Vol. 1054 No. 3
1. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence where he intends to deploy Irish troops in the event that he is successful in progressing legislation that would remove the triple lock neutrality protection, considering the Government has withdrawn from the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, UNDOF, peacekeeping mission due to capacity constraints. [22123/24]
Where does the Tánaiste intend to deploy Irish troops in the event that he is successful in progressing legislation that would remove the triple lock neutrality protection, considering that the Government has withdrawn from the UNDOF peacekeeping mission due to capacity constraints?
Under the UN Charter, the UN Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Extremely regrettably however, no new peacekeeping mission has been approved by the council since 2014. The five permanent members of the council can use their veto power to prevent the Security Council from taking decisions, including those related to the mandates of peacekeeping operations. It could be argued that even the threat of the veto has impacted on new peacekeeping operations being proposed.
The proposed changes to the triple lock are not about Ireland turning its back on UN peacekeeping. Ireland is, and will remain, fully committed to the United Nations. The purpose of these modifications is to reinforce Ireland's ability to pursue an independent foreign policy by removing the power of UN Security Council permanent members to veto our national sovereign decisions. In addition to the modifications to the triple lock, changes to defence legislation are proposed that govern the deployment of Defence Force personnel overseas for purposes other than to serve as part of an international peacekeeping force, for example, to allow for short-term crisis management deployments in countries where hostilities have broken out, to evacuate Irish citizens.
The Deputy and the House can be assured however that any legislative proposals will remain fully consistent with the principles of the UN charter and international law. With regard to any future deployments, the Defence Forces are currently undergoing a process of consolidation relating to their overseas commitments and to prepare for future peacekeeping missions and crisis-management operations. This has included the withdrawal from UNDOF. The changing nature of demands and potential future mission profiles must be considered in the context of assets and capabilities that need to be acquired for overseas deployments that are becoming more challenging in the current security environment.
The Defence Forces continue to have a significant presence, with 400 troops currently serving overseas in the pursuit of peace. Most notable in this regard are our troops serving with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, where an additional platoon of 33 Irish personnel will deploy in the coming months with the aim of enhancing force protection. This is a decision that has been approved and welcomed by the UN.
I take it from that answer that there is no intention at this point in time to deploy troops if the proposed triple lock legislation makes its way through?
I welcome the fact that the Tánaiste came before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence earlier this week to report on the engagement with the Foreign Affairs Council and Ireland's new arrangements with NATO. There was a certain outcry from members of the committee on learning of these new arrangements in the media rather than in the Oireachtas itself. This strikes many as a tendency to engage with the Dáil and committee to the minimum mandated extent, constitutionally and legislatively.
The Government wishes to remove the triple lock neutrality protection. That is a legitimate political opinion to hold and to advocate, although one that I and many others disagree with. It is also one for which there is no mandate to implement, as a mandate was never even sought from the people. On the contrary, the Government has campaigned and committed to its retention. In advance of legislation being brought forward, will the Tánaiste finally answer the question as to where he intends to deploy Irish Defence Forces personnel and from where he is currently precluded?
I am unclear as to what the Deputy means about the Oireachtas committee. Is he saying that members are speaking more outside of the committee as opposed to speaking in it? I thought the debate in the committee during the week was reasonably constructive. There was no outcry, as such, within the committee anyway, but there was a conversation and people had different perspectives.
What we are doing here is very simple. I put it back to the Deputy in the sense of asking him if he thinks the House believes that Russia should have a power over Ireland's participation in any future peacekeeping missions. It is very simple. Does he think Russia should have that power of veto? Should the US have that power of veto? Should China have that power of veto? Anybody who has observed the workings of the Security Council over the past decade can see the utilisation of the veto has grown and that many of the permanent members of the Security Council have a particular focus on their own geopolitical ambitions. We can look at the use of the Wagner Group, for example, in parts of the Sahel and other areas. It is very clear that Russia would prefer the Wagner organisation to be in certain locations to a UN force. These are the realities of the modern world. We just want to be independent, but with the Dáil and within the framework of the UN Charter.
We are all aware of the geopolitical difficulties and the fact that many people are game playing on an international basis but that does not change where the Irish people are on neutrality. They see the ending of the triple lock as a step in a direction that they would not like to go. We would like those opinions to be taken into account.
