Vol. 1087 No. 1
119. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Minister for Defence her proposals to remove the triple lock neutrality protection; when she plans to bring forward a Bill; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [43733/26]
I understand the Government's proposal to remove the triple lock neutrality protection was discussed at Cabinet today. I believe a Bill was brought forward. Will this Bill be published in the coming days? When will that come to Second Stage? When will it be debated and what are the plans in that regard?
I thank the Deputy for the question. As he said, this was discussed at Cabinet today. Approval was sought by me, and it was agreed by Cabinet that this would be presented for Second Stage. This will happen in the coming weeks. While there is no date set, I intend that this will be presented to the Dáil in coming weeks and published in the near future.
The purpose of the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2026 is to consolidate, with amendments, the existing provisions of the defence Acts 1954 and 2015 concerning the despatch of members of the Defence Forces for service outside the State. There are other elements to the legislation proposed today, specifically where we can give a mechanism to the Defence Forces so that somebody who has been convicted or put forward on charges can be relinquished from their duty for that time. That does not currently exist. I outline that is also part of the legislation.
In effect, the requirement for a UN mandate will be removed. It will modify the existing requirement regarding what we know as the triple lock mechanism in relation to the despatch of the Defence Forces for service outside the State as part of an international United Nations force. There has been extensive engagement between my Department and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel with regard to the drafting of the Bill and it is my intention to bring it to the House as soon as possible.
As this House is aware, the key proposed legislative change is that the requirement for a UN Security Council mandate will be removed. Current legislation allows members of the UN Security Council by means of a veto or threat of same to bind this country's hands in its international peacekeeping engagement. It is simply not acceptable to have a situation in which Ireland's decision making with regard to participation in peace operations can be impacted by the geopolitical interests of other states. I have provided many examples of this to the House, most recently the difficulties regarding extension of the UNIFIL mandate until the end of this year, and because of that the requirement for us to withdraw our personnel from south Lebanon at the conclusion of that mission.
The defence Acts exist in Irish legislation and state clearly the circumstances this Legislature has decided is the threshold that should be met if we are to send Irish personnel - men and women - on peacekeeping missions. That is a decision that was made here and nowhere else. We need to be clear and honest about that. There were a number of key points in the pre-legislative scrutiny report, one of which was that it did not recommend the removal of the triple lock neutrality protection. It called for a number of safeguards. There was a considerable amount of discussion. I am surprised that there seemed to be a Whip on members to try to rush it. I am not sure what the need for it was. We could have gotten a bit more time to scrutinise it. I would like to know if the Minister has taken on board any of the points from that report.
We are seeing the reason for moving on this now play out in real time. It is not just the decision taken not to continue the UN mandate in Lebanon where we have had members on the ground for decades.
In the last two weeks, I met members of the Defence Forces in Rome. On the very day I met them, they had to finish up with Operation Irini, which had a mandate to operate in the Mediterranean to prevent arms from getting to Libya. These members contributed significantly to that overall mission and are held in very high regard among members of the defence forces of other countries. They themselves told me personally that Ireland is the main one to lose out because of this mandate not being renewed. Irish troops, members of the Irish Defence Forces, and the people of this country will no longer benefit from the experience and knowledge those troops gain from being part of these missions. It is really important to take into consideration that we are not talking about some abstract concept. This is not about something that may or may not happen in the future or that happened in the past. As of now, we have troops in Lebanon whose mandate will not be renewed. The final troops went out on rotation in the last few weeks. That will finish next year. It will no longer continue. In the last two weeks, troops have had to finish up with a mission that will continue without us. The only people who will lose out are the Irish people and members of our Defence Forces, who have gained a wealth of experience from their participation in that mission.
This is one of those pieces that come up in this debate. I deeply regret the end of UNIFIL. It is very worrying for the region. However, there is no UN mission afterwards. It is not that we are not participating in a UN mission. UNIFIL will end. It will be gone. There will be no more UNIFIL. That is a shame, but there is no UN mission to which other countries' troops will be deployed but that Ireland will be prevented from taking part in. There is a question I have been asking for a while now. There is a need for the UN to be reformed. We have brought forward propositions in that regard. There are 11 or 12 existing peacekeeping missions outside of UNIFIL. It is true that we need our peacekeepers to go on peacekeeping missions to ensure their experience is developed. It does not seem as if this Government has been actively seeking out alternative deployments with existing UN peacekeeping missions. I have seen no evidence of that. I have been asking that question and I ask the Minister the question again.
