Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 2 May 2024

Vol. 1053 No. 4

Defence (Amendment) Bill 2024: Second Stage

Minister for Defence (Deputy Micheál Martin)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am pleased to present this Bill that will play a key role in driving the necessary transformation of the Defence Forces to the House. A number of high-profile reviews have been undertaken on matters relating to the defence sector in recent years. Key reports include those of the Commission on the Defence Forces and the Independent Review Group, IRG, on Dignity and Equality Issues in the Defence Forces.

As I outlined previously, and as we have discussed extensively in this House, there will be a requirement for an extensive programme of legislative reform to give effect to the recommendations set out in those reports. The strategic framework on the transformation of the Defence Forces, which I published in September 2023, brings together into one overarching document the immediate actions to be taken to support the transformation of the Defence Forces. The strategic framework includes my commitment to bring forward two separate Bills this year to amend the Defence Acts. This is the first of those Bills.

In summary, it is intended that this extensive Bill, which covers many aspects of the Defence Acts, will give effect to a key recommendation of the independent review group in respect of the establishment on a statutory basis of an external oversight body, EOB, of the Defence Forces; establish a statutory framework for the Minister for Defence to consent to the military representative associations to associate with ICTU; bring forward a number of important miscellaneous amendments to the Defence Acts; and an amendment to the Ombudsman (Defence Forces) Act 2004.

The general scheme was approved by the Government last December and the drafting of the Bill commenced early this year. As is normal practice during the drafting process, the wording of the Bill includes several refinements and modifications to the provisions set out in the general scheme. This was referred to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence for pre-legislative scrutiny. As part of this process, there was constructive engagement and discussion between committee members and my officials on my draft legislative proposals. A full list of proposed amendments and the associated rationale was provided by my officials to the committee on 2 April, with further communication of another amendment on 16 April. I am not sure if that correspondence was reflected in the committee's subsequent report but it was quite extensive. The committee also heard from other key stakeholders. I and my officials listened carefully to what the stakeholders and the committee had to say and I thank all the members of the committee for their engagement and for completing the pre-legislative scrutiny process in a timely and effective manner. I am pleased to advise the House that the Bill as published includes a number of modifications and clarifications that take account of several issues highlighted during that process. Some recommendations arose from the pre-legislative scrutiny process, which I carefully considered but which I was unable to accede to, and I will elaborate on the reasons for this during my speech.

I turn now to the main provisions of the Bill.

Part 1 includes standard sections regarding the Title, commencement provisions, the repeal of an obsolete section of the Defence Act 1954 and the definition of key terms.

Part 2 sets out a number of important amendments to the Defence Act 1954.

Sections 6, 7 and 17 bring forward technical amendments to sections 48, 53A and 248 of the Defence Act 1954 to update and clarify the wording of the sections in question.

Sections 8 and 9 amend the sections in the Defence Act 1954 relating to the re-engagement of enlisted persons that takes place following the completion of a member’s original term of enlistment. The proposed amendment will allow for greater flexibility in the period of re-engagement that may be approved and will also remove an obstacle to increasing the maximum age limits for enlistment in the Defence Forces. This will, I hope, be a useful tool in our efforts to address recruitment and retention challenges.

Sections 10 and 19 remove the outdated requirement for the Minister for Defence to prescribe in regulations changes to the rates and scales of pay for members of the Defence Forces and the Army nursing service. Under these revised provisions, we will move to a more modern way of disseminating pay scale updates to all members. The proposed amendments are about improving administrative efficiency.

Section 11, which amends section 103 of the Defence Act 1954, concerns the prohibition of activities of a public or political nature by individual members of the Defence Forces. The pre-legislative scrutiny report in considering the draft head for this section expressed the view that this provision might be construed as being disproportionate. There has also been concern that the provision might adversely impact the ability of members of the Defence Forces to fully engage in the activities of the military representative associations. In view of the apolitical nature of the Defence Forces, which is a long-established principle, the Defence Act 1954 has always contained restrictions on the involvement of members in political activities. This is clearly reflected in the oath taken by all members of the Defence Forces when joining.

Strong military advice has been received that provisions along the lines set out in the Bill are appropriate and necessary. Similar restrictions already operate across the wider public service and the text of the Bill clarifies that the relevant section will operate without prejudice to the rights of individual Defence Force members to engage with, or be represented by, their representative associations. In essence, nothing in this Bill will in any way impede the ability of the representative associations to robustly articulate views on behalf of their members and represent them. I am happy to clarify this point. Having considered the matter overall, I am strongly of the view that the provisions outlined in this section are proportionate to protect the apolitical nature of the Defence Forces.

Section 12 relates to the programme of random drug testing for members of the Defence Forces that has been in place for several years.

Sections 14 and 15 make technical amendments to sections 177 and 177A of the Defence Act 1954 that relate to the investigation of disciplinary charges that may be brought against an officer of the Defence Forces.

Section 16 amends section 184F of the Defence Act 1954 to give the Director of Military Prosecutions greater flexibility in the appointment of persons as prosecutors in court-martial cases and thereby assist in the efficient functioning of court-martials.

I am particularly pleased to bring forward section 18, which amends the Defence Act 1954 to provide statutory protection to the term Óglaigh na hÉireann and to confine its use to the Defence Forces established and maintained under the Defence Acts. A person who commits an offence under this new provision shall be liable on summary conviction to a class D fine. The provision reflects the thrust of the Private Member’s Bill introduced in the Seanad by Senator Malcolm Byrne and I commend the Senator on his work on this issue.

Section 20, which inserts a new Part XIII to the Defence Act, provides for the establishment, on a statutory basis, of the external oversight body. The name of the body shall be Comhlacht Formhaoirsithe Seachtrach Óglaigh na hÉireann.

Section 21 will insert a Thirteenth Schedule to the Defence Act to include additional provisions concerning the EOB.

In its report the IRG concluded that to implement a successful culture change programme, a new governance and oversight structure is needed to increase transparency and accountability and to hold the leadership of the Defence Forces to account for progress on culture change. Following the acceptance of the IRG’s recommendations by the Government, the external oversight body was established on a non-statutory basis in April 2023. This Bill puts the EOB on a statutory footing and ensures it will have the necessary powers and independence to carry out its remit. The body’s function will be to oversee, monitor and advise the Minister for Defence in the implementation by the Defence Forces of human resource management. The body will accordingly play a key role in driving the necessary cultural transformation of the Defence Forces.

I should clarify that the day-to-day human resource management will continue to be carried out by the Defence Forces on behalf of the Chief of Staff. The membership of the EOB will consist of no fewer than seven and no greater than nine persons. In regard to the membership, the Bill reflects views expressed by the interim body of the need to provide flexibility in including additional members in the future with particular expertise, particularly so in the context of the interim body’s expressed interest in adding a further international dimension to its membership. Some views have been expressed, including in the pre-legislative scrutiny report, concerning the categories of persons that may be appointed as members of the body. In considering the composition of the membership of the body, I have been guided by the clear recommendations in the report of the IRG. I am satisfied that these provisions closely reflect the group’s recommendation, including its specific recommendation that membership of the EOB should include the Secretary General of the Department of Defence.

There has been some debate about the inclusion of the Secretary General as a member of the EOB on an ex officio basis. I respect the good faith of those who have raised concerns. Equally, I am satisfied that the presence of the Secretary General is entirely appropriate and important to the effective functioning of the body as it interacts with the Department and the Minister. The absence of the Secretary General from the EOB would simply require the body to develop a parallel business line of interaction with the Minister, which would do nothing to improve its effectiveness or advance its core mission.

The Bill also includes provisions enabling the EOB to conduct reviews, both on the Minister’s request and on its own initiative, into specific matters concerning the human resource management of the Defence Forces and to make recommendations to the Minister. On the issue of reviews, I listened to the discussions during the pre-legislative scrutiny process and I have taken the decision that the Bill will also include provisions enabling the EOB to conduct, on its own initiative, reviews into specific matters concerning the human resource management of the Defence Forces and to make recommendations to the Minister.

The Minister will be responsible for the provision of staffing, equipment and other services as may be required by the body to carry out its functions. Funding will be by means of an annual grant-in-aid provided by the Minister for Defence, subject to the annual Estimates process. In common with other State bodies, the body will be required to produce a statement of strategy and an annual report.

Part 3 of the Bill sets out amendments to a range of other enactments.

Section 22 includes a technical amendment to provide that the National Archives Act1986 shall apply to the records of the EOB.

Section 23 amends the Defence (Amendment) Act 1990, which is the Act relating to the establishment and operation of the military representative associations. This suite of amendments provides a statutory basis for the Minister for Defence to authorise the Permanent Defence Forces representative associations to associate with the Irish Congress for Trade Unions, ICTU. The amendments reflect the commitment to implement the recommendation of the Commission on the Defence Forces that the Permanent Defence Forces representative associations should be facilitated if they wish to pursue associate membership of ICTU, as well as a commitment given in June 2022, as part of High Court settlements with the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers, RACO, and Permanent Defence Force Other Ranks Representative Association, PDFORRA. The provisions regarding associate ICTU membership will facilitate the attendance of military representative associations at future national pay talks and represent a positive step forward.

The codification of conditions attaching to associate membership is underpinned by strong military advice relating to the potential implications for the security of the State. I should also note that the provisions are underpinned by extensive legal advice.

During the pre-legislative process, concerns were expressed that these proposals could interfere with the ordinary role of associations. This was not the intention and the text of the Bill has been drafted to clarify that these prohibitions will operate without prejudice to the purpose of an association to represent its members. To be clear, the provisions in this Bill will in no way affect the ability of the military representative associations to represent their members as provided for under existing legislation. Having fully considered the matter, including the military advice seeking such restrictions, the views of key stakeholders raised during the drafting process and the legal advice provided to me, I am satisfied that the limited restrictions on the activities of the military representative associations, clarified through these amendments, are necessary and proportionate to safeguard the apolitical nature of the Defence Forces and are in line with existing rights and obligations. They are also necessary to ensure that the associate membership of ICTU can continue to remain in place.