In a report on the Defence Forces serving with the UN laid before the Houses earlier this month, the Tánaiste references "one of the key outcomes" of the so-called consultative forum as "the need for a new process to replace" the triple lock. The report of the chair of that forum found: "There is at present no public appetite for a change to the current position in respect of neutrality." The Tánaiste can say that the proposed changes have little to do with neutrality but both the Seville Declaration and Irish guarantee in advance of the second Nice and Lisbon referendums were explicitly made in response to the fears of the Irish people regarding militarisation and its impact on Irish neutrality. He was a member of the Governments that made those solemn promises to the people. If he intends to breach them, will he at least seek a mandate to do so and agree to place his proposals before the Irish people via referendum?
We should take the opportunity to congratulate the Chief of Staff, Seán Clancy, on being elected by his peers as chair of the European Union military committee, which involves a role in co-ordination and consultation across EU militaries in respect of peace enforcement, peacekeeping and conflict prevention.
That reflects well on the Defence Forces and needs to be said.
When the Deputy referenced "game playing", Russia and China are not game playing. Unfortunately, the world is changing. We are strongly committed to the United Nations and I disagree with this attempt to embroil the issue of the triple lock with military neutrality. We have no plans to join any military alliance. We have no plans to join NATO. Removing the triple lock simply enables us to participate in peacekeeping missions into the future or, indeed, evacuation. We can clarify the law around how we deploy troops to evacuate Irish citizens in areas where war or conflict has broken out. That is the context of the legislation. Any future peacekeeping missions will, without question, be within the framework of the chapters within the UN and also will need Dáil and Government approval.
2. Deputy Cathal Berry asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence to outline the additional allowances payable to Defence Forces Irish contingent personnel participating in the EU battle group; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22068/24]
I want to associate myself with those comments relating to Lieutenant General Seán Clancy as well. It is a great bit of news for the general personally, his family, the Defence Forces and Ireland. I very much welcome that appointment.
My question this morning relates to allowances payable to Defence Force personnel involved in the EU battle groups. I would be grateful if the Tánaiste could make a statement to the House.
Ireland’s active engagement in EU battle groups demonstrates our commitment to the development of EU capabilities in the area of crisis management and contributes to our overall credibility within the Union. It enhances our capacity to influence the ongoing development and evolution of the rapid response capacity of the EU, in particular, the role battle groups can play in reinforcing and acting as a strategic reserve for UN operations.
It also supports the development of rapid deployment skills and capabilities within the Defence Forces, together with improved interoperability with like-minded states. Our participation reflects our support for the UN where successive Secretaries General of the UN have endorsed the development of the EU battle group concept and Ireland's participation therein.
At an individual level, personnel who partake in the EU battle group are afforded a unique opportunity to train alongside EU defence personnel, an opportunity that should be seized upon.
The allowances that will be paid will be in line with duties being carried out by personnel participating in the EU battle group. It is important to note that Ireland has previously participated in the Nordic battle groups in 2008, 2011 and 2015, the UK-led EU battle group in 2016 and the German-led battle groups in 2012, 2016 and in 2020. In these cases no new allowances applied.
I can confirm that the following allowances and payments will apply to EU battle group 2025: personnel in receipt of technical pay will retain their technical pay for the duration of the tour of duty with EUBG 2024-25, once posted into a technical appointment; security duty allowance, at the appropriate rate, which is paid up to and including captain rank, will be paid for the duration of the stand-by period, that is, January 2025 to the end of December 2025, when personnel are on standby in barracks; personnel attached or posted to EUBG 2024-25 that are currently in receipt of border duty allowance will retain this allowance during the stand-up period from 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024; while engaged in multinational certification exercises off-island, personnel will be entitled to the daily course allowance; and in the event that personnel are operationally deployed, as part of the EUBG 2024-25, armed overseas peace support allowance will apply.
I thank the Tánaiste for that response.
I acknowledge and welcome the progress that has occurred over the past four years from a pay point of view in the lifetime of this Dáil, particularly from a basic pay perspective and also from the offshore allowances for the Naval Service perspective.
On the EU battle group, when I compare the positive trends in previous years for basic pay and the offshore allowances with the trend in EU battle groups, I feel we can do a bit better. I welcome the principle of a standby allowance and the principle of additional allowances paid if our troops are deployed operationally or on exercise to the Continent but the quantum needs to be looked at. If they go abroad, they get paid €13 extra a day before tax, which is the equivalent of a Big Mac meal. They should not be out of pocket deploying to the Continent. I would be grateful if the Minister might take a personal interest in the quantums here and see could they be adjusted upwards.