We are part of various different peacekeeping missions, including those in the western Balkans and Common Security and Defence Policy missions, although I appreciate those are separate and mainly focus on training. There are civilian missions and there are also military missions. Just now, I gave the Deputy an example of a UN mission we have been part of and contributed to for the last number of years. Our members have been held in high regard because of the experience, knowledge and commitment they have brought to that mission, Operation Irini. Because that mandate was not renewed and expired in the last two weeks, we can no longer have troops as part of that mission. Because of the triple lock, other countries can decide where we keep our troops and whether they can continue to be deployed on missions that will continue without us, as Operation Irini will. We should not allow other states to take that decision. This Bill does not change our position on neutrality and does not prevent us from engaging in other missions outside of the UN mandate structure, as we already do. It makes sure that, where we are involved in operations like the one we saw end in the last two weeks, the rug is not pulled from under us because the mission is not continuing in its current format. The triple lock binds us in a way that it should not. It does not bind other countries. Even Austria, a neutral country, is not required to go through this extensive triple-lock process.
120. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Minister for Defence if she will withdraw legislation to abolish the triple lock pending a referendum to let the people decide; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [44192/26]
122. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Defence whether public consultation has been undertaken in relation to any proposed changes to the triple lock; and whether the Government will commit to a referendum should any fundamental alteration to Ireland’s neutrality arise from such changes. [44028/26]
The Minister wants to scrap the triple lock. She wants to be able to send Irish troops abroad on international missions outside of the framework of international law. She wants to be able to send Irish troops on NATO-led or US-led missions. That is her political position. I believe that equates to getting rid of neutrality but that is a question for the Minister. My question is whether she will allow the people to decide. Opinion poll after opinion poll has shown public support for neutrality and the triple lock. Will the Minister allow the people to decide on this question rather than making the decision herself?
I am going to answer this question on behalf of the Minister. I propose to take Questions Nos. 120 and 122 together. As the Minister has already outlined, this legislation is a key priority for the Government. The commitment to undertake this necessary reform of the triple lock is set out in the programme for Government. The triple lock is a statutory mechanism. It is established under statute and is not a constitutional mechanism. Any change does not require a referendum.
The Deputy has criticised NATO leadership of missions. He completely ignores the fact that our troops have been under NATO command in Kosovo for the last 25 years where they are on a NATO-led mission that has a UN mandate. The Deputy says that we are going to participate in missions in breach of international law. The exact opposite is the case. Everything that we do has to be in accordance with international law, the United Nations principles and our Constitution, which sets our very clearly that this is a peaceful country and that we want friendly relations with people. We are a country that does this.
The truth is that if the triple lock continues, there will be no more peacekeeping. That is the reality because the UN has not mandated any new missions. The Minister has already given the example of Operation Irini. That is a really important mission. Irish troops left that mission on Monday of last week. That mission continues in accordance with UN law, international law and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Our people had to come home, however. The impact is not just on the mission. They had to come home. They did.
It is not continuing under UN law. That is the whole point.
It is continuing.
It is not continuing under UN or international law. It is outside the framework of international law.
It is continuing and most of the member states are part of it. That is the reality. It is continuing to do really important work-----
Most of the members states were involved in the invasion of Iraq.
-----to enforce a UN arms embargo in relation to Libya. By the way, it is also doing very important humanitarian work. That is really important but our people had to leave. We are losing the experience they were gaining on these missions with all of their European colleagues. Their European colleagues are all still out there doing that work today. We are not and that is all the triple lock is about.
There is no other country, in the EU or otherwise, that requires the same triple lock we have. This weekend, Dermot Ahern, who was the Minister when this was a big issue, said that was then and this is now and that times have changed. We believe the triple lock is no longer fit for purpose and that it must change. That is the reality because UNIFIL is ending this year. The Lebanese Government may well invite countries to participate in a peacekeeping mission there. That may well happen. I do not know whether it will. There may well be discussions about that. However, under the triple lock, we cannot be there. We cannot be there under the current legislation. All we are trying to do is to reform this so that we can continue to be involved in peacekeeping. That is really important.
We have had extensive public consultation in this area. The Consultative Forum on International Security Policy was convened. It was open to the public. The forum facilitated a broad national conversation on Ireland's foreign, defence and security policy. It brought together a wide range of stakeholders including civilian and military experts, academics, current and former members of the Defence Forces, representatives of international institutions and members of the public. It was held over four days in Cork, Galway and Dublin. Approximately 1,000 people attended in person and 10,000 people watched online. Some 850 written submissions were received.
