in constant fear of being attacked, and unfortunately these attacks have happened horrendously. Some of the cases are so bad that to allow anything even remotely associated to continue indefinitely is wrong. I know the Tánaiste is committed to this. I ask that everything possible be done in the shortest possible time to ensure we do not have this culture indefinitely.

I said earlier that I think the level of violence in our society, against women in particular, is at an alarming level. People will say we had it in the past and so on. We have discussed this among other issues. I find it unconscionable, and I cannot understand how people can engage in such violence against fellow human beings on the streets or in any location. However, we have to do a deeper analysis of what is at play in society, and the role of social media and other factors.

As far as I am concerned, however, and as I said earlier, for the Defence Forces the standard should be even higher, because the Defence Forces are meant to protect society and people.

We have established a tribunal of inquiry in respect of issues the Women of Honour raised. To be clear, while I accept what Deputy Connolly is saying, there was resistance to that, and there is still resistance to the concept of cultural change and transformation. When I recently brought legislation before this House, that was manifest and people may have inadvertently, for different reasons, opposed certain aspects of that Bill. It is about culture change, yet a campaign was mounted to undermine it. I was very frustrated at that. The tribunal is up and running, and I ordered a year ago that all sexual assaults must go to the Garda.

I do not have much time to reply. Statements are scheduled in the House tomorrow and I will happily elaborate then, if I have the time the Tánaiste has had, on how we have got to this stage and how we ignored an interdepartmental committee in 1997 that came forward with recommendations. The violence is not an epidemic or a pandemic. It is violence mostly by men against women, but also by some women against men.

Specifically, I am asking the Tánaiste why we have to rely on a drip-drip basis to get information. I have asked him specifically about the 68 people he mentioned. What period are we talking about?

What about the other years? Where is the analysis of that? How many serving members are before the military court?

In respect of Peter Ward, for whom I have great respect, what are his terms of reference? Will we see them? After what period will the report be published? I go back to the Women of Honour, Natasha O'Brien and all the other women, and what they have put up with. I am not happy to be here tonight while the Tánaiste begins to tell us violence is unacceptable. That goes without saying. It is about what we do in this Dáil to stop it. We set up a Commission on the Defence Forces - I mention it for the third time – but it did not mention this subject even once. It had been commissioned to look at the structures within the Defence Forces and utterly failed to look at it.

I ask the Tánaiste to answer my questions now, regarding Peter Ward, the number of people involved, the other years that will apply and who is looking at it. Furthermore, and I thank the Ceann Comhairle for his indulgence, the Women of Honour group has asked whether any consideration will be given to extending the terms of reference of the tribunal to include assaults against civilians by Army personnel.

Peter Ward's function relates to assessing whether the existing Defence Forces regulations are fit for purpose in this context, as well as relating to the military liaison office, and carrying out a high-level analysis of it. There are 68 cases, going back about two years or maybe just a bit before that.

The tribunal of inquiry is going to take a lengthy time. It is going back 40 years already, if not more. The idea we would then extend the terms of reference to cover every civil case over the past 40 years is not realistic, and I say that seriously. We have to make sure we at least get a tribunal that can finish within three years. I am sceptical as to whether it can finish within three years but I hope it will. It is a public inquiry.

We have taken a whole range of measures. There is a sexual ethics programme under way, led by Professor Louise Crowley, in our Defence Forces. I would expect a speedy return from the senior counsel, Peter Ward, and I will publish that.

Yes, the terms of reference will be published tomorrow morning. I had hoped it would happen for Question Time tonight but I will have them published tomorrow, because I want to get a comprehensive analysis. People are saying we do not have this or that. I have to be careful because there is another case, on which we got a separate report, that is now in a process, but it is nonetheless clear there is inconsistency, a lack of follow-through, a lack of proactive management and a lack of collation of data, which is not satisfactory. There is a broader measure we passed at Cabinet this morning, the CHoD legislation, which was recommended by the Commission on the Defence Forces. To me, that is essential to address a structure in the Defence Forces that is not fit for purpose, as per the 1954 Act.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 68 and 109 together.

As the Deputies are aware, retention is not influenced by a single factor. Rather, multiple interconnected factors are responsible for retaining people in any organisation. In common with other militaries internationally, the Defence Forces are facing a challenging environment. As Minister for Defence, in addition to a programme of cultural transformation, my focus has been on stabilising the numbers of personnel and facilitating the capacity for further increases.