Separately, the general scheme included proposed amendments to the Defence Acts to provide that officers assigned to the posts of Director of Military Prosecutions and military judge would be prohibited from being members of military representative associations. These proposed amendments were intended to reflect the fact that the holders of these posts exercise critical functions relating to the administration of military justice. However, the pre-legislative scrutiny report recommended the removal of these provisions and having reflected further on the matter, I will not progress these amendments to the Defence Acts.

Section 24 amends the Ombudsman (Defence Forces) Act 2004 to provide that persons who serve, or who have previously served during the previous five years as members of the Defence Forces, or worked either as a civil servant or a civilian employee during the previous five years within the Department of Defence, shall not be eligible for appointment as the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces. The amendment is intended to bolster the independence of the Office of Ombudsman for the Defence Forces.

I would like to emphasise the importance of this Bill. We have debated and agreed in this House the need for significant cultural change within and for the benefit of our Defence Forces. This legislation is an important step in that process. The implementation of this legislation will provide the external oversight body with the necessary statutory basis to operate effectively and carry out its crucial body of work. There will be an opportunity on Committee Stage for a more detailed discussion on this legislation. In the meantime, I am pleased to submit this legislation for the consideration of the House. I commend the Bill to the House.

I will be in a position to stay for some part of the debate. However, I have a Cabinet sub-committee meeting on migration so I hope Members will excuse me when I have to leave.

Deputy Réada Cronin

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill, which sets out to rebuild and restructure our Defence Forces as a modern, confident entity that reflects our modern, confident State. Being straightforward, procedural at times and administrative in nature, the matters within it would ordinarily preclude extensive discussion or debate. Regrettably, the non-straightforward approach means this ordinary situation is not to be. There are three particular areas I wish to address.

The first is the external oversight body; second, the desire of the Tánaiste effectively to muzzle our Defence Forces and audaciously present this as merely formalising what is in place; and third, the scrapping, at last, of the plan to impose an unprecedented bar on the Director of Military Prosecutions and military judges from membership of a representative association.

I welcome progress on placing the EOB on a statutory basis. However, as has been brought to the Tánaiste's attention by the Oireachtas joint committee and multiple stakeholders, I do not welcome that while the EOB is meant to be independent in the performance of its functions, the Secretary General of the Department of Defence is at the same time to be an ex officio member. Members of the committee had various views on this, some believing that in order for the EOB to be truly independent, the Secretary General should not be on it at all, even in an ex officio capacity.

On Sinn Fein’s part, we understand the Tánaiste’s argument that the Secretary General is necessary as a conduit to the Minister. However, in accepting this, by extension, should a position then not be granted to general secretaries of the representative associations as well? They should also be conduits to their members.

With their wealth of experience in the Defence Forces and as long-established professional bodies, RACO, PDFORRA and the Reserve Defence Force Representative Association, RDFRA, could make an excellent contribution to the board. Their contribution to the work of the independent monitoring group speaks for itself. With their presence, I believe there would be better buy-in for the board from the ordinary members of the Defence Forces. The Tánaiste cannot have it both ways here. Either the ordinary men and women need to be represented or the Secretary General has to go.

On the second issue of the effective muzzling of the Defence Forces, I do not know where this bizarre desire has come from. It is a fact that members I know of the civil and public service, the Defence Forces and An Garda Síochána, in particular, have always been restricted in their political activities more so than ordinary members of the public. It is important, and accepted as important, that State officials are non-political in their work. This has always been understood, particularly within the Defence Forces. There has been no call for change or no testing of limits. There has been no demurring anywhere from this accepted position. Yet, despite there being no need, the Tánaiste wishes to impose new strictures that are far greater than those that exist. I want to know why that is. Why is the Tánaiste taking the proverbial sledgehammer not just to crack a nut, but in this case, a nut that does not even exist?

Of equal concern is how he has sought to present this as some simple formalisation of what is in place on the basis of “nothing to see here, move along now”, except there is plenty to see and we cannot and should not move along, as the Bar Council and the Law Society have made clear to the Tánaiste. If he refuses to heed Sinn Féin’s concerns here, perhaps he might attend to theirs?

In the end, he scrapped his plan to place an unprecedented bar on the Director of Military Prosecutions and military judges from membership of a representative association. The plan was without precedent anywhere in the civil or public service. Having read the report of the independent arbiter who adjudicated against the Tánaiste, I can understand why he relinquished it in the end. The Tánaiste’s position was untenable, and the Department’s inability to argue the case was embarrassing. Moreover, the silences minuted in the mediator’s report spoke volumes. Perhaps the Tánaiste thought this lack of precedent, untenability, inability to argue and those screaming silences might slip through the Bill unnoticed. Though resolved for now in respect of the Bill, I urge the Tánaiste to assure the Dáil that he will also abandon this policy in practice. It is necessary that he do so. It must be done given that the entire membership of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, the Defence Forces community, the legal profession and trade union movement have queried him on it. They have taken him to task on it, and rightly so. He can do it by undertaking to withdraw his appeal against the findings of the independent arbiter and by committing to amending the Defence Forces regulation, which prohibits the Director of Military Prosecutions from representative association membership.

It is my experience that this Government has defined itself by never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity. The evidence is all there, be it in housing, health or the mother and baby homes, not to mention the case in my constituency of buying the land at Castletown House. This Bill adds defence to that by making discussion of this Bill, something that should be straightforward, actually complicated.

Perhaps the Tánaiste does not realise. He is so removed and dizzy from the rotation of high office that he cannot see that this unnecessarily confrontational, non-collaborative and sometimes bizarre approach to the matters before us reflects the broader confrontational, non-collaborative and bizarre approach that has marked the tenure of this Government. It is an approach that has us here debating the Bill while we could be trying to resolve the recruitment and retention crisis that continues unabated within our Defence Forces, which have now shrunk to fewer than 7,500 personnel.

We could be addressing how we can currently put only a single ship to sea to monitor our extensive waters, how we lack subsea capabilities or the capacity to adequately monitor our skies or how we are in the unbelievable position where the Defence Forces' insignia is being used in the training of renegade forces in Libya and in identifiable in shoot-outs with the Wagner Group, no less, thereby threatening our neutrality, a UN embargo and, by extension, the safety of our peacekeepers in other areas where they are actually keeping the peace. I raised this previously with the Tánaiste, and it is beyond serious. The transgressors do not seem to take his office very seriously, and that is something he should take very seriously.

Then, there are his shenanigans with the triple lock. It is anti-democratic and a threat to our neutrality, which is the will of the majority of the people of Ireland and which he has no democratic mandate to alter. He can spin away, but it is a fact that removing the UN mandate is not the minor modification he is pretending it is. If he plays with this, he undermines the public on it at his peril because the public know full well that a UN mandate protects our peacekeepers. He knows, too, that what he proposes is a breach of commitments made to them on the Lisbon and Nice treaties. It is no wonder he is afraid to put it to the people in a referendum, voting down the Sinn Féin motion to do so.

This is not about our sovereignty, as the Tánaiste tries to spins it, and he knows that fine well. We cannot discuss this, however. What we must discuss here is his unwillingness for the ordinary men and women of the Defence Forces to have their voices heard. It is an unwillingness that extends to his refusal to listen sufficiently and fairly to stakeholders over the past two years and to engage appropriately and with the necessary sincerity and sensitivity. Now, he is looking all bewildered, and I can tell him that I know he is not. It extends, too, to how he refuses to allow the Oireachtas joint committee to scrutinise a secret NATO agreement or European Defence Agency projects-----

The Tánaiste

That is no secret.

Deputy Réada Cronin

-----while providing the minimum permissible Dáil debate on those topics. The Tánaiste published this Bill prior to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence having published its pre-legislative scrutiny report. He has no basis for excluding certain posts from membership of representative associations, and, as he dropped it as a legislative initiative, I ask him now to drop it as policy in its entirety. The legislation places new and unnecessary restrictions on the freedom of expression of members of the Defence Forces when it was never an issue. If the Tánaiste wishes to gag them, he should at least tell them why, or let them tell him why they do not understand the regulations they work under and have done for entire careers.

In conclusion, we are ready to work with the Tánaiste on the Bill and the broader challenges facing our Defence Forces. We will bring forward constructive amendments on Committee Stage to tackle what we see as the Bill’s deficiencies. However, we, the stakeholders and representatives of the committee, need the Tánaiste to listen - active listening. There should be no withholding, no imposing, no muzzling and absolutely no tinkering with the triple lock.

Deputy Mark Ward

Many aspects of this Bill are welcome. However, following on from report of the Commission on the Defence Forces, it seems that the Government is determined to squander this opportunity. Poor pay and conditions in the Defence Forces are not a new phenomenon. I speak as the son of a former Defence Forces veteran. My father spent 25 years serving this country at home and abroad. I saw growing up my father having to work side jobs or nixers as he used to call them. People would ask where my father is today, when he would be off doing a nixer just to make ends meet so we would have clothes on our backs and food on the tables. My family were the very definition of the working poor. Fast forward 30 years later and things have not changed. The level of pay is so bad that Defence Forces members are forced to apply for the working family payment. The fact that the State supplements wages through the working family payment is an acknowledgement by the State that Defence Forces personnel are underpaid.

A constituent of mine is a father a five who has served more than 25 years in the Defence Forces. The reality of the situation for him and his family is that in order for him to survive, he must sign up to go on overseas peacekeeping duties on a regular basis, which is something my own father had to do. This father has done this seven times so far. He is missing so much time with his wife and children. It is time he will never get back. This proud man also disclosed to me that he had to apply for the Defence Forces stress fund since his most recent tour abroad in order to survive. This man has served more than 25 years. He has gone abroad as a peacekeeper seven times and must come back and apply for a stress fund. This is simply not good enough.

Like my father, people go and served abroad on overseas missions with distinction because they want to serve, but there are also economic reasons for it just to get that extra few bob that is going to hold their family over. That needs to be recognised as well. While they do it for their country and because they want to serve abroad, they also do it for economic reasons because the pay in the Defence Forces is so poor.

While Sinn Féin welcomed the establishment of the oversight body, the omission of the representative associations is concerning. As the representative associations were represented on the precursor to the external oversight body, why have they been excluded now? There is a fear that the voices of certain members, such as my constituent, the father I mentioned, will not now be heard.