When reforming the triple lock, we will do so in a manner that remains fully consistent with our legal principles and moral values as a nation. In fact, our Constitution specifies that. We will act in accordance with our obligations under international law. Ireland's continued commitment is to multilateralism, peacekeeping and the principles of the UN Charter, which are seen in the work UNIFIL will continue to do until the end of the mandate and the very work Operation Irini continues to do, although we can no longer take part. Our people came out that day. Nobody else was affected. The proposals to reform the triple lock are consistent with our policy of military neutrality. There are neutral countries participating in Operation Irini today. We are focused on ensuring that Ireland has the capacity to act responsibly and effectively in the service of international peace.
I will take Deputy Murphy's supplementary question and then Deputy Tóibín.
Do I not come in for the first 30 seconds?
I do not think so.
No, I do not think so. The Deputies will have a minute each and then the Minister will get two.
The idea that there has been any real public consultation here is a joke. Micheál Martin said we were going to have a citizens' assembly on neutrality. That was scrapped and replaced with a consultative forum packed with warmongers, NATO heads and academics with links to the military industrial complex. That was the Government's public consultation. What a joke. Allow the people to decide. Give the people a referendum. If the Government is so confident in its arguments, let us have it out and allow the people to decide.
I will quote the Minister of State, Deputy Robert Troy. He said:
Ireland's position on the use of force where there is no UN mandate or authorisation is well established and known. For fear that anyone is in any doubt, let me be clear: it is wrong and it is illegal.
Does the Minister of State agree with Deputy Troy or does he not? All the triple lock does is ensure that any mission we go on has a UN mandate or authorisation. That is the whole point of it.
Why did Operation Irini not get extended by the UN? It is because it is no longer just about Libya. Let us be honest; it is about Russia. It is about chasing the Russian shadow fleet.
Why on earth should Irish troops be chasing the Russian shadow fleet in the Mediterranean? That would be a breach of neutrality. It is perfectly correct that we are not going to be participating in that.
The triple lock was created through the democratic decision of the Irish people. The triple lock was introduced in 2001 after the defeat of the first referendum on the Nice treaty. When that referendum was defeated, the Government noted that the main concern in the referendum was the issue of Irish neutrality and its erosion. The triple lock was an essential part of the passing of the second referendum on the Nice treaty. Every home in the country received a leaflet from the Government with the triple lock written into it, saying that if they voted for the Nice treaty in the second referendum, they would get the triple lock. While it is not written in the Constitution, it is morally and politically coupled with that democratic decision. The fact that the Government is looking to decouple it from that decision is profoundly antidemocratic.
I do not think the Minister of State understands the whole issue of Irish neutrality. When large military blocs, such as the USA, Russia and China, are in opposition to each other, taking sides with either group is by definition military alignment. The reason the Government is going down this route is because of the changes in the European Union. Ursula von der Leyen has stated very openly that she wants to create an EU defence union. In reality, the Government is doing this undercover. I ask the Government to at least put it to a referendum. Do not be afraid of the people in terms of a referendum.
It is very clear to anybody who examines the reality of this situation that the triple lock is simply about maintaining our role as peacekeepers. The issue of neutrality is completely different. We are not taking sides with anybody. We enforce the shadow fleet ourselves, by the way, with other countries. Operation Irini continues to do excellent work in accordance with international law. It is enforcing international law in the Mediterranean and doing really important humanitarian work.
The circumstances have changed dramatically. The mandate that I feel I have is the Fianna Fáil election manifesto. We had an election on that because things changed - all of this changed. There is no European Union defence union. There is no defence alliance at the European Union level. We cannot enter that. The people put that in the Constitution, and it cannot happen. It is very wrong to mix those things up. We cannot become part of a European common defence. There are no proposals for a European common defence. Our decision on the triple lock is simply about making our own decisions here in Ireland, in the Dáil, as to where our troops go. We make these decisions in the best interests of peace, the best interests of international law and the best interests of our military and its members. That is what this is about.
The Members opposite seek to ascribe a conspiracy to the Government about wars. We have heard it all. In relation to Deputy Paul Murphy’s comments, briseann an dúchas trí shúile an chait. Once Russia is mentioned, he gets all agitated.
I mentioned Russia.