This is the first time ever that there has been a change in terms of allowances and supports for participation in an EU battle group. As I said, in the previous ones there were no allowances as such and this represents progress. The nature of the participation in the battle group is somewhat significantly different from that, say, in a UNIFIL mission or other mission abroad.
There is a claim before the conciliation council under the conciliation and arbitration scheme and that claim will be considered in that space. I cannot comment on that while it is within, but I have taken an interest in this and have pushed for and worked across government to get the changes that I outlined earlier in the latter part of my reply, which represent progress in respect of the EU battle group.
It is a significant opportunity as well in terms of experience and working with peers across Europe. It is not the intention that anybody would be out of pocket.
When the Tánaiste doubled the offshore allowances on 1 January last, it had a very positive effect on the Naval Service. I am encouraged that there is a claim before the conciliation council relating to the EU battle group. If the Tánaiste could take a personal interest in that claim, it would be very much appreciated.
There is one other anomaly I want to highlighted, which he mentioned. These allowances are payable up to the rank of captain only, which is unusual because a couple of commandants are to be deployed as well and they will not be entitled to any additional pay whatsoever. That is an anomaly. It is probably an archaic regulation from decades ago. If the Tánaiste could take a personal interest in modernising that, it would be hugely appreciated as well.
As he will be aware, Defence Force personnel cannot go on strike, and rightly so. They have reduced industrial relations status and that is why a personal intervention from the Cabinet table at government level is really important. I would be grateful for the Tánaiste's intervention in this regard.
I was pleased to attend the PDFORRA conference yesterday in Cavan. We had a good exchange and a good discussion. They acknowledged a lot of progress in the past 15 months and I appreciate the Deputy has as well in respect of a range of issues, not only pay and allowances but the progress we have made on the working time directive, the retirement age, etc.
We have made further progress here. I hear what the Deputy has to say on the anomaly in respect of captains. The Deputy calls it an "archaic regulation". I will examine that. The framework that has evolved over the years can be quite complex but we need to be careful when we change that we do not have unintended consequences either. Given the pay structure within the Defence Forces, allowances are important as well. We have substantially increased the starting pay but the structure of the military is such that, say, from the initial years, members are depending on promotion and various allowances to top up the pay. That is a structural historic issue and that is why the allowances are important.
3. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the establishment figure of the Naval Service; the strength as of 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023; the current strength of the service; the number of personnel required under level of ambition 2; and the current number of ships that can simultaneously be put to sea. [22124/24]
I am looking for the establishment figure of the Naval Service, the strength as of 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023, the current strength of the service, the number of personnel required under level of ambition, LOA, 2 and the current number of ships that can simultaneously be put to sea.
The establishment of the Naval Service is 1,094 personnel and the strength, as at 31 March 2024, was 722 personnel. The military authorities have advised that the strength of the Naval Service stood at 936 personnel in 2019, 902 in 2020, 875 in 2021, 798 in 2022, and 725 in 2023.
The report of the Commission on the Defence Forces approved a move, over a six-year period, to a level of Permanent Defence Force capability equivalent to LOA 2, requiring an additional 2,000 personnel, civil and military, beyond the 9,500 establishment figure.
The distribution of these additional personnel between the different branches of the Defence Forces is under consideration. The establishment of the Defence Forces was recently increased to 9,600 to expedite implementation of the report.
The ongoing staffing challenges in the Naval Service are well-documented. A number of recruitment and retention initiatives are under way aimed at maximising recruitment capacity and stabilising numbers. These include ongoing general service recruitment, re-entry schemes, eight Naval Service-specific direct entry competitions and three Naval Service cadetship competitions. An external recruitment company was engaged in 2023 to validate and assess the Defence Forces current recruitment methods, focusing on the Naval Service. A marine recruitment specialist company has been contracted to target individuals with the specific skills required by the Naval Service. In an effort to remove potential obstacles to recruitment, the maximum recruitment age has been increased to 39 for those roles that had a recruitment age below that, and to 50 for direct entry officer specialists.
Furthermore, a number of financial and non-financial retention initiatives are being implemented. These include an increase in the mandatory retirement age to 60, with a further increase to 62 anticipated, the doubling of the Naval Service patrol duty allowance, tax measures, and the extension of the provision of private secondary healthcare to all members of the Permanent Defence Force, in addition to significant progress on pay.
As the Deputy will be aware, the Naval Service has adopted a three-ship operational posture, with two ships operational and another on standby. In addition, I am advised that the first of the inshore patrol vessels will become operational in June, with the second of these vessels prioritised for entry into service thereafter.