In light of the reports of the Commission on the Defence Forces and the independent review group, I have prioritised a significant programme of reform and culture change within the Defence Forces to ensure they are an equal opportunities employer, reflective of contemporary Irish society and providing a workplace underpinned by dignity, equality and mutual respect. The Strategic Framework Transformation of the Defence Forces, which I published last September, sets out clear targets for the vital work that is under way relating to the transformation of the Defence Forces and outlines the necessary actions to be delivered by the end of 2024.

A number of specific actions in the area of retention have been delivered, including significant progress on pay in recent years; an increase in the mandatory retirement age to 60 years for all personnel with a retirement age of under 60, which is a huge development we announced in recent months; an increase in the maximum recruitment age to 39; increases to the patrol duty allowance to incentivise sea-going in the Naval Service; the extension of a Naval Service personnel tax credit for this year; the extension of private healthcare to all ranks in the Defence Forces, for the first time; access to free medical, physiotherapy and dental care; the provision of fitness, training and sports facilities across the Defence Forces' installations; the provision of fully funded opportunities to continue education to gain professional and academic qualifications; progress on the 2023-27 Defence Forces infrastructure development plan, with the highest level of financial resources in the State’s history; a revised policy on maternity and associated protected leave that is fully aligned with national legislation; a new policy on personal appearance standards; and significant progress on the removal of the blanket exemption for the Defence Forces from the provisions of the Organisation of Working Time Act, legislation for which is being drafted and on which I got agreement with the Defence Forces representative bodies. Following my approval of a final management position, formal engagement has commenced with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, which will lead on the development of the appropriate legislative mechanism. There is also the implementation of a range of work-life balance and harmony initiatives.

Further measures that are being progressed include a review of medical services in the Defence Forces, with the review itself being progressed during 2024, and associate membership of ICTU for the representative associations to be underpinned by legislation, which is nearly complete in the other House. Following a competitive tendering process, Deloitte has been selected to support the Defence Forces in changing and developing a number of strategic human resource processes, including targeted retention practices. We are also facilitating the return of people who may have exited the Defence Forces to go into the private sector, who can now come back in. We have been fortunate in the past two years to have got a number of skilled specialists back into the Defence Forces after stints in the private sector.

Recruitment and retention are the key issues, along with cultural transformation, and we have prioritised them in the strategic framework we have set out.

I thank the Tánaiste. I welcome the move to 60 years of age for everybody who did not have that option. I understand it was proposed to go further and to bring forward legislation to give people the opportunity to remain with the Defence Forces up to the age of 62. What plans are there for advancing that at this stage?

There is only a short time remaining before the summer recess so is it envisaged the legislation for that will come forward over the next week or two? What kind of timeframe would be available or is envisaged for that? The loss of experienced people who still have so much knowledge and many skills to offer - who are to be pushed out just because they reach a birthday - does not stack up especially if they are still well able to deliver for the Defence Forces. Is there a move on that 60 to 62 years of age and will the Tánaiste give an outline on that?

That will be provided for in legislation that is under way. My understanding is that was agreed by Cabinet and will happen. It is a minor legislative amendment. I think it is in the justice (miscellaneous provisions) Bill but I can confirm that for the Deputy.

Following the most recent pay increases of 2.2% recruits, after doing the leaving certificate or whatever, on completion of training - which takes approximately 22 weeks and can be done - will now earn €39,714 in year one equating to €761 per week in year one. Recruits will earn €41,000 in year two, and €42,425 in year three. A school leaver or non-graduate cadet, on commissioning, is paid €43,654 and this is a second lieutenant position. After two years he or she will be promoted to the rank of lieutenant and their pay rises to €48,990. When a graduate joins - in terms of cadets - when trained after 18 months the pay rate on commissioning begins at €48,990. These rates all include a pensionable military service allowance. By any objective standard that is higher than most comparable levels in the public service so we have dealt comprehensively with pay and conditions within the Defence Forces.

We have more to do. The culture piece we discussed all evening is key in terms of both recruitment and retention. We must also ensure the built environment is of a top standard and we are investing in every barrack in the country, and in Haulbowline and Baldonnel. We will develop a master plan for every installation we have and do this properly and comprehensively in terms of the physical layout. Am I going over time? Apologies. The Cathaoirleach Gníomhach is much more - sorry I should not say. I will make no comment.