The Deputy mentioned Russia, and he became very agitated because this is about Russia. It is about Russia and other countries vetoing proposals at the UN Security Council. Because of that veto power, it was not possible to get a mandate renewed for Operation Irini. In any event, all of the other countries that were enforcing international law and peace and security did not need this mandate. The decision of the Security Council stands.
The Minister of State claims he has a mandate. What does the Fianna Fáil manifesto say? It says it will continue to protect and promote Ireland's military neutrality, including sensible reform of the triple lock legislation. That is not what it is doing, is it? The triple lock is gone entirely. We look at the heads of Bill, which make it clear. The heads of Bill state that the Bill will provide for the removal of the triple lock. It is gone. Fianna Fáil does not have a mandate for this. We look at the presidential election, and we look at opinion poll after opinion poll. People are attached to neutrality, and they are not stupid. They know, just as Deputy Micheál Martin said, that the triple lock is at the core of our neutrality. Why? It is because it is the only thing that stops this Government or any future Government from sending Irish troops to participate in any sort of imperialist intervention anywhere in the world. It is the only legal thing that stops them. At the committee, it was said that without the triple lock, Irish troops could have been sent to participate in the invasion of Iraq. That was said at the committee by the top civil servant. The Government allowed them to use Shannon Airport. If it were not for the triple lock, the Government could have sent Irish troops abroad. That is what the triple lock is about. I ask again whether the Minister of State agrees with what the Minister of State, Deputy Robert Troy, said.
What we are seeing here is choreography. It is not a conspiracy. Ursula von der Leyen did not hide the fact when she ran for the European Commission Presidency that she wanted an EU defence union. She said it very clearly. She has stated clearly that her objective in the EU parliamentary term is defence and security issues. We have had an EU Defence Commissioner since 2024 whose objective is the defence of the EU. This is not a conspiracy. These are actions that are taking place. Very soon after that discussion, Deputy Micheál Martin said he welcomed the changes to the EU treaties that would reduce the power of nation states to determine decisions on issues such as defence, the military and security. Even the decision-making within the EU is to see a far more diluted influence over nation states.
Large nation states fight wars for their national interests. Small nation states will not have influence over those decisions, but will have to send their young people to fight those wars. All we are asking the Government to do is put it to the people. This is the reason the triple lock existed in the first place.
The statements by Deputy Tóibín about fighting wars are outrageous and without any basis in fact. It is the timeworn theme from those in the opposition to the European Union, completely forgetting about and actually insulting those countries that, after the most devastating war, came together to make peace. This idea that big countries in Europe are going to be making war and we are going to join them-----
They are rearming, in case the Minister of State has not seen it.
It is not true, and the Deputy knows it is not true.
They are being attacked by the very country-----
The Minister is contradicting Deputy Byrne.
While it is nice to hear a socialist quoting the Fianna Fáil manifesto, and I certainly appreciate the Deputy’s examination of the manifesto-----
That is your mandate.
The Deputy has not quoted the Constitution, which governs everything we do. The Constitution states at Article 29:
1. Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality.
2. Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination.
That is what governs this Government, it governs the Dáil and it governs our military. That is what we do. We do peace, we do friendly co-operation and we accord with the principles of international law. That is what we will do. If there are peace missions out there that are going to take place, perhaps at the invitation of countries affected, maybe Lebanon, we would like to be able to make a decision properly here in the Dáil, maybe involving an Oireachtas committee to examine every aspect of it. We want to make the decision here. We cannot allow countries that some of the Members opposite castigate to have a veto over our foreign policy decisions.
It is called international law.
We are governed by the Constitution. We are governed by this Parliament. That is all we are trying to do here. Operation Irini continues. That goes on, but our people came home. That is the reality of the triple lock, and it is a reality that is wrong for this country. It is a reality that is wrong for a sovereign country. If there are discussions with the Lebanese Government about future peacekeeping missions there, it is wrong that we would not be involved in them because of the triple lock.
121. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Minister for Defence further to recent Dáil Éireann debates, her views on past health and safety measures in the Air Corps; the actions she plans to take to support former aircraft maintenance and ancillary personnel; whether she intends to ensure their medical needs are met; and the other supports that can be offered to the category affected as a whole. [43734/26]
Our last exchange on this issue was one of the most frustrating exchanges I have had on this particular topic since I started raising it about a year and a half ago. Every attempt at diversion was sought. I am asking this question very clearly. There are concerns in relation to the State Claims Agency and so on, and perhaps we can get into that some other time. What I asked the Minister for the last time and am asking for again is an update on the approach the Government proposes to take in relation to the whole category of people affected by chemical exposure in the Air Corps in terms of an examination of health outcomes and medical supports.