On the topic of the Defence Forces, I have to mention Irish neutrality. Undermining neutrality by changing the triple lock amounts to "nothing more than an out-of-touch ideological obsession on the part of Fine Gael which ignores the facts of Ireland’s international standing". Those are fine words, but they are not mine. They are the Tánaiste's words, stated in this House when he was in opposition in 2013. It is clear now that Fianna Fáil is abandoning Irish neutrality.

On the international stage, Irish neutrality has been fundamental to the unique role we play in peacekeeping and diplomacy. It is a strength for Ireland and one the people value and are proud of. Weakening or ending it would be a negative shift in Ireland’s foreign policy. The Government is drafting an amending Bill on the command and control structures for the triple lock and other matters. This could end the triple lock, a key part of protecting Ireland's neutrality. The programme for Government included a pledge to keep the triple lock. The Government has absolutely no mandate to change that against the will of the people. It is clear Fianna Fáil is doing a hypocritical U-turn that is not in Ireland's interests. Sinn Féin is committed to standing up for Ireland's interests and protecting neutrality.

Casement Aerodrome in Baldonnel is the headquarters of the Air Corps. It is in my constituency and I know it well. There has been a long history of underinvestment in the aerodrome. The Government has made much-needed investment in some new aircraft but questions remain as to whether Casement Aerodrome is fit to house them. I have raised in the past the need to review whether Baldonnel has the capacity to maintain the two Airbus C295Ws located at the site and the C295 military aircraft that is in production. Does Casement Aerodrome have the capacity to house these new aircraft or are upgrades needed? What are the plans for the site? The Commission on the Defence Forces set out a pathway to rebuild our Defence Forces following decades of neglect and underinvestment by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Governments, and Casement Aerodrome in Baldonnel must be part of this pathway.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú

I concur with my party colleagues. We support much of what is in the legislation and we all want the Defence Forces to be fit for purpose, but issues have been laid out by Deputies Cronin and Ward, the latter of whom spoke about his family’s connection to the Defence Forces and the fact pay and conditions have always been an issue. It is dreadful that we have not yet dealt with that, and it is a considerable factor in why we are still dealing with a recruitment and retention problem. There are 7,504 members and there should be 9,600, while on LOA 2, the target is 11,500. We have to deal with those issues across the board.

There is still room for manoeuvre in dealing with these issues, whether by amendments from the Opposition or, as Deputy Cronin suggested, with an element of active listening. Many stakeholders are worried. We all welcome the idea of an external oversight body but there are worries about having a Secretary General in an ex officio capacity without including representatives from the representative organisations and there have been moves to almost curtail them in their actions. Many senior civil servants, not least those in defence, are already constrained and civil servants have to maintain an element of neutrality on political matters, which is all fine.

It cannot be beyond us to find a solution to these circumstances. We all know the issues that are coming down the line and I would imagine that every Deputy who is going to speak during this debate, especially on this side of the House, is going to speak about the worries people have regarding our Defence Forces and the idea of neutrality, to which the people are still wedded, and non-alignment. We are deeply worried about any moves in respect of the triple lock. The big worry is it is only a first step in something that is happening throughout Europe. We have heard from Ursula von der Leyen and others about the direction in which they want to go, which is the antithesis of where the Irish people would seek to be.

I have engaged with the Tánaiste numerous times following the murder of Private Seán Rooney. I would like to think we would honour the sacrifice that has been made by many in the Defence Forces over many years. We are seen as trusted players on the international stage because of our non-alignment, our independent foreign policy and our policy of neutrality, and we need to make sure that does not change. The Tánaiste and the Government should maintain their engagement and communication with the family, especially his mother, Natasha, and make sure no stone is left unturned in delivering justice. We all await what will happen on 7 June, the next court date in Lebanon, but we need to make sure we will maintain communication with not just the family but also the Lebanese authorities and the UN.

Finally, a constituent of mine spent many years in the Defence Forces and was trained by the National Ambulance Service as an advanced paramedic. She has since left the Defence Forces and joined the National Ambulance Service but the time she served is not being recognised in the context of grades, status and pay points. There is an issue with this not being credited. Even beyond that, the HSE has sought certification, and while she has had numerous items of correspondence from the Defence Forces, none of this has been sufficient for the HSE. I have engaged with the Tánaiste's office on this and I would like to think we could deal with it but there is a wider issue relating to people who have served many years in the Defence Forces. It cannot be beyond us to deal with these interdepartmental issues.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Legislation on the Defence Forces, in general, being debated in this House is a rare occurrence. I cannot recall many occasions when the time of the House has been occupied by this issue, and maybe that will give us an indication it is an area of public policy that has not been focused on enough over the years. It goes to the heart of why the Defence Forces are so undermanned at the moment. We simply cannot recruit enough and those we are recruiting we cannot retain, and we have not paid enough attention to that.

Most of us in this House thought a fundamental change had happened and that the tremendous pride most citizens have in our Defence Forces, which represent us magnificently in peacekeeping duties across the globe and at home on all State occasions, might finally be recognised when we set up a Commission on the Defence Forces, which reported in February of last year. This comprehensive report was debated in this House and we were promised that a swathe of action would follow it up.

That action was to be multifaceted and to involve structured and fundamental change, underpinned by legislation. This is the first legislation that we have seen. I wonder why we only have the first legislation now after such a long period. The prescription has been laid out and accepted in the commission report that was endorsed by this House. We were able to deal with issues like Brexit with a comprehensive package of legislation going through the House. I would have thought the urgency that we all ascribed to reform and support for the Defence Forces might have resulted in comprehensive legislation.

Finally, we have the first legislation before us now and we begin to implement, in legislative terms, the recommendations of the commission. The Government proposes to provide for a new external oversight body for the Defence Forces to be given the trip-off-the-tongue title of "Comhlacht Formhaoirsithe Seachtrach Óglaigh na hÉireann".

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Go maith.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

I would say it will be something that will be repeated daily by everybody. This new entity is to be responsible for overseeing and monitoring the human resources of the Defence Forces and reporting to the Minister, as the body deems appropriate. Its duties are set out in the new section 322 on page 14 of the Bill. This includes "the recruitment of members of the Defence Forces", which is a critical issue; "the induction, training ... education and performance management of members of the Defence Forces"; "the operation of a competition process for the promotion of members of the Defence Forces,"; "the operation of a complaint or grievance process by or under section 114," of the Act; "the preparation and issue of guidance documents by the Defence Forces relating to the management of human resource," and "any other matter that might reasonably be connected to the management of human resources of the Defence Forces."

That is a very broad and important range of activities - basically - recruitment, promotion, management, training, skill sets - all of that. This external body is an extremely important new entity, as was recommended, so we should take great care in how we construct it.

I want to go back to the commission report itself that we debated last year. In the executive summary of the commission's report, it set out its vision of our Defence Forces. This is what it said:

The Defence Forces will be a joint military force capable of providing the people of Ireland with a safe and secure environment, and enforcing and protecting Ireland's sovereignty. It will uphold national values, reflect the diverse society that it serves, and remain poised to meet the challenges of an evolving and complex world.

The last sentence of that vision could not even have been fully understood by the crafters of that phrase in the context of what has happened in the intervening period. The notion of "an evolving and complex world" is certainly something that has changed remarkably in the short period since the publication of the report. That "evolving and complex world" has become ever more complex, following the invasion by Russia of Ukraine, and attitudinal change within the European Union, as referenced by some other speakers. Any of us who attend meetings in Europe, for example, those of us who are on the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs, know the absolute focus within Europe right now on defence and security. We must be very careful and we must look very carefully at what is happening. The proposal is that in the next Commission, depending on the complexion of the Commission itself and the Parliament, there would be a Commissioner for defence. It would involve a merging of the research capacities of the European Union and funding into dual-use research so that everything in research would have the capacity to be part of the defence industry, in order that we would build a defence industry within Europe itself. Things are fundamentally changed. Of course, I do not need to reference the potential of a second Trump presidency looming on the horizon as well, and the implications of that. Given all of that context, we need to focus in very clear terms in this House on what our Defence Forces should be, how they should be constructed, how they should be supported and what equipment they should have.

As I have said, the commission has extensive and broad-ranging proposals for change. The commission also had something to say on the most important issue of people. It stated "From early on this process, it became clear that there were recurring themes and specific HR related issues that are a source of considerable frustration and, in some cases, exasperation."

I will not quote it all but it went on to talk about:

disempowerment and a lack of agency which manifests as an expectation that others are to sort out the issues, allowing the Defence Forces to get on with military operations. This culture can express itself as a strong sense on the part of members of not being appreciated or understood. This is just one aspect of the organisation's culture that needs to change, but there are other far more challenging cultural traits that will continue to impede the Defence Forces unless there is [in the words of the commission] a radical cultural shift at all levels.

That brings me to my first question to the Tánaiste and the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, who is present. What is proposed is an external oversight body, having the task that I have set out already, which is a fundamental and important task, consisting of between seven and nine people. The Secretary General of the Department of Defence is to be an ex officio member. I did not hear a reference to that in the Tánaiste's speech and I have not heard any compelling rationale for it. For example, the Secretary General of the Department of Justice is not a member of the Policing Authority. We had a long debate on oversight of An Garda Síochána. The Tánaiste indicated that the Secretary General of the Department of Defence would be there for reporting purposes. I am sure he would also be participating and voting, which would actually shape the report to be given to the Minister. I am certainly not convinced that there is any case for that. I would like to hear the Tánaiste's case in very clear terms. The members are to be appointed by the Minister and to include specific skill sets set out in section 323(3) of the Bill. The stipulation for the chairperson is that he or she may not have been a member of the Defence Forces of this or any state. In essence, the chair of the oversight body may not have any military experience or practical membership of any military force to address the issues screaming out of the commission's report that I referenced, namely, "disempowerment", "lack of agency", and lack of appreciation and understanding. Is it possible that those absolutely critical issues can be addressed by an oversight body without the direct participation of the representatives of the members themselves? I pose that question very clearly to the House and to the Minister. I know from what the Tánaiste said that he has given some consideration to that but he has given no explanation to us about how a body of entirely external people, without any evidence of those glaring issues that scream out of the commission report or who have experienced and understand them at first hand is to represent the members.

