1. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence his proposals to remove the triple lock neutrality protection; his plans to bring forward a Bill; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [60896/25]

Sentiment score: 0.04

We have had a fair bit of airtime and a fair bit of discussion in this place in relation to the Government's plans to scrap the triple lock, and they are to end the triple lock, not to amend or adjust it. I recall that in the committee we were told there was a great rush to try to move along with pre-legislative scrutiny in order to ensure that legislation would be ready. That was far from ideal; however, we on the committee did our best. We are still none the wiser as to what legislation has come out the other end. Perhaps the Tánaiste could give us an update.

Sentiment score: 0.40

This is an issue that has seen a fair bit of discussion recently. In the context of a presidential election and a presidential candidate, or our President, it is not an area in which they have executive power, but the nature of all presidential elections is that there is discussion about Ireland's place in the world, how we see ourselves and how we can best exercise influence internationally. The candidate who, in my view, articulated very clearly a vision for an Ireland that holds its own course and that is neutral, as a clear-eyed assessment of our place in the world and of how best we can use our influence, won a resounding mandate. Most opinion polls indicate very strong support not only for Ireland's policy of military neutrality but also for retaining the triple lock. The Tánaiste has talked a great deal about sovereignty. The greatest test of sovereignty in this jurisdiction is the Irish people. Would the Tánaiste consider putting a significant proposal that has constitutional ramifications to the Irish people?

Sentiment score: 0.57

Opposition to this might have been up or might have been down, but if you lose a game 5-2 it is not last goal wins. At the end of the day, the bigger number is the bigger number.

Sentiment score: -0.33

The Tánaiste has made a couple of points. He is right: we cannot say the presidential election is the final word on this.

Sentiment score: 0.00

However, only one political party - it was not his party - came to the last general election with anything even resembling a manifesto commitment that gave it any kind of mandate. Deputy Murphy is right when he suggests there is a better way of defining public opinion. If the Government is willing - we are certainly willing - to put this to the people and have a clear question asked of them in order to get a clear answer in relation to this, I am quite confident as to what the outcome will be. The presidential election might be the best barometer we have, albeit imperfect and thrown in with a lot of other things. However, the Government has the ability for a more precise measurement of public opinion. Why not proceed with that?

Sentiment score: 0.48

The context is the commitments in past referendums.

Sentiment score: 0.13

No, to the triple lock.

Sentiment score: -0.30

The Tánaiste's previous answer tailors well enough with this question. One of the key priorities in how we tailor investment in our Defence Forces is our naval capacity and our understanding of what is in Irish waters. That is probably the number one issue of concern for us and for our neighbours. The most important piece of infrastructure is ensuring that we have that full radar picture, which is something we have been missing for a very long time. Can we get an update for the rollout of that and a timeline for completion?

Sentiment score: 0.14

The primary radar system and the full radar picture is one of the cornerstones of the transformation of the Defence Forces and it is crucial we get it right, not least because it will cost a substantial sum of money. Can the Tánaiste give us a sense of what kind of sums we are talking about because it is important we apply lessons learned from other public contracts to this project? There was a discussion yesterday on the relationship between Britain and Ireland. There was a discussion about security. One of the points advanced was military expenditure. People talk about the amount spent but it can be spent well or can be spent badly. Obviously, it is essential we achieve value for money in delivering this. The Tánaiste talked about the naval radar picture and the requirement that it would be ship-borne. Do we have the capacity, in terms of our current fleet, to deliver that? Similarly, do we have the capacity with the air picture?

Sentiment score: 0.11

The cost is a consideration. It is vitally important that value for money is achieved but also that it is of the highest standard and it is secure. We talked about whether the naval and the aircraft capacity existed. There is also the issue of personnel. Will there be a requirement for additional specialist personnel in order to operate this? The Minister talked about it being rolled out in parts. Can he give us a sense of the sequence of those? What are the most advanced parts or the earliest parts of that to be delivered? This is a vitally important piece of infrastructure. There are very real threats in our seas. How we address those when we know about them is a different and an important debate but first, we need to know. We need to have the picture but we do not currently have that. So, it is vitally important. Can the Minister give us a sense, from a personnel point of view, whether additional specialist personnel are required?

Sentiment score: 0.11

5. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the way in which the shortfall in critical staffing levels in the Defence Forces poses a national security risk; the efforts which are being made to resolve this; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [60898/25]

Sentiment score: 0.12

We have had discussions regarding a number of these issues. We have talked about the triple lock and that relates to the deployment of our troops abroad. A lot has been said about the world that is changing. It is my view that the Defence Forces were allowed to go significantly backwards by successive governments. That is true in terms of equipment but it is also most true in terms of personnel. We are well below establishment. It is not acceptable and it needs to be addressed quite urgently.

Sentiment score: 0.16

I welcome an increase in Defence Force numbers, given that this has been a matter of discussion in these Houses for a number of years in terms of the recruitment and retention crisis. The advance we are talking about is quite modest given the context. We are far from the commission on the future of the Defence Forces. We are below establishment and the minimum acceptable level of personnel. I want to focus on officers. Governance in the Defence Forces is a key factor when it comes to national security. There are 330 officers in the Defence Forces with less than five years' experience. That points to the fact that we have found it difficult to retain experienced and well-trained officers who can aid and assist in training young officers in the interests of national security. A key aspect of this is retention. A specialist pay review was recommended by the Commission on the Defence Forces in 2022, which has not been established, to provide an ongoing review of the application of existing specialist pay rates and allowances and to make recommendations where adjustments are required. This has yet to be seen and would have retained highly skilled members of the Defence Forces.

Sentiment score: 0.16

Very often, people want to serve. The Minister spoke about the quality of the people he inspected recently. The men and women of the Defence Forces are our greatest asset. Even at times when payments and allowances were less favourable, people wanted to join. The difficulty is that many of these people are very capable, skilled and experienced and are the kind of people private industry wants. In many instances, the challenge we have faced is that highly qualified and very capable members of the Defence Forces, due to their difficulty in making ends meet or the pressures they are under due to the cost of living crisis, see more attractive pay and conditions in industries such as pharmaceuticals, medtech and other areas. In terms of the retention of officers and personnel more generally in the Defence Forces, we need a specialist pay review to be established. We need to review the post-2013 pension arrangements and training establishment.

Sentiment score: 0.12