I appreciate that the Deputy has raised this a number of times, and that he might not always like the answer I give him. However, I am reminded continuously that in the discussions we are having here, while the Deputy appreciates there are certain things I cannot say and certain areas I cannot talk about, that is because I am a main defendant, as Minister, in all of the cases that have been brought forward, cases that are being brought forward and cases that may come forward in the future. While the Deputy talks about the whole group of people that may be impacted by the issue we are talking about here, there are current live litigation cases that are potentially being brought forward in the weeks ahead that will have implications for any other person who might find themselves in a similar situation. I am not trying to be evasive or avoid questions.
It is clear to me that matters of health and safety in the Air Corps, particularly when we are talking about allegations of exposure to chemicals, are directly relevant to all of the cases before the courts which is why I cannot get into detail in terms of what is next. I know of the number of cases that are there. There were 23 cases. One has been settled through mediation, 12 are moving forward and ten have only come to the fore in the last number of years. There are a number of cases that have been presented. I cannot speak beyond that because there are limitations in that regard currently.
In respect of the current litigation cases, I can bring a recent development to the Deputy's attention, which he might not be aware of since we last spoke. The State Claims Agency has informed me that a number of cases have been taken under active case management by the courts. At the moment, nothing is moving. As I referenced previously, there have been attempts by the State Claims Agency to actively engage with a number of plaintiffs over the last number of months, with a particular view to mediating cases. However, these offers to progress the mediation have not been taken up. Neither has there been progress in relation to the courts. There has been an active case management taken on by the courts. As I am sure the Deputy knows, this means a judge can actively pursue, require engagement of the parties, push matters forward, seek papers and testimony, compel mediation and set specific deadlines. This may result in the development of these cases in the near future. There has been progress since we last spoke about this. Obviously, this means that this is now moving forward in the courts process. This is not a decision that we have taken ourselves; it is the decision that has been reached by the judge. It is important that I do not say anything here that would in any way impact that process.
I have never asked the Minister or her predecessor to do that and I would not do so because it would be a waste of time. I would never ask about ongoing court cases because I know it would be completely pointless. I have never asked about that because I know the Minister cannot say that in this place. The equivalent of what the Minister is saying is that when more and more attention started being brought to bear on abuse in industrial schools or the treatment of women in the Magdalen laundries, the Minister for education or for children, or whoever was responsible for the issue at the time, would come forward and say that he or she could not do anything about that because people have a right to take a court case, that there were a number of court cases and the Minister could do nothing about that. That was not true then and it is not true now. In that instance, commissions of inquiry, redress schemes and things like Caranua were set up. None of those were prevented by the court cases. People continued to retain their entitlement to take court cases. That continued and people did take court cases but the Government was able, separate from the court process, to put in place measures for redress. The same thing should be happening here. The Government should be doing a health audit. None of that is prevented by the court cases. The Government should be looking at forms of redress and at health protections. None of that is prevented by court cases.
What the Deputy is referring to are completely different scenarios, with potentially significantly different numbers-----
It is not procedurally different at all.
What we know is the number of people who have come forward. I know the number of people who have presented, be it through the State Claims Agency or who are going through litigation processes and have only in recent times put themselves forward and highlighted their own situation. There is one case, as we know, that has gone through mediation and concluded that mediation process. There is a particular decision that has been taken by individuals as to which route they want to take here.
Beyond that, as I have said, a body of work was done in the Department to see if there was anything further that should be done. Subsequently, since that work was done, I have engaged with the Attorney General, the State Claims Agency and my own Department. Based on those conversations, I have determined that the process that is currently happening at the moment is the most appropriate course of action. There is no suggestion to me at this moment in time that we are talking about numbers that the Deputy has referenced in other types of cases or scenarios. What I do know is that we have active cases that are now going to be brought forward because of case management. Individuals have the option to engage in mediation as well. That is a process that is there and that has a legal structure to it as well and one that we have supported. I do not want to push people to the courts for any issue here. That is not something that we would do as a Department. There are options there and there are alternative options for people. Again, I would say those options are available to people if they do not wish to go through the courts process.