As I stated, I was involved in the long delete regarding the establishment of the Policing Authority and I am aware that serving members were excluded from the authority, but it strikes me that the reason for this new oversight body is quite different. The Policing Authority has as its main function the oversight of the performance of An Garda Síochána, setting police priorities, human rights implementation and nominating persons for appointment to the most senior ranks of An Garda Síochána. It came from concerns about adequate oversight of the actual activity of An Garda Síochána.

This body that we are now talking about in this Bill, as the commission report so eloquently sets out, is something very different. It is, as set out in the commission report, a human resource management function. A human resource management function, to my mind, should have a representative of the people with direct and first-hand experience of the frailty of human resource management to date or their representatives. Before I leave it, I emphasise I am firmly of the view that the petitions of PDFORRA and others to have representation on the external body are compelling and I would ask that that would be considered. Certainly, I will be tabling amendments in that regard on Committee Stage.

Part 3 of the Bill deals with the issue of trade union or professional representation. What the Minister is to allow is set out in section 23. It is a fairly unique proposal in trade union law. The employer, that is, the Minister, gets to set out the cases, the manner, the conditions and the restrictions where the allowed representative association is allowed to associate with a trade union. It is a very odd set of circumstances. The Bill states, "An association shall be independent of, and not associated with, any trade union or any other body outside of the Defence Forces.", and "The Minister may, notwithstanding [that section that I just read], authorise in writing an association to be associated with a trade union or any other body outside of the Defence Forces in such cases and in such manner and subject to such conditions or restrictions as he or she may specify." The employer uniquely gets complete control over the terms and conditions in which the association envisaged by this Bill interacts with other trade unions. Where such permission is given, section 23 further states, at subsection (3B), that the Minister may withdraw that permission by notice in writing or vary or withdraw an authorisation under that subsection. It is an extraordinary spancelled permission by any stretch of the imagination.

The restrictions, in terms of what can be said and the prohibition on activities of the association, are set out in the proposed new section 2A on page 28 of the Bill and include that an association shall not call for or support industrial action in the Defence Forces or in any other body or other sector; shall not encourage members to go on strike or engage in any strike action; shall not encourage members to refuse to follow a lawful order or to pass a picket line; and shall not endorse or support any official position taken, endorsed or supported by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions or other organisation, in support of any industrial action taken by any party.

This is to be a very peculiar trade union, a very limited concession. The Minister needs to think again about that restriction and to have a look at how more progressive countries in Europe deal with trade union membership of the defence forces. It was stated by a previous speaker that we have a proud tradition of non-political involvement of the Defence Forces, as we have of all civil servants. However, I cannot see any civil servant, who we expect to be entirely impartial and non-political, agreeing to this sort of spancelling - that they are not allowed to have a view, not allowed to associate with Congress, not allowed to be an active participant in ICTU, and where they are to be allowed at anything at all, it is to be at the behest of the Minister subject to him withdrawing it by simply issuing a decree to that effect. Our long-standing call for allowing Defence Forces personnel to be members of the trade union movement needs to go an awful lot further than what is envisaged here. This is a begrudging and minor allowance of association that, really, in my judgment, will not meet the needs. We will have time to tease these issues out again on Committee Stage.

I want to refer briefly to a couple of other sections in the Bill. Section 18 of the Bill sets out to protect the term, "Óglaigh na hÉireann". It makes it an offence to usurp that proud title of the Defence Forces which, unfortunately, we have witnessed too often down the years being usurped. This is a welcome proposal which the Labour Party is happy to endorse and support. Indeed, I, too, acknowledge the work of my former constituency colleague, since he has now moved into "Wickford", Senator Malcolm Byrne, in bringing up this matter as an initiative in the Seanad. I mean "usurped", not within this State but abroad as well by others who are using that badge now in the context of mercenaries. That needs to be dealt with as a matter of urgency. The fact that it is still ongoing, despite it being condemned by the Tánaiste, is a matter of grave concern indeed.

On a point of clarification, the Tánaiste has indicated that he intends to amend the law in relation to the so-called "triple lock". I want a clear answer from the Minister at the end of this debate that any such proposals with regard to altering the current legislative basis for the triple lock, which has held sway for a very long time in the State, will only be altered by new primary legislation and that it is not the Government's intention to parachute in amendments to this Bill on Committee or Report Stages. Any such proposal needs to be a stand-alone Bill going to the committee, allowing for pre-legislative scrutiny and to hear the views of other bodies that have a view on this matter. It is of profound importance. It would be extraordinary. I am not suggesting for a second it is the intention. For the avoidance of doubt, I would like absolute clarity from the Minister in his concluding remarks that this will be a stand-alone piece of legislation if it is to progress and is not be parachuted in in some smart way on Committee Stage in a Bill without proper pre-legislative scrutiny.

I was enthusiastic last year when I spoke on the commission report on the Defence Forces. It is an area that, I thought, we could drive with zeal at transformation. I have to say, and I do not say it as a criticism of any individual, the Department of Defence seems incredibly slow in doing things. It takes years to procure pieces of equipment and to do things that others can do much more speedily. I would hope that there is a new sense of urgency, that we will see comprehensive legislation, proper investment, proper ordering and the addressing of fundamentals such as the issue of pay, and that we can have the sort of Defence Forces that are set out so eloquently in the commission report.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Comhlacht Formhaoirsithe Seachtrach. Níl sé ró-dheacair.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Deacair go leor.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Níl.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Níl sé deacair dóibh siúd a bhfuil an Ghaeilge go líofa acu.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Le beagáinín cleachtadh, beidh sé i bhfad níos éasca.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Mar Leas-Cheann Comhairle, tá Gaeilge líofa agat ach níl an caighdeán sin ag formhór na ndaoine-----

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Fós.

Deputy Dara Calleary

Níl siad ar a dturas teanga.

Deputy Patrick Costello

A minor frustration in relation to this Bill is that it is yet another amendment of an Act that has been amended and amended. It would have been in everybody's interests to produce a consolidated version of the various amended Defence Acts and produce a clear piece of legislation instead of one needing six or seven Acts to try to understand what is going on.

We certainly have a habit in this House of producing amendment after amendment instead of neat consolidated Bills which would allow people to understand the legislation clearly. The legislation before us is crying out for that.

That aside, all the speakers I have heard acknowledged the role and value of our Defence Forces and the pride we have in them. I imagine all subsequent speakers will do likewise. The Defence Forces do essential work and provide essential services. That takes the form of peacekeeping globally and aiding the civil power locally. Frequently, when something goes wrong the response is that we should get the Army in to help out. The Defence Forces are very willing to do that. It is their job. It is the service they provide. They are simply looking to be respected, acknowledged, understood and listened to as part of that, as a quid pro quo for the service they provide. We need to see an investment in the pay and conditions of our Defence Forces members. The struggles with recruitment and retention have been mentioned numerous times. Without addressing pay and conditions and the culture in the Defence Forces, we are never going to address the issue of recruitment and retention.

In broad terms, the legislation must be welcomed for implementing the recommendations of the independent review group to try to address the issues with the culture within the Defence Forces. We are only going to achieve this change if we involve the members of the Defence Forces through their representative associations. We need to acknowledge them in order to ensure they are part of the conversation and are seen, respected and listened to. When we look at the membership of this new external review body we see the representative associations are not represented whereas the Department is. That is a bit contradictory and it needs to be changed if we are to value and recognise the role of the representative associations. We need to acknowledge there is a tension and a difficulty in the relationship between the Defence Forces and their Department. They have very different mindsets and they are very different organisations. I am not sure they communicate with or understand each other very well. This leads to frustrations and problems. Deputy Howlin gave an example from the area of procurement showing the speed at which these two different organs of the State move and their respective world views. Having the Secretary General on the body but not the representative associations will just deepen that, which is a real problem. Again, the unnecessarily broad restrictions on the activities of the representative associations reflect the fact that the associations are not being listened to in the Bill. That, too, needs to change.

We need to do many things to address the needs of the Defence Forces. We need to do them quickly because the Defence Forces perform an essential role globally and nationally. We need to address those issues. External oversight is welcome but if we do not do it the right way, we will just further entrench the problems. As I said, the problem is that members of the Defence Forces do not feel listened to or respected. The issues I have highlighted will feed that feeling, which, in turn, will drive the retention and recruitment crisis. There are issues that can be remedied on Committee Stage. I am not necessarily expecting full consolidation - as if I would recommend that it would emerge in the committee - but the other issues I have highlighted can be easily fixed on Committee Stage and I hope they are.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I welcome the members of Fórsa in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council who are visiting. They might be interested to know we are discussing trade union-related matters, but this time with respect to members of our Defence Forces. The Bill seeks to allow them to associate with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. “Allowed to associate with” is an interesting phrase when we think of what trade unionism is supposed to be about. It is not about what people are allowed to do but about representing their own interests and views.

The Bill also provides, among other things, for the establishment of an external oversight body for the Defence Forces. The need for that arises from a whole series of scandals in the Defence Forces and the campaigning of members of the Defence Forces like the Women of Honour over what they allege is a widespread culture of discrimination, bullying, harassment, assault, misogyny and even rape. It is mostly women who have been the victims of that, but I have also been contacted by male former members of the Defence Forces making similar allegations about their own treatment, including sexual assault, bullying and so on. They have pleaded for their cases to be included in the inquiry.

Then there is the treatment of whistleblowers. Much of what I am going to say will be informed by the testimony of a particular whistleblower who has agreed that I can name him and tell some of his story. It will be indicative of the issues that need to be addressed and the failure of this Bill to adequately address them.