First, I acknowledge the huge range of measures that have been taken to support retention, the likes of the working time directive; the various monetary benefits; the buildings and so many more. As the Tánaiste said, one could keep talking. There are a huge range of measures and I want to acknowledge that.

I will focus in on the age-related one. In particular, the decision has been made to extend the age to 62. People who are watching their birthday know the clock is set for them so if there is an indication of a timeframe on that it would be helpful.

To be fair, the move to the age of 60 was massive and was received very positively on the ground in the Defence Forces. I am conscious there are people who are nearing that age who are anxious we would progress the legislation to include the age of 62. I will come back to the Deputy with precise timelines. Whether we will get it through before the summer recess, or not, remains to be seen but I will speak to my colleagues in government because I think we are doing it through the justice Bill, if I am not mistaken.

This question seeks to ascertain and to encourage the European Union to make a solid contribution to the defence of the Irish coastline, which is a very long and vulnerable coastline particularly during the time in which we live. Given we have the power and willingness to do so ourselves we may need assistance because of the threat being presented from outside of the European Union.

The EU and its member states - including Ireland - have significant strategic interests in identifying and addressing security challenges linked to the coastal defence, and Ireland takes part in a range of EU initiatives in this regard. In October 2023, the European Union approved its revised European Union maritime security strategy and related action plan, aimed at addressing security challenges at sea and aligned with recent European Union policy frameworks and instruments, such as the strategic compass for security and defence.

While I stress that defence remains a national competence, Ireland sees the value in member states’ national maritime activities voluntarily feeding into greater European Union co-operation and adding value where possible and has availed of opportunities provided by our membership of the European Union’s Common Security and Defence Policy in this regard. We take part in the existing European naval maritime surveillance information-sharing network EDA MARSUR project; the PESCO project Upgrade of Maritime Surveillance which aims to enhance maritime situational awareness; and the PESCO project maritime semi autonomous systems for mine counter-measures which aims to deliver a high level collaboration and delivery of semi-autonomous underwater, surface and aerial technologies which can be used in a mine counter-measures role.

Ireland is also observing on the PESCO project on critical seabed infrastructure protection, which aims to increase the European Union’s operational efficiency in the protection of critical maritime infrastructure protection. Government approval has been obtained to move to participant status on this project, and a motion on participation in this project was taken by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence earlier today. A further debate will be held on this matter in the Dáíl tomorrow.

Another PESCO project Ireland is observing on is harbour and maritime surveillance and protection which aims to implement a deployable integrated capability system for the continuous protection of vessels, harbours and any other offshore critical infrastructure able to properly prevent and counter threats. This work will enhance the resilience of critical entities that provide services essential for vital societal functions including critical seabed infrastructure.

I welcome the Tánaiste's response to what is a very important issue but also from the point of view of the vulnerability of the State from drug-running, a possible outbreak of hostilities along vulnerable sections of our coastline, and the possibility of our forces being stretched beyond capacity at any given time. What is the extent to which recognition is given that the strength of the defence of our coastline depends on the weakest link? Whatever it is, that is where we are at. Are our European colleagues fully aware of the extent to which Ireland is on the front line insofar as coastal protection is concerned?

Generally speaking, we need to be careful about the language that gets used in this domain. There is a lot of noise around the place about weakest links and all the rest of it. In terms of drugs, there was a very successful intervention last September involving Army Rangers, the Air Corps, the Naval Service, An Garda Síochána and Revenue. It was the largest cocaine haul in the history of the State. What struck me was, in the immediate aftermath of that there was a lot of negativity. There seems to be this knee-jerk response that we cannot praise them too much because there should have been additional this and additional that.

The primary responsibility for the prevention, detection, inception and seizure and controlled drugs is the customs service of the Revenue Commissioners who do fantastic work. They have two Revenue customs cutters to patrol the coastline. The Naval Service and An Garda Síochána are all involved, collectively.

Generally speaking, on drug interdiction it is all about intelligence, collating it and working with others. The ship we interdict here - it is not by accident that it is interdicted. There is a lot of work early on in the chain and a sequence of events has happened. People are monitoring at different parts of the journey and in different jurisdictions. We need to understand that.