What I am interpreting from what the Minister is saying - perhaps she can clarify it because she has not said it explicitly - is that she received advice from her officials, engaged with the Attorney General and the State Claims Agency and effectively, on foot of that, there is no policy solution to this. Ultimately, it is all through the courts. Contrary to what the Minister has said, her strategy or proposal is that the court is the only route here. She is not offering any policy solution. Of course, in terms of the substance of the issue, it is very different from any of the examples I just gave. However, in terms of the principle, the Minister does not have to step into the court cases or interfere with them in order to do right by the whole category. The Air Corps chemical abuse survivors have counted up to 130 deaths that they consider to be premature. I am not a clinician. I cannot go through each of those cases and identify that. What I am and have been asking for, and what Deputy Micheál Martin asked for when he was in opposition, is an assessment of those people, with patterns identified. We need to make sure they are looked after and that there is an inquiry into it. None of that is prevented by the court cases. Not a bit of it.
What I am saying is that I have engaged with my team. A body of work had started when I came into the Department and I had asked for it to be completed. Since then, I have engaged with the Attorney General and the State Claims Agency. I have also assessed the current situation. What we know is that we have a number of cases that have gone through the State Claims Agency or that have engaged with the agency, as they were entitled to do. There is another process, and that is through the courts. What I am saying is that is not the route we are forcing people through. There is a separate process through the State Claims Agency that we have already seen an individual go through, where there has been a resolution following mediation-----
The Government is not doing anything outside of the courts.
It is not a back and forth.
There has been a conclusion there but because this process is ongoing and because of the cases, there is not much more that I can say in this regard. It is important to stress that the State Claims Agency has reached out. I understand that it is very much the decision of individuals as to which route they decide to go or what they decide to do. On that basis and given the legal advice I have received, I cannot go into any more detail on this.
123. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Minister for Defence her views on the matter of entry-level cadet pay; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [43735/26]
I raised this issue with the Minister a little over a month ago but unfortunately we have seen no progress. It is an issue of enormous concern for cadets and their representative organisation, RACO. It potentially creates problems for our ability to recruit and retain people of quality. We need to see this addressed. The Minister promised to address it. She is seven or eight months in her role now but, as yet, we have seen no progress.
I have been in office for a little bit less than that but I am absolutely determined that we make progress across all areas of pay when it comes to the Defence Forces, at every level. The Deputy will appreciate that much of that work will have to happen through the normal process of the public sector pay agreements. At the same time, I have been very clear that where we can make progress in other ways, I would like to do so.
I want to highlight the significant progress that the Government has made on pay and conditions for Defence Forces personnel, particularly over the last five years, including in the area of cadet pay. For context, in July 2021 the first entry-level point for a cadet joining the Defence Forces was €19,640 but as of 1 June 2026 the first point on the scale for a cadet joining the Defence Forces is €26,510, an increase of almost €7,000. I appreciate that for somebody who is coming in later in life who has financial commitments, that is not going to be at a level that he or she might achieve in other areas. However, we have different pay scales that apply during the cadetship period depending on qualification, with the current pay scale applicable to cadets ranging from €26,510 up to almost €40,000. Cadets are also provided with accommodation and meals free of charge which obviously adds significant value, on top of the overall pay package. Following the cadetship and on commissioning, officers' starting salaries range from €46,823 to €52,265, depending on whether they joined as school-leavers or graduates.
What is very clear is that there is still a high level of interest in joining the Defence Forces through cadetship. We received 2,878 applications for 80 cadetship places this year.
We want to make sure that when we fill those numbers we maintain people and keep people there. If we compare that even with last year, there were 1,819 and in 2024 there were 1,791, so the numbers have increased significantly. I believe the increase in the overall pay will help towards that but this is not to say I am not determined and committed to try to increase those numbers even further.
The Minister is committed to trying to increase those numbers but is she committed to addressing this discrepancy? Is the Minister committed? That is what I want to know. Cadet pay is one of the lowest in the Defence Forces at €503 per week compared with €550 for a recruit, which rises to €627 after 12 weeks. In the first year they earn 40.7% less than their enlisted counterparts. I cannot speak for every category of cadet that is coming through but there have been issues in the past where groups have come out of training in the Defence Forces and a large number of them have ended up in the private sector because the terms and conditions are more attractive. If we are putting in the money and putting in the effort in respect of people who are dedicated and committed and who want to serve their country in the Defence Forces, we should be trying to keep them. Particularly with the current cost of living, this pay is nowhere near adequate. It is below the national minimum wage for the hours they work, which are quite considerable.