I will make a few preliminary remarks on the bigger macro issues with the Defence Forces that have already been alluded to. We have discussed them in other forums, including questions earlier on the matter of the triple lock and the consequences for our neutrality. I reiterate that we believe the betrayal by the current Government of its commitment to maintain the triple lock as part of maintaining Ireland’s neutrality is a disgraceful betrayal of promises made by Fianna Fáil and the Government on this issue. The outrageous claim that getting rid of the triple lock in no way impacts on our neutrality is simply nonsense and illogical. The reason is that the Government, in previous incarnations, described the triple lock as integral to the maintenance of our neutrality. It also because what this does is remove an important check on the ability of a Government to send our soldiers - whose lives and welfare may be at risk in those deployments - into particular military deployments which do not have a check on them from the United Nations.

That brings up the prospect of Ireland getting involved in wars. When Micheál Martin makes reference to this he always talks about Russia. Of course, all of us condemn what Russia has done in Ukraine. It is a brutal and illegal invasion. I find it incredibly interesting, however, that the Tánaiste never talks about the United States in that regard.

The subtext is that we want to move closer to the NATO military alliance dominated by the US, the UK, Germany and so on, which has also been involved in horrific things, not least its support for the Israeli genocide. The Government wants to free us up to have greater involvement with a military alliance involving forces that are sustaining and arming that genocide and that are engaged in a systematic drive towards the militarisation of Europe. That seriously threatens our neutrality and, from the point of view of this Bill and the welfare of the members of our Defence Forces, it threatens their safety. The best protection for members of the Defence Forces deployed abroad is our neutrality. That reputation and Irish troops not being seen as linked to any of the great military-political blocs in the world is their best protection. If they lose that, they will become vulnerable to attack. You mess with that at your peril. You associate with any of the military geopolitical blocs at the peril of our soldiers. That is why we will fight very hard against these moves by the Government.

To return to the substance of the Bill, why do we need this? The poor pay and conditions of soldiers and the difficulty in recruiting and retaining soldiers have already been alluded to. I will name the person I am going to talk about at this point. His name is Sergeant Patrick Gorman. He served in the Air Corps for 35 years. He had an exemplary conduct rating on active service. He served in Lebanon in 1986, Somalia in 1993, Liberia in 2004 and 2005 and Chad in 2008 and 2010. He has an exemplary record. He contacted me because he blew the whistle on his treatment and the treatment of other members of the Defence Forces with similar records who made protected disclosures and who were penalised as a result.

The penalisation might seem a small thing to us but it is very important for people who have risked their lives and, in Sergeant Gorman's case, spent 35 years in the armed forces. They were denied their retirement unit presentation, a ceremony where family members and so on are brought in and a presentation is made to someone who has retired. Sergeant Gorman says that he and five other members were denied this presentation because they blew the whistle on issues to do with health and safety in the Air Corps, issues he says are also relevant to the Naval Service. I refer in particular to working with dangerous chemicals without proper oversight and the lack of accountability for the officers who were supposed to monitor these things but who did not do so. As a result of making that protected disclosure, Sergeant Gorman was penalised in this way. He said that he felt he had to retire because of the failure of the top brass, for want of a better word, to address these concerns.

Sergeant Gorman worked in areas in which I am not an expert but he said that, for example, they had to wear gloves that disintegrated on contact with the chemicals they were being asked to use. In other words, the people working with dangerous chemicals when doing repairs on military aircraft were not protected. He was working with these dangerous chemicals for 18 years without a respirator. It was only in the last two years that respirators were providers. He says that, when he brought this to the attention of Deputy Paul Kehoe when he was the Minister of State in this area, there was talk of reports on air quality. Those reports have never seen the light of day. The men asked for occupational health surveillance and one of the things that was done was to identify whether there were clusters of ill health resulting from the high levels of these intoxicating chemicals in the air in which they were working. He says that, of seven people working in a sheet metal structural shop, none of the seven could have children such was the circulation of these chemicals. That seems quite incredible.

Sergeant Gorman mentioned that carcinogenic chemicals were being used that appear in the film "Erin Brockovich". That is a film about toxic chemicals getting into the water and poisoning whole communities. Those same chemicals were being used. Paint strippers that are banned elsewhere are still being used in the Irish Defence Forces. Contaminated clothing was supposed to be destroyed or treated in a very particular way but soldiers were not warned about this and were going home to their kids with this stuff. It was being mixed in with the rest of the family's washing, including that of children, potentially contaminating it with dangerous chemicals.

When Sergeant Gorman made his protected disclosure, the Workplace Relations Commission told him that he could not take a case to the WRC for penalisation because he was a member of the Defence Forces and was therefore a worker rather than an employee. He and the others could not really get their heads around that distinction. This relates to the question of the new oversight body being proposed. The Secretary General of the Department of Defence is going to be on this body. The problems that will create are evidenced by the response to the parliamentary question I submitted on behalf of Patrick and his colleagues. When I asked about this, the response made reference to the Protected Disclosures Act, stated that there is a distinction between a worker and an employee and said that they should go to the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces. In his response, Patrick points out that, in a number of cases, it has taken up to eight years for the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces to investigate claims that a whistleblower was penalised and that, in some cases, that office has made no determination whatsoever. That is to say, the system does not work.

It is interesting that, in the answer to a second parliamentary question I submitted, which was related to the first question and was about investigating the practice of members of the Defence Forces being denied their presentation on the basis that they had made protected disclosures about issues in the Defence Forces, the response read:

I am not at liberty to discuss or comment on any protected disclosure; however, I am assured by Military Management that no member of the Defence Forces is denied anything on foot of having made a protected disclosure.

Come on. That is a joke. In answering a question about a failure to respond properly to a disclosure and the penalisation of a member of the Defence Forces over making a protected disclosure, the Department of Defence asks military management whether it penalised anybody and, when it says it did not, that is the end of the story. That is the answer we get.

Pay and conditions were axed as a result of the contract changes in 1993 and 1994, meaning that, while a three-star private used to get three-star private pay from year one, it now takes five years to get to the top of that scale. I did not even know these things but Patrick explained them to me. In other words, pay and conditions are worse than they were before 1993-94. People are being asked to do more foreign deployments and so on. I asked Patrick whether that is the main reason it is difficult to recruit and retain personnel. He said that, while it is a reason and a significant one, if he was to name one reason, it would be the lack of an independent and transparent complaints process. That is what he said. There is no independent process to listen to complaints when people are facing bullying or penalisation or when military management is refusing to listen to concerns, complaints or issues to do with the health, safety, well-being and welfare of members or their families. That is pretty serious. In that context, this tokenistic right to associate with ICTU means nothing as members are not to dare say anything about their conditions or pay.

This attitude towards whistleblowers does not give me much faith that the Government, in this defence Bill, is acknowledging the serious abuses, problems and mistreatment of rank-and-file soldiers that result in us being unable to recruit and retain the numbers we need. These issues need to be seriously addressed and I hope I have done justice to Patrick Gorman and the service he has done. The Government should do justice to him and his many colleagues in the Defence Forces who have served this country loyally for so many years.

Deputy Thomas Gould

I remember standing outside Collins Barracks in Cork with wives, partners, mothers and children who were fighting to improve the terms and conditions of their husbands, partners and loved ones in the Defence Forces because they did not have the ability to do it themselves. I know that is the core of this Bill but it does not go far enough. Members of the Defence Forces must be listened to and involved. How will the Government sort out recruitment and retention if it does not have the Defence Forces at the core of this and cannot encourage more people to join? The numbers are at an all-time low. This year, we had to pull out of the Golan Heights because we did not have sufficient numbers of personnel. That is a shocking indictment of the Government's management of the Defence Forces in relation to recruitment and retention.

I want to mention Women of Honour. I have spoken of them here a number of times. It is not just the Women of Honour. I have spoken to male members of the Defence Forces who told me of the bullying, intimidation and, in some cases, sexual abuse they faced, as well as a culture of cover-up and dismissal. There is a huge issue in the Defence Forces with bullying, intimidation and cover-up. Until that is resolved, issues with recruitment and retention will remain. I call for justice for those who have been affected by this and have been ignored and dismissed. This is another scandal. In this State, we have had any number of scandals, one after another.

We talk about peacekeepers. Where are the peacekeepers for Gaza? Last week, a mother, father and daughter were killed and doctors operated on the dying mother to save her child. The child's name was Sabreen, named after her mother. She lived for five days. Atrocities and genocide are happening in Gaza. They called this baby girl an angel for the five days she lived. It is absolutely unbelievable that we talk about peacekeepers and peace when entire families are being murdered. Thirteen thousand children have been murdered in Gaza in a genocide. When we look back in years to come, we will hang our heads in shame that we did not do more to stop the genocide that is going on now. I ask the Minister of State and the Government to please do more. If the European Union will not support us, we must do more ourselves.

Deputy Peter Fitzpatrick

As a former member of the Defence Forces, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important Bill. On the back of key recommendations of the Independent Review Group on Dignity and Equality Issues in the Defence Forces and the statutory inquiry into systemic failures in dealing with individual complaints, including sexual misconduct, the creation of an external oversight body was recommended, on a non-statutory basis initially, to increase transparency and accountability and drive necessary culture changes throughout the Defence Forces. That is exactly what we are trying to achieve with this Bill, which contains a significant programme of reform and culture changes delivered by external experts, with measures to eradicate reprisals and retaliation, and develop new policies on gender, inclusion and diversity. We want a career in the Defence Forces to be one where every individual feels valued, respected and recognised for the positive contribution they are making to the country’s security.

Ireland's vulnerability has been continually highlighted by security experts in recent times. In 2022, the Commission on the Defence Forces made a series of recommendations to address the capability, staffing and structural gaps in Ireland’s armed forces. This is because in previous years there were glaring gaps in Ireland's defence as Defence Forces numbers fell to 7,500. These historically low numbers are a reflection of the slow pace of implementing recommended reforms. For example, in 2021, a total of 591 personnel left the Defence Forces due to inadequate pay, pensions and conditions, many of them before the mandatory retirement age. There were just 300 recruits in that year. The numbers leaving the Defence Forces exceeded the numbers of recruits year on year, resulting in a continued decline in overall strength levels. PDFORRA, which represents enlisted personnel, has continuously highlighted the exodus for more than ten years, yet little or nothing substantial has been done to address it. Additionally, the age to which Defence Forces personnel served was lower than other public service groups.