On the numbers, there were 1,094 personnel in 2019. That is now down to 722. A determination has not been made yet on how many more are required to reach llevel of ambition 2. I assume that figure will be made available fairly soon.
Irish waters make up 12% of all EU waters and 75% of subsea cables in the northern hemisphere pass through or near Irish waters. To monitor, surveil and secure these extensive waters, we have approximately one third fewer naval personnel than needed, we can put but a single ship to sea, and we have no subsea monitoring capabilities. I accept the Tánaiste inherited the recruitment and retention crisis and an ageing fleet but the fact of the matter is, under this Government, we have fewer naval personnel and can put them to sea less days a year than before he came to office. On a yearly basis, we should accept perhaps five to 15 retirements or discharges from the Naval Service. Under this Government, however, there has been an average of more than 100. The Tánaiste cannot simply fix a leaky bucket with more water. The issue has been compounded through a lack of capital investment.
At what point does the Tánaiste intend our Naval Service to once again have the capacity to participate in UN-mandated missions and meet its obligations at home in terms of fisheries protection, search and rescue assistance and drug interdiction? When will the Naval Service finally have the capacity to adequately monitor sovereign waters?
The Deputy made a number of points. There is no lack of capital investment in our navy either in Haulbowline, which has undergone significant infrastructural investment and will have more, or for the purchase of ships and so on. In respect of enhanced patrolling of the Irish Sea and surveillance, monitoring subsea cables in our exclusive economic zone is very important. We have seen what happened to Nord Stream 1 and 2 in October 2022.
There is a mixture of air and naval platforms, including the Naval Service fisheries monitoring centre based in Haulbowline, which is quite effective. It continues to remotely monitor vessels in the Irish zone on a 24-7 basis. Aerial monitoring and surveillance of the Irish exclusive economic zone is carried out by the Air Corps maritime patrol squadron. Two new C295 maritime patrol aircraft, equipped with state-of-the-art surveillance and communications equipment, were delivered to the Air Corps in 2023 to replace the existing CASA CN-235 aircraft. These new aircraft have commenced operations following a significant and intensive period of training and verification.
I would not underestimate the Air Corps current capacities and the additional capacities it gives us in surveillance of our seas but, without question, the doubling of the patrol duty allowance and the retention initiatives, including the retirement age going up to 60, will be key in turning the numbers around.
I have no doubt that huge extra moves will need to be made in ensuring that we get through what is obviously a recruitment and, particularly, a retention issue regarding the Defence Forces in general.
The issue many of us have is what matters and is seen to qualify as a priority by the Government. It seems removing the triple lock is one. Officials are to proceed without delay in implementing the working time directive but we have yet to even see a draft Bill. The commission outlined in depth what is required to achieve level of ambition 2 over a ten-year period. It is viewed as a flagship policy by the Government but requires the Government and the Minister to have real ambition to achieve this. 2022 should have been a landmark year, when the Government laid down a clear commitment to achieve LOA 2 by 2032. Instead, it has put off delivering the capital funding necessary until 2028, potentially delaying its attainment by years further.
Will the Tánaiste return to the Cabinet to seek the funding required by the Defence Forces this year? When does the Government intend to deliver upon the LOA 2 target of 11,500 personnel?
We have the funding. The issue is converting applications into recruitment and then retaining people longer in our service. The policy decision I pushed very strongly for, and secured, was the raising of the retirement age to 60, which is quite a dramatic and significant change. We will even increase it to 62 when the legislation goes through the House. That is important for retention.
I spoke informally yesterday at the PDFORRA conference, where people said to me that the doubling of the patrol duty allowance is already having an impact on the desire and motivation of those crewing ships. There was also an issue around the methodology of recruitment. That is why we brought in an external company in the human resources area to analyse whether the Naval Service or Defence Forces are recruiting properly by using modern, up-to-date recruitment practices. We learned a lot from that. Change is occurring there as well.
The working time directive has been agreed. We had very constructive engagement with PDFORRA, RACO and military management. It is now with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment because that is the Department that will have to legislate. We will proactively work with that Department to get this delivered. It is key priority of mine. I have pushed it very strongly since I became Minister and am determined to get it over the line. Very significant progress has been made on that.
There is no issue as regards capital. On primary radar, for example, the first thing to do in respect of capital acquisition is to beef up and strengthen procurement capacities, which were never at a level that envisaged the type of capital investment over the next decade the Commission on the Defence Forces signposted and the Government accepted. We are making considerable progress on some of the big ticket items contained within that commission's report.