Our fisheries section can monitor the seas now, our exclusive economic zone, and can remotely circulate from Haulbowline on a 24-7 basis.

Our two new C295 planes give us very advanced technology that we did not have before in terms of maritime surveillance. It is not just about ships; it is about a whole lot of other things.

I welcome that extra information. It is very reassuring. We should also be aware that while our defences are improving, and rightly so, the threat is also increasing as time goes by. The Tánaiste said so himself and identified what had to be done, even though there are some discordant voices whenever that issue is raised. The Tánaiste is to be congratulated on taking the stand he has taken and on recognising the responsibilities that are on the Irish defence and security forces in respect of not only this country but also Europe.

If I can return to the Deputy's earlier question on Europe, we had the Committee Stage debate today and some Members were in attendance. There has been a nervousness in this House about participating in PESCO, for example. Historically, Ireland's level of participation has been low. For the life of me I cannot understand this. Tomorrow in the Dáil we will have the debate on this. We are participating in critical seabed infrastructure with other member states of Europe on a programme to try to understand it better and work with others. We are participating on cybersecurity in a PESCO project and also with the European Defence Agency, along with other member states. We will not be able to protect ourselves against cybersecurity attacks if we do not collaborate and co-operate with other member states of Europe and indeed further afield. It is about sharing knowledge against these perpetrators of cybercrime, which can destroy utilities. It could destroy water supplies, or health services, as we saw in the HSE attack. It is the same with critical seabed infrastructure. It is a very complex area, a lot of technology involved. It is not all just about ships. We need the know-how. We need to share our know-how with others and they with us. That is how we beat it and keep on top of it. I could not agree more with the Deputy. On the squeamishness sometimes around participating in PESCO, we need to wise up a small bit. This is not groundbreaking. Today we were talking about an energy management course that will cost about €1,500 to join and maybe €5,000 per member and there was only four to six joining. Someone will stand up and say that is threatening neutrality. That is where we are in the national debate in Ireland. We need to have a really serious debate. That energy management programme, which I think was under EDA or PESCO, will enable us to get better systems for our own barracks.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 74 and 97 together.

I wish to reassure the Deputy of my ongoing commitment, as Minister for Defence, to the removal of the blanket exemption which currently applies to the Defence Forces in the Organisation of Working Time Act. Significant progress has been made recently on this body of work. Earlier this year, I approved the final management position, which was presented to me following extensive consultations involving the PDF representative associations and civilian-military management. While the military authorities have advised that a high percentage of the normal everyday work of the Defence Forces is already in compliance with the working time directive, the final approved management position provides for the exemption of certain military activities, due to their specific nature, as well as a number of agreed protections for those exempted activities.

The next step is to develop the appropriate legislative mechanism. To this end, I recently wrote to my colleague the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Peter Burke, whose Department holds responsibility for this legislation, notifying him of the final management position approved by me. My officials are now currently engaged in formal dialogue with that Department to remove the blanket exemption and to provide for activities that are considered outside of the scope of the directive. My officials are also progressing the necessary underpinning required for those agreed protections associated with the activities which are deemed to be exempt from the scope of the directive due to their specific nature, and this element of the process is continuing.

I am sure the Deputy will agree that this is a very significant piece of work which will benefit the entire Defence Forces. The implementation of the working time directive across the Defence Forces will also serve as an important retention measure which will ensure that health and safety protections as prescribed in the directive are afforded to serving personnel. The pilot time and attendance system undertaken by the military authorities recently, and the follow-on procurement process now under way for a long-term electronic solution, will lead to the development of a robust system to record the daily working hours of every member of the Defence Forces. This will be a critical enabler in taking forward the implementation of the directive.

The Commission on the Defence Forces published its report in February 2022. One of the recommendations of the report was the expeditious removal of the blanket exclusion of the Defence Forces from the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, subject to the application of the derogations permitted by the working time directive. This is key and probably the single most important thing that needs to be done to address the retention crisis and, in turn, deal with the recruitment crisis within the Defence Forces. The detailed implementation plan for the report signposted that legislation was being progressed by September this year. In May, in a reply to a parliamentary question I submitted, the Tánaiste stated that his Department had commenced formal dialogue with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment on the agreed management position, bringing forward the appropriate legislative framework for removing the blanket exemption from the Organisation of Working Time Act. We are now seven weeks on from that and it would be beneficial if the Tánaiste could update us on what progress has been made in the intervening period. Is there now a final, agreed management position? Has the necessary legislative stage which the Department of Defence was formally discussing with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment been progressed sufficiently and is it still envisaged that this will be fully progressed by September?