Numerous times in this House I have raised the ludicrous situation within the military whereby experienced officers and enlisted personnel were being forced to retire early. They say in business it is easier to retain than acquire. Retaining experienced, valuable privates and corporals who are willing to stay despite the aforementioned issues is a key enabler in strengthening Defence Forces capability.

The Public Service Pay Commission, in its report on recruitment and retention in the Permanent Defence Force in 2019, recommended considering options to tackle barriers to extended participation in the Defence Forces. A joint civil-military review was completed in 2021. The report of the review group made a number of recommendations for extended service limits across a number of ranks in the Defence Forces. In March, having raised the issue numerous times, I was delighted that the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence, Deputy Micheál Martin, announced the mandatory retirement age in the Reserve Defence Force and Permanent Defence Force was being raised to 60 for personnel with a current mandatory retirement age of under 60 and also a further increase in the mandatory retirement age for the Permanent Defence Force to 62 years. The retention of personnel will be subject to certain criteria, including appropriate medical and fitness tests, which are set out in the Bill. Maximum recruitment ages are also being increased from 26 to 39 years. These actions are all welcome and will allow existing personnel, who are the backbone of the Defence Forces, to enjoy career longevity while also being able to pass on invaluable experience and organisational knowledge to new recruits, which will facilitate continuity and lead to an enhanced training experience for new recruits.

It is essential that the Defence Forces recruit, retain and develop skilled personnel and key specialists for the future. A vital element of this will be the regeneration and development of a Reserve Defence Force that can seamlessly train, operate and deploy on a voluntary basis with the Permanent Defence Force, both here and overseas.

This Bill also allows for the re-enlisting of highly qualified former members, such as privates and NCOs, to fill specialist appointments in areas such as the Army bomb disposal unit and Naval Service technicians. This is the latest attempt to help reverse the exodus of personnel from the Army, Naval Service and Air Corps. This reflects the situation we find ourselves in and the fact that people want to stay on in their chosen career for longer. While this is all welcome in terms of retention, there are wider issues in respect of inadequate pay, pensions and conditions, whereby many do not see the Defence Forces as being a viable lifetime career. There are more things we could be doing internally to improve the offer and make it more attractive for people.

The enactment of this Bill will give effect to associate membership of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, which is imperative with respect to pay negotiations and restoring oversight to the Defence Forces, which was removed by the Department of Defence in 2018.

This will make a real difference to the retention of Defence Forces personnel especially regarding pay, conditions and work-life balance.

The key resource of the Defence Forces is its people. Therefore, people are the number one priority. A huge factor in personnel shortages is likely burnout due to worsening personnel shortages. Soldiers are being forced to go on overseas deployments far more regularly and vacant roles are being filled through mandatory selection, which is the term used for ordering troops to go on an overseas deployment. Yet, a failure to provide adequate rest and compensatory time off to military personnel has significantly impacted their home life and the ability of many to sustain a career in the Defence Forces. Having spoken to various personnel in Aiken Barracks in Dundalk, they acknowledge that much important work is being done to implement the recommendations of the commission and they are starting to see more green shoots of recovery. Not all members, however, have bought into the transformation effort and this will require the Government listening to members' voices to ensure buy in rather than sidelining it.

For example, as we go down into the details of the Bill, it would be remiss of me not to mention that members and numerous representative associations have expressed concerns about certain language in the legislation. It is generally accepted that military members do not publicly criticise Government policy on matters such as missions overseas or troop deployment. Under the Constitution, all citizens have a right to freely express their opinions and convictions while that is limited in certain interests in respect of public order. The Defence Forces would recognise that. However, issues that impact Defence Forces members such as pay and working conditions have been fair game for representative associations in the past. Therefore, the most controversial provision within this Bill is the provision that would ban Defence Forces members from commenting on any political matter for fear of being sanctioned for doing so. Further, members should not canvass on behalf of, or collect contributions for, any political organisation or a group seeking to influence Government policy. The ambiguous wording leaves members quite unsure as to the extent to which they can question Government policy or directions. EUROMIL, the European Organisation of Military Associations and Trade Unions, which represents 38 military associations in 23 European countries, has joined Irish military representative bodies, RACO and PDFORRA in criticising the Bill on this wording. Major question marks remain over the extent to which these provisions could be utilised to censure and discipline a member. Consider, for example, members who take part in activities outside their duty that may be aligned to political affairs, hypothetically speaking, given that most sporting organisations at some point seek to influence Government policy. In fact, nearly all interest groups at some point seek to influence Government policy. The Defence Forces have always known they cannot have membership of a political party, but the phrase in the general scheme of the Bill “or a grouping seeking to influence government policy” is a very broad remit. Will this wording diminish their ability to participate in civic society? These questions need to be looked at and considered because it is causing a grievance with members and associations and is potentially affecting recruitment.

If enacted, this legislation will have a catastrophic impact on Defence Forces' morale and retention. Low recruitment may also be a reflection of the fact that despite the commitment to increase defence spending, and the fact that it is being hailed as a record capital spend, it is coming from a very low base. Ireland's spending on defence is one of the lowest in Europe. Additional investment in the Defence Forces is crucial for Ireland's neutrality. Admittedly Ireland, a traditionally neutral country, faces new threats that were not considered at the time of its neutrality, which prompts debate on modernising its long-held neutrality policy. The international security environment has changed significantly over the last year. There has been blatant disregard of international law and Europe's collective security architecture, bringing war to the European Continent. Over the past years, Ireland has been targeted by malign activity, including the large cyber-attack on our health services during the pandemic. We do need to start looking at how better to defend ourselves against all sorts of hybrid threats. From the outset, it is clear that our neutral status is not a simple binary position, but a complex, evolving and pragmatic foreign policy response to a rapidly changing world.

The scrapping of the triple lock mechanism is being pushed as the answer to these issues. In scrapping the triple lock, Ireland will be able to respond quickly to crises around the world without having to gain approval from the UN Security Council. Much of this response will likely take place through the newly revamped EU battlegroups system, which is intended to act as the bloc’s rapid reaction force to humanitarian crises. Ireland has committed 182 troops to the 2,000-strong German-led battlegroup. While this would allow for more agile responses to crisis situations, it is coming at a time when our own military is in crisis.

It is obvious to me from last year's tribunal of inquiry and the Report of the Commission on Defence Forces that there is a stark and urgent necessity to transform, reform and modernise current policies, systems and procedures of our Defence Forces. I want a career in the Defence Forces to be one where every individual feels valued, respected and recognised for the positive contribution that he or she is making to the State's security. In order to do that we need a massive injection of funding over multiple years to bring Ireland into line with the capability of other nations in Europe. We also need to listen to members' grievances with this Bill. Although they have been waiting ten years for intervention we cannot rush it through. While positive changes are seen to be arising out of the Defence Forces action plan, we need to fully engage with members and associations, and move towards the fair implementation of the recommendations from the commission. As I stated previously, the key resource of the Defence Forces is our people and therefore the most important measure of whether employment policies and conditions of service are attractive and effective is the strength of the organisation.

As a former member of the Defence Forces I have good memories. During the time I was in Army barracks in the late 1980s it was a good career and it was a good experience with good opportunities. When one made friends they were friends for life with a buddy system. The whole thing seems to have changed drastically. I believe we are not getting the right personnel and the right people into the Defence Forces as the conditions and terms are dreadful. I commend the Tánaiste on increasing the age limit. Many people joined the army at 17 or 18 years of age and made a good career. All of a sudden they came to the age of 50 and had nowhere to go. I am delighted with this change. That is their life and what they wanted. We should go back to the old system of the Army and look after the person. Coming as I do from Dundalk, and having worked at Aiken Barracks, we had our fair share of casualties over the last number years. The latest was Private Seán Rooney who was stationed there.

People do go home, and they want to go home, but it is a good career. We in Ireland are not making it a good career for the right people. I have spoken to a lot of young people who really wanted to make a life for themselves but not with those terms and conditions. The State seems to look after other bodies so I put it to the Minister of State that it is about time we looked after the Defence Forces. It is important that we make our Defence Forces a good place to work. Having only 7,500 personnel is not the way to go forward. We should have 12,000, 13,000 or 14,000 at the moment. If we do look after them then we will get the numbers up.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak on the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2024. I condemn the way this Government has treated legislation and the legislative process throughout its time in Government. At the Business Committee last week I highlighted that neither the Bill nor pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill were published despite the fact it was due for debate this week. The Bill was not published until last Thursday afternoon and the pre-legislative scrutiny was published after that on Friday. It completely undermines the whole process and the whole pre-legislative scrutiny process. What is the point of the committee's process of consulting with the organisations and trade unions affected by legislation when none of the findings is taken on board?

I raised the same issue yesterday during Second Stage of Supports for Survivors of Residential Institutional Abuse Bill 2024. This Government treats consultation as a tick-box exercise rather than as meaningful engagement with people at the heart of the issues. It is unfair to waste people's time in this way and cruel to pretend that their views, experience or expertise will be taken on board at all when legislation is being drafted. It is extremely undemocratic and shows that this Government does not actually care about the needs or wants of the public.

This legislation and cultural transformation of the Defence Forces is long overdue. It has been over 20 years since the independent monitoring group was established to oversee the implementation of recommendations from a report detailing the bullying, harassment and sexual harassment across the Defence Forces. The Women of Honour group has long been calling for reform, but despite many reports and review groups, significant issues still remain across the Defence Forces.

Recommendations such as recruitment and participation of under-represented groups, proper and meaningful consultation with communities of under-represented groups, and achieving a 35% female participation rate should be implemented, as well as better pay for those in our Defence Forces.

All these plans to increase the capacity of the Defence Forces will not work unless the issue of pay is addressed.