The Deputy will be aware that anything we do in this regard has to be very much in line with the parameters of the public pay policy. I am not the Minister for public expenditure and reform. What I can do is look to see whether there are other mechanisms by which we can increase the overall figure. I have met RACO and I have spoken to its representatives about this. I know this is a real priority for it. While I gave a very clear commitment when I met them earlier this year that this is something I would pursue, I have to do it through the various different channels. The issue is on the agenda of the conciliation and arbitration scheme for members of the Permanent Defence Force. I have agreed to see if there is something further or another mechanism or way in which we can address this.
There also has been engagement with the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation on the issue of cadet pay. It has highlighted again the public service pay agreements and the need to work within those parameters. We also have the local bargaining process. I appreciate that this is taking longer than any of us would like but this allows parties to bring forward proposals up to a maximum value equivalent to 3% of basic pay, with 1% to be paid from the current agreement and then the balance addressed in any successor payment agreement. There are opportunities in the various different processes that I have mentioned to try to address pay and conditions. I may come back in on some of the other areas where we have tried to address what the Deputy said, namely, how, when we get people in, we actually maintain them and improve conditions more broadly; not just for cadets.
I have said before that sometimes I get a bit worried in that while I am not against local bargaining per se, it worries me when the holy world and all is going to be fixed through local bargaining. It comes up time and again that it will fix this, that and the other. Ultimately, it comes down to 1% of the payroll in an individual pay deal. I believe what cadets want to hear is that the Minister is committed to doing this and that she will address this. The Minister has said that she will try to progress it but we need to see a clearer commitment in that regard.
In the time I have left I will briefly raise another issue on the welfare of Defence Forces personnel in the context of the tribunal process. The Women of Honour group has raised the issue of the absence of interim funding for representation. This will constrain them considerably in their ability to participate in the tribunal particularly given that the State obviously is well funded with resources for its representation. The Minister might consider that also.
I thank the Deputy. I repeat what I have said on the floor of the House here but also when engaging with RACO and other members. I am committed to working with them in trying to advance not just pay but overall working conditions for members of the Defence Forces. If we want to achieve higher numbers, if we want to achieve a greater workforce design and if we want to expand our overall priorities, objectives and our overall capabilities then we need to make sure that we are looking at every aspect here. I have to work within the processes that are there, however. I have to work within the public sector pay agreement. I have to work within the structures that are there. Local bargaining is there and it is within the remit and the gift of the different representative groups to decide what they want to prioritise within that. We will work closely with them to try to make progress on this matter. I have no doubt that we will and that very soon we will be talking about the next public sector pay agreement and how we can see a greater level of increase across the board,.
In terms of the tribunal, I have to work within the legal parameters of the tribunal and it is only for the chair of the tribunal to decide where and when costs would be awarded. It is not a decision that I can take. I have relayed this directly to the Women of Honour but obviously a decision has been taken in the last few days by the judge and it is a matter for the judge in the tribunal to address those matters specifically and to respond to the request.
124. Deputy Tom Brabazon asked the Minister for Defence the engagement which has taken place with the United Nations and Ireland's international partners in relation to the future of the Irish peacekeepers serving with UNIFIL particularly in view of ongoing hostilities in Lebanon. [44191/26]
We are the only country in the world to have a continuous presence on UN mandated peace operations since 1958. Our peacekeepers have served with distinction and pride, and in particular with their deployment in Lebanon as part of the UNIFIL mission there. It is very disappointing that this mission is to come to an end and especially in light of ongoing hostilities in south Lebanon. Will the Minister please advise the House on the engagement her Department has had with the UN and international partners in relation to the future of Irish peacekeepers serving with UNIFIL? What arrangements are being put in place to ensure their safe and orderly removal from the region at the end of their current mandate?