The Deputy may have missed an earlier answer to this. I have progressed this. I have got agreement with the defence representative organisations on an agreed military management position following discussions. It has been sent to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The legislative process has commenced. I made it a priority when I became Minister for Defence to introduce the working time directive to the Defence Forces. I am determined that we complete this now. The process of legislation has commenced. Officials in the Department of enterprise are working on this. I look forward to its completion.

Apologies to the Deputy for interrupting. That is all done. That negotiation process is well and truly over for quite a while now. It has gone to the Department of enterprise. The next challenge is to make sure we get the legislation drafted and published and, with the co-operation of everybody in the House, to get it through the House. That would the desired objective, probably now in the autumn session.

This question, similarly to those we have already dealt with, seeks reassurance regarding issues that have caused so much concern, hurt and anguish in this country at the hands of people who should know more and who should have set an example themselves but did not.

The means to deal with it, as the Tánaiste set out, need to be continued and forceful.

We dealt with this issue substantially, but I thank the Deputy for raising it. The report of the independent review group, IRG, established to examine dignity and equality issues in the Defence Forces, was published following Government approval on 28 March 2023. The Government agreed to progress the 13 recommendations contained in the report. Some actions have already been completed, while others will take further time due to the requirement for legislative change.

One of the first actions taken following the publication of the IRG report was the establishment of an external oversight body, initially on a non-statutory basis. It is a critical element in driving the necessary culture change throughout the Defence Forces and increasing transparency and accountability. Professor Brian MacCraith is chair of the body and last July the Government approved its terms of reference. To date, the external oversight body has met on 28 occasions and I recently received its second written report. I have also met the chair on a number of occasions, including as recently as last Friday, 28 June.

The Defence (Amendment) Bill 2024, which is currently progressing through the Oireachtas and is scheduled for Committee Stage debate in the Seanad tomorrow, includes provision for the establishment of the external oversight body on a statutory basis. In a further significant development, in January of this year motions to establish a tribunal of inquiry were approved by Dáil and Seanad Éireann. The terms of reference for this judge-led inquiry provide that it is 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. It will also have the power to investigate the response to complaints made regarding the use of hazardous chemicals in Air Corps headquarters at Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel. I recently signed a statutory instrument to give effect to the formal establishment of the tribunal.

One of the key actions following publication of the IRG report was taken in July 2023, when the Government approved the text of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Human Trafficking) Bill 2023. Part 4 of the Bill amends sections 169 and 192 of the Defence Act 1954, in line with a recommendation in the IRG report. These amendments will ensure that An Garda Síochána will have sole jurisdiction within the State to investigate alleged sexual offences committed by persons subject to military law. Any subsequent cases will be dealt with by the civil courts. The Bill has passed all Stages. That is the current position.

We have also developed sexual ethics and responsible relationship workshops in co-operation with UCC. The workshops commenced in September last year and are mandatory for all personnel to attend. That important programme is being delivered by Professor Louise Crowley of the UCC School of Law and I took the opportunity to meet Professor Crowley to discuss the importance of the work she is carrying out.

I want to be absolutely clear. The Government and I have zero tolerance for domestic and gender-based violence and I do not believe that any such behaviour can in any way be tolerated in our Defence Forces. I have been absolutely clear since becoming Minister for Defence on the need for urgent transformation of the culture in the Defence Forces. I am adamant that the Defence Forces must be a place where no one convicted of serious physical assaults, sexual offences or domestic or gender-based violence can continue to be engaged in active service.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

My Department is working tirelessly with Defence Forces’ colleagues to take the steps required to bring about the culture change that is so urgently required. This work is being overseen by the external oversight body and represents a significant programme of reform and culture change that is being prioritised to ensure that the Defence Forces is an equal opportunities employer, is reflective of contemporary Irish society and provides a safe workplace.

I am aware of the pressing need for an acceleration of the actions needed to influence culture change and I am doing and will continue do my utmost to ensure that the change required is introduced. There has to be a zero tolerance approach to gender-based violence in Irish society and in the Defence Forces. This change involves every member in the Defence Forces.