I would also like to address the plans to increase the capacity and capability of the Defence Forces. I am concerned about the extent of the plans to increase the Defence Forces’ capability from our current capability, described by the Commission on the Defence Forces as level of ambition, LOA 1, to LOA 2 in six years and then to LOA 3 after that. The commission report outlines that when LOA 2 is achieved, the Defence Forces will have the ability to "deal with an assault on lrish sovereignty". LOA 3 will see them "developing full spectrum defence capabilities to protect Ireland and its people to an extent comparable to similar sized countries in Europe". What exactly is the goal here? I would be grateful if the Minister of State could address this in his closing remarks but that is doubtful. I am very concerned about the ambition for our Defence Forces to be like other European countries our size. What is this obsession with being just like everyone else in Europe? There has been a lot of discussion around the capacity of the Defence Forces. The complement is 7,500. At LOA 1, capacity should be at 9,500 so we are not even addressing that yet at LOA 2, capacity will be built up to 13,000. How are we going to get from 7,500 to 13,000 when we cannot get from 7,500 to 9,500? It does not make sense. There is a wider agenda here and that is something we will see develop over the next couple of years.

The Government and the Minister constantly undervalue the role we play on the international stage. I have said this many times but our neutrality and our peacekeeping efforts are very valued by those we assist abroad and by our own citizens at home. Ireland has often been seen as a voice of reason because of our neutrality. We have nothing to contribute by building armies like other European countries or by being part of some future EU army. We are respected internationally and the only people who seek to undermine that are European leaders with a vested interest. I hope the Minister, when considering the reform of the Defence Forces, remembers this and begins to value it as much as our citizens do.

Other Members have referred to cybersecurity and how that could be linked to doing away with neutrality. We can be cybersecure if we need to be cybersecure without giving up our neutrality and signing up to a European defence arrangement or joining NATO. Ultimately, signing up to a European defence arrangement is the equivalent of being in NATO because that is the way things are going. The two things are not comparable. We do not have to give up neutrality to be secure. We can be secure and be neutral. They are not mutually exclusive. The Government needs to get on board with that. The Irish people are on board with that but the Government needs to get on board as well.

We have heard the senseless argument that we have to be able to protect our undersea cables. There are 3,000 miles between Galway and America and our territory only covers a couple of hundred miles of that so there is a very large area where undersea cables could be attacked. They could be attacked without us being able to do anything about it. The reality is that many undersea cables are very secure because they automatically interchange. There have been no problems because there are so many cables that those switches can all operate. Unless a negative actor, which, of course, is Russia because it always is, attacks every cable simultaneously at the same time, our communications system will not be seriously affected.

There is no doubt that changes to this Bill are needed. The Minister would have known this had he waited for the committee to publish its pre-legislative scrutiny report before publishing it. I echo the Women of Honour’s concerns regarding the representation of the Department of Defence on the external oversight body whose establishment on a statutory basis this legislation provides for.

I am concerned with the language in the Bill, particularly the use of the word "may". For example the Minister of Defence "may" consult with the EOB prior to making appointments and the Minister of Defence "may" consult with the body regarding the promotion of an officer. This is very non-committal language and should be strengthened if the body is to have the role it is envisioned it should have. I also believe that inclusion of the Secretary General of the Department of Defence as an ex officio member of the EOB should be removed as it calls into question the independence and full autonomy of the body. If it is going to be controlled by the Secretary General of the Department of Defence, what is the point of it? PDFORRA and RACO are ex officio members but will be removed under this legislation. The only ex officio member will the Secretary General of the Department of Defence. This shows what this external oversight body will be. It will not be external and it will not provide oversight. It will just be a body that sits there.

These are issues that were raised at meetings of the committee and if they had been listened to and addressed, we would be looking at much stronger legislation than has been put forward today. The Bill was published before the committee could publish its oversight, which makes this legislation weaker.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

I always have the privilege, although I do not know if it is a privilege, of being the last speaker on Thursday afternoon. The Bill has 24 sections, three Parts and one Schedule. Ostensibly, it sets out to do four things. One is to establish an external oversight body on a statutory basis. There is already a body in place but it is not on a statutory basis and it is a good thing that this Bill will put it on a statutory basis. That was one of the key recommendations of the IRG which I will come to in a minute. It creates a statutory framework for the Minister for Defence to grant consent to the Permanent Defence Forces representative associations to associate with the ICTU. I fully support what Deputy Howlin said earlier about that and the reservations he has regarding the term "will grant consent". This is most unusual. I would like to go into it. I am just raising concerns about it because I will use my time to look at the external body mainly.

It provides a statutory basis for drug testing. This has been in place and will now be on a statutory basis, which is good. It protects the term "Óglaigh na hÉireann", which is very welcome. I reiterate what Deputy Pringle said. I thank the Library and Research Service. On the last page of its digest, it tells us that the publication of the Bill before the completion of the pre-legislative scrutiny process is not the intention of pre-legislative scrutiny. Of course, we do not need the Library and Research Service to tell us that; we know that. Standing Orders allow it but it is against the whole spirit of pre-legislative scrutiny. Equally importantly, the Library and Research Service tells us that it was not in a position to assess the impact of pre-legislative scrutiny on the Bill so there is a big gap. We rely on that. We rely on them going through the traffic light system with the different colours but we do not have the benefit of that here so we struggle on. Next October, it will be 100 years since Óglaigh na hÉireann was formally established with the Executive Council of the Free State formally establishing Óglaigh na hÉireann on 1 October 1924.

What the Library and Research Service has pointed out to us is important. Again, I am praising the service but for the first time, I find a little fault with the narrative. It is very unusual for me. It is worth remembering that regarding the supreme command of the Defence Forces, the power is vested in the President. Some people have had a difficulty with that in terms of what he may or may not have said but he is the supreme command. Civilian authority over the Defence Forces is provided for by legislation. We have the Army, Air Corps, Naval Service and Reserve Defence Force. Most of the ordinary members of that are underfunded and under-resourced. I note that for the record.

I also note that they are the aid to civil power and we relied on them, for example, for the Volvo Ocean Race in 2009 and when the Army was called into South Park in the Claddagh when South Park, which is really a swamp, proved its usefulness and became a swamp. It serves a purpose.

Unfortunately, the organisers did not realise that at the time and the Army had to come in and save the day. We have multinational peacekeeping and humanitarian relief. Peacekeeping missions are decided on a case-by-case basis on the basis of the triple lock. I am horrified by what is happening. Earlier on, Deputy Howlin asked a question. If the Government is going to go ahead with the foolishness - but foolishness does not quite capture it - with the disastrous decision to get rid of the triple lock, will it do the honest thing and do it openly and accountably with separate legislation or is it to be sneaked in here somewhere along the line? I respect the Minister of State's bona fides. I hope he will be outspoken on this matter of doing away with the triple lock.

That is the background. I know the Tánaiste had to leave and while I never like talking behind somebody's back, I am talking publicly. He gave a seven-page speech earlier. I have looked in vain for a mention of the Women of Honour. We are here because of them. We are also here because of a lot of other steps along the way and findings that were ignored. We have almost seven pages of a speech but not a mention of the Women of Honour. We are here today as a result of an external oversight body that will be set up on a statutory basis. That came from the independent review. We have an ongoing tribunal as we speak and we will be very careful in relation to that. How could a speech be given and not recognise what the Women of Honour did on behalf of men and women in our Defence Forces? How could that happen? Let me write them back into history because it really is very important.

The proposal for the external oversight body in this legislation is a very good idea. It will contain between seven and nine members and a chairperson. However, the greatest concern is that they will all be appointed by a Minister. From what I have read, that goes against what the cross-party committee wanted and what the representatives who came forward wanted. Every single member of the committee will be appointed by a Minister. Various things are set down for their terms of office and so on.

Let me just quickly go through the background of how this has arisen today. It is important to give the years and the perspective and then ask how could we be standing here today without recognising the Women of Honour. The Gleeson commission report outlined inadequacies in the grievance procedure, the victimisation of people - this was back in 1990 - who applied for redress and the urgent need for a more effective system of redress.

Tom Clonan, now a distinguished Senator, almost a quarter of a century ago published research entitled: "Women in Combat: The Status and Roles Assigned Female Personnel in the Permanent Defence Forces". I understand that he suffered huge harassment, abuse and victimisation in relation to this research. The research was anonymised interviews with 60 female officers, 59 of whom suffered abuse or discrimination. Twelve of the respondents said that they had been sexually assaulted or raped. Bullying, sexual harassment and assault, including rape were cited by the respondents. Initially of course, there were huge attempts to discredit Senator Clonan's research. Later, Senator Clonan - who was not a Senator at the time - thought that the Defence Forces had taken his research on board and made the necessary changes. He wanted to believe this had happened. He was led to believe this was the case. He has since been disabused of this notion, following the broadcast of the documentary about the Women of Honour, which was in relation to his PhD.

In March 2001, we had Dr. Shirley Graham's submission to the Commission on the Defence Forces. She was doing PhD research on gender. What did she find out? She was sexually harassed by a male member of the Defence Forces, while on a field commission. Her submission outlines sexual assault taking place on a peacekeeping mission. One chapter was never included, largely due to her concerns over potentially exposing women in the Defence Forces to backlash. This is from 2021. I have jumped forward and back in relation to this to give a taste of what went on.

In 1996, the independent monitoring group was set up. It produced three reports. The final one was published in 2014. It noted that from 1996 there had been concern among senior management in the Permanent Defence Force about some level of unacceptable work practices, though the extent was unresearched and uncertain. It also noted that references to gender inequality are often accompanied by the caveat that these issues are not exclusive to the Defence Forces, but exist. There was an effort to minimalise, marginalise and not look at what was happening. This was from 1996 on. Some measures were put in place to address discrimination but they were in name only. There was a designated contact person and so on.

In the Defence Forces annual report from 2020, gender, equality and diversity got one page in a 100-page document. The Women of Honour got scarcely a mention. At face value, the independent monitoring group that was set up, seemed to do a good job and produced reports. What happened to that? It was disbanded or ignored completely. There were no more reports after 2014. Up to that time, nothing had happened.

In between, we had a University of Limerick, UL, research paper entitled, "Workplace Climate in the Defence Forces". This noted that many respondents expressed reluctance in using the redress of wrongs systems. We have a system but we do not use it. We must bear in mind that we have a tribunal of inquiry set up to examine whether the grievance process worked or not. We know well that it did not. We have double and double layers of evasion, hypocrisy and avoidance here all of the time.