I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. We are all very conscious of the very complex and changing environment in Lebanon on a daily basis, and even today when there were supposed to be ceasefires we see continuous fire and conflict taking place. I assure the House that there has been ongoing and substantive engagement with the United Nations and with our international partners regarding the position and future role of Irish personnel serving with UNIFIL, and particularly in light of the continuing and deeply concerning hostilities in Lebanon. I have engaged extensively, and will continue to do so, with the United Nations, with our European partners and with other key stakeholders on this matter, as well as maintaining direct bilateral contact with the Lebanese authorities and with my Lebanese counterpart who I have spoken to on a regular basis. This engagement reflects our long-standing commitment to peacekeeping, to the UNIFIL mission and to the seriousness of the current security environment. I have also spoken directly at senior levels within the UN. Most recently I have spoken with UN under-secretary-general for peace operations, Mr. Jean-Pierre Lacroix, and I have written to him again reiterating our serious concerns regarding the safety and the security of peacekeepers in Lebanon. It is important to stress that I engage with our own Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces and our own personnel on a daily and weekly basis on the current situation and to ensure that our personnel are safe. In parallel, I have worked closely with European partners contributing to UNIFIL. We have had a broader discussion with the European troop contributing counterparts where, following that discussion, we engaged directly with Under-Secretary-General Lacroix calling for strengthened protection mechanisms for UNIFIL personnel and for thorough investigations into all incidents involving peacekeepers. We acknowledge that a number of peacekeepers across different countries have been killed in their duties in recent times and it is completely unacceptable that peacekeepers would be put in this type of danger. At a bilateral level I have also engaged directly with the Lebanese foreign minister, Mr. Raggi, and during this conversation I expressed our concern regarding the ongoing hostilities. It is important to stress that while he reaffirmed his absolute thanks and his appreciation for the role of the peacekeeping troops, I reaffirmed our absolute commitment and our presence on the ground and our desire to ensure that there is a continued mandate or a continued mission in some format once the UNIFIL mission comes to an end.
Our peacekeepers have been operating in very difficult circumstances in recent months, as the Minister has outlined, with air strikes, drone strikes and ground operations in the Irish area of operation. The escalating hostilities and recent deaths of peacekeepers is extremely concerning. We need to make sure that the Irish peacekeepers are given every necessary protection.
On top of that, the local Lebanese population has a great trust in our peacekeepers and respect for them. This is down to the peacekeepers' exemplary service and our own history of suffering oppression at the hands of colonial powers. The international community cannot let the end of the UNIFIL mandate create a vacuum in south Lebanon. For the local community who lives there the presence of UNIFIL has given them reassurance. I again urge the Minister to do everything in her power to have that mandate, in whatever way, extended so that there is not a vacuum left in south Lebanon.
I will refer to an earlier question around the orderly drawdowns. We have had in the last few weeks seen the last battalion travel to Lebanon where there was a crossover with the troops who had been there previously. That will be the final round of troops, essentially, that would carry out this mission.
What we will see later this year is a much smaller number who will travel over to help to wind down the mission and make sure the equipment and technology we have over there can be brought out, as well as to make sure we support what is an orderly draw-down in order that other troops and teams are protected. In the past few months in particular, we have seen a lot of how the Irish Defence Forces, our peacekeepers, have worked closely to protect and support their French, Italian, Spanish, Polish, Indonesian and many other colleagues. It is really important that as this mission comes to a conclusion, it does so in a safe and orderly way. That is absolutely at the forefront of our Defence Forces members' minds in everything they do. What is also important - and I can touch on this in my final contribution - is what we do next.
When I spoke to Kaja Kallas today, the High Representative who chairs the foreign affairs and defence Council and with whom we will be working closely during our Presidency, I confirmed that during our Presidency and at its outset, we will be steering the conversation as to what happens next. It is really important from Ireland’s perspective that we find a way to be present and to be part of some form of the mission on the ground in Lebanon to carry on the work we have been doing for decades.
Our responsibility is essentially twofold in that we have to continue to support the people of south Lebanon, who are at real risk, and we must make sure that each Irish peacekeeper returns home safely to his or her family.
I will finish by thanking all those who served in UNIFIL and particularly those who made the ultimate sacrifice in support of peace in that area. They have worn the Tricolour and blue helmet with distinction, courage and honour.
I join with the Deputy in thanking all of our troops who, for the past number of decades, have contributed significantly to peace in Lebanon and to monitoring the situation and who continue to do so even in the most hostile of environments. I met many of those members who travelled out in the past few weeks with their families. For many of them this is their second, third, fourth or fifth mission. This is something we know our troops are absolutely committed to, for which they are held in high regard, not just by the Lebanese armed forces and Government but by the people on the ground. I have no doubt but that had our troops and other troops not been present in recent months, the situation could have been much worse for them, which is hard to imagine in what is already a very difficult situation.
We wish to reassure our colleagues in our discussions in the months ahead and I have already met our French, Italian, Spanish and Polish colleagues to discuss how we can ensure there is a continued presence on the ground but without the UN-mandated mission. We are talking about something much smaller that does not provide the same level of support or numbers of troops, which is a real regret for all of us. We will do everything we can to ensure there is still that presence on the ground.