The independent review group published its report on dignity and equality issues in the Defence Forces on 28 March 2023. The final report contained recommendations under 13 headings. It noted that we need an oversight body and the establishment of a mechanism to establish the number of deaths by suicide among current and former members of the Defence Forces. It also recommended the establishment of a restorative justice process and so on. I am not sure where any of those recommendations stand at the moment and I did not see any of them outlined in the Tánaiste's seven-page speech. As I said, the report contained 13 recommendations with 55 sub-recommendations. It is very comprehensive. However, it makes it very difficult to follow and this allows the Government off the hook in monitoring that set-up. What I have selected to mention from the report is not biased. I read it in its entirety. On page 16 it states, "Notwithstanding the role in the Defence Forces, neither men nor women are working in a safe working environment".

On the inadequacy of the complaints' process, and remember we have a tribunal looking at it, rather than the abuse and the failure of the complaints' process. On page 53, the report states:

Apart from the horrendous nature of the alleged rapes and sexual assaults suffered and described in great detail to the IRG-DF, what happened afterwards is of equal concern. Instead of delivering a proper, modern, streamlined, and skilled response to the complainant, the individual was often told to bury the complaint or they were asked whether they seriously wanted to follow up on that complaint. Bungled investigations that lasted for years are the order of the day.

On page 16 the report states:

Survey respondents cited a clear lack of trust in the current procedures for making a complaint; the majority of respondents stated that they did not make a formal complaint of bullying, harassment, sexual harassment or sexual assault, and the main reason given for this failure to report was that there was no point.

Furthermore on page 16 the report also states: .

The prevailing workplace culture is one that is disabling when it comes to supporting dignity and respect in the workplace. The IRG-DF’s analysis reveals a workplace where self-worth and value are negated and disrespect is a dominant feature in an organisation resistant to change.

The tribunal that has been set up is investigating complaints.

It was entirely unclear to us on this side of the House whether those who did not make complaints would come under the terms of reference. It was never specifically set out. We have it on record that the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have repeatedly said it will allow for people to come forward who did not make complaints. I have no idea why this was not set out in the terms of reference. I have no idea why we have to use our energy to repeatedly ask questions to get this finalised. I have no idea why the Women of Honour were not included in the terms of reference, at the very least to acknowledge the work they did.

I am here again in trouble with legislation that I want to support. I will support it at this Stage, with a view to amendments being made during the scrutiny on Committee Stage. We should not be in this position with regard to the Women of Honour, and I use them to mean all of the courageous people who fed into that group and gave the women the strength to go forward and do the radio show with Katie Hannon.

This takes me back to the Bill digest. Usually I have no gripe with the Bill digest, and I am not making any allegation at all as it is just something that strikes me, but the narrative in the Bill digest is the same as the narrative from the Defence Forces. I think that just happens to be the case. As opposed to recognising what happened we are told in the Bill digest, which is very good, that, "In the intervening years, which have seen the introduction of a regulatory framework for the Defence Forces that underpin the policies, systems and procedures [...] it has been acknowledged officially that more work was needed in this area." To say that more work is needed in this area is, I would say, the greatest understatement I have ever read in my life.

The next paragraph goes on to say:

Following discussions between the Secretary General of the Department of Defence and the former Chief of Staff, which took place in 2021, it was decided "that there should be a "back to basics" external and independent review to assess whether those policies, systems and procedures are fit for purpose".

On that basis, and also on foot of engagements, we got the ING process set up. I have a little difficulty with this, and it is not personal. It completely minimises the effort and it gives the impression there was a proactive movement by the Government with the Defence Forces - management of course - to do something when that is entirely wrong. I am sure it has being done inadvertently but I could not let it go because I want to balance the narrative of what it took to get the changes we have seen. Those women had to do a documentary with Katie Hannon. Like many other things in life where you remember where you were, there were four of us in a car coming back from Sligo and there was not a word as we listened to what the women related on the Katie Hannon documentary. There was absolute silence. Somewhere in this narrative we have to acknowledge this and acknowledge what was behind them leading to this. No woman I know would have done that unless she absolutely had to do it. We are here today following all of this. We will have an oversight body that is not independent, or certainly there are questions about it. All of its members, including the chairperson, are going to be appointed by a Minister.

I will finish by making a few general points on what our Defence Forces are 100 years on. The clue is in the title. They are defence forces. I am very proud of them and we have a barracks in Galway. I am very proud, as is every Member of the Dáil, of our Defence Forces. We all stand fully behind their most basic demands in terms of money and conditions. What is happening under the Government's watch, and I do not wish to personalise this, is truly shocking. This is not an army. Ireland will never be able to have an army. We do not need an army. We are an independent, neutral, sovereign country. Our strength lies in our independent voice. Our strength lies in making the UN institutions function better. It is utterly misleading to say changes to the triple lock are necessary and we need to tinker with them. It is dangerous, disingenuous and unacceptable. The Minister of State's party will be in serious trouble if it persists in going down the road of changing the triple lock.

We need transformative action. The one phrase the Tánaiste has used repeatedly is "transformative action". We also need transformative action to stop wars. We cannot be cheerleaders for wars. There is nothing to be gained by joining up with the military-industrial complex that Europe is in the middle of, with a European Defence Fund, a European Defence Agency and Partnership for Peace, which is a travesty of the English language because it is a partnership for war.

Our voices should be used over and over to stop the war in Ukraine and to stop what Israel is doing and the genocide going on. I would like to hear our voices used for this and not sidelined into tinkering with the triple lock, which is simply unacceptable. It is an insult to the Defence Forces which have served us well. If anything captured this lately, it was the announcement of the withdrawal of our peacekeeping forces from Lebanon, or the Golan Heights, to have them ready for a battlefield. They cannot participate in it but they have to be ready for the day they need to go into battle at the helm of von der Leyen and Borrell who have talked about Europe as a garden and everything else outside of it as a jungle.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Deputy Dara Calleary)

Thar ceann an Tánaiste, gabhaim buíochas le gach Teachta a ghlac páirt sa díospóireacht seo. Gabhaim buíochas as the constructive contributions, comments and inputs. The Tánaiste was very clear in his opening statement that this is the first of two substantial defence Bills. To address the point made by Deputy Howlin and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, the second Bill will provide for the reform of the triple lock as well as addressing the high-level military command structures of the Defence Forces to reflect the recommendations of the Commission on the Defence Forces.

With regard to the Bill being discussed today, there is a requirement to have this legislation enacted before the summer recess. This timeframe reflects the fact that the terms of the High Court settlements with Defence Force representative associations in respect of their temporary associate membership of ICTU are due to expire at the end of June 2024. There is a critical need to ensure a statutory mechanism is in place at that stage to address the issue of associate membership. Furthermore, the establishment of the external oversight body on a statutory basis is a priority for the Government. The early enactment of the Bill will allow the Tánaiste to progress this matter.

There has been commentary that there was insufficient consultation with stakeholders on the draft legislative proposals. The Tánaiste feels that such commentary does not reflect the engagement that has taken place in recent months. Following approval by the Government of the general scheme of the Bill, the Tánaiste and his officials engaged with military representative organisations and the interim oversight body on the draft legislative proposals. The relevant stakeholders were also given an opportunity to provide written observations. The general scheme also underwent the pre-legislative scrutiny process. As part of this process, officials from the Department of Defence met the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. The Department also provided supplementary written material to the committee to assist it in its work. I can confirm, as the Tánaiste said in his opening remarks, that he listened carefully to the views expressed by the stakeholders and others arising from the process. The Bill as published includes a number of refinements and modifications that have taken account of these views. However, in common with any legislation, it is not always possible accommodate every view put forward by stakeholders.

The Tánaiste confirmed in his opening remarks that the Bill does not seek to interfere with the ability of the Permanent Defence Force representative associations to represent their members in relation to their remuneration or terms and conditions. Considerable care was taken during the drafting process to ensure this position is reflected in the text of the Bill. The provisions of the Bill have had the benefit of extensive legal advice. Having carefully considered all relevant matters, the Tánaiste is satisfied that the Bill is necessary and proportionate.

I will now try to deal with a number of the specific points that have been raised. The officials will engage with the Tánaiste on other points. I have dealt with the questions about the timing of the triple lock proposals. There were a number of queries about the rationale for specifying commentary on matters of Government policy and prohibited activities for representative associations in section 23. The conditions attached to ICTU association are in line with strong military advice, reflecting the potential implications for the security of the State and given the apolitical nature of the Defence Forces.

There are already conditions in the regulations made under the Defence Acts which specify that no public statement or comment concerning a political matter should be made by the association. This position was reflected in the 2022 High Court settlements with the representative associations in connection with the temporary associate membership of ICTU. Nothing in the Bill would interfere with the existing rights of representative organisations or individual Defence Forces members. This is explicitly set out. The original language in the general scheme has been tightened to reflect stakeholder concerns regarding proportionality.

Comparisons were made during our debate today with An Garda Síochána. It is important, though, to recall the unique role of the Defence Forces and the need to maintain military command and discipline. On this basis, the Tánaiste is satisfied that restrictions as now drafted are necessary and proportionate. A number of queries have been made about the role of the Secretary General of An Roinn Cosanta as a member of the oversight body. The independent review group specifically recommended that the Secretary General of the Department should be a member of the body. This was accepted by Government. The role of the Secretary General is to represent the Minister's policy position on relevant matters for the benefit of the body. The assessments of the body in delivery should be informed by public service norms and an understanding of the personnel and financial resources available. As Accounting Officer for the Defence Vote, the Secretary General provides that vital link. It is also important to remember that the Secretary General is only one member, with the other members each providing their independent perspective of his assurance.

Questions were put as to why the membership of the oversight body does not include people from the Defence Forces or from the representative associations. The report was clear that the external oversight body should be external to and independent of the Defence Forces. In light of the independent review group report, and the need for the external oversight body to be external to and independent of the Defence Forces, no provision can be made for members of the Defence Forces or representative associations to become members of the body.

I have dealt with the issue around consultation. The Tánaiste has also made it clear that he will engage during Committee Stage. I am aware that a number of Deputies have indicated that they will be putting forward amendments at that Stage. Gabhaim buíochas le gach Teachta, go háirithe tráthnóna Déardaoin, as an díospóireacht seo.

Question put and agreed to.