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]

4. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if the triple lock will be retained in view of the support for it demonstrated by the outcome of the presidential election; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [60858/25]

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.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 4 together. The committee did a very good job. The timeline for pre-legislative scrutiny is set down by the Standing Orders of this House, to the best of my knowledge. The committee kept to those timelines and produced a comprehensive report, and I thank Deputy Ó Laoghaire and all members of the committee for their work on that. As the Deputy rightly recalls, the general scheme of the defence (amendment) Bill 2025 was published on 21 May. It consolidates, with amendments, the existing provisions of the Defence Acts 1954 to 2015 concerning the dispatch of members of the Defence Forces for service outside the State. The general scheme also proposes amendments to existing legislation to provide for the suspension of members of the Defence Forces to give effect to recommendations in the 2024 Ward report. The pre-legislative scrutiny process of the general scheme was completed, as Deputy Ó Laoghaire rightly says, at the end of July. This process provided the Oireachtas committee with the opportunity to examine the heads of the Bill and to hear from and bring in many relevant stakeholders on the proposed legislation. I am, as I have said, grateful to all members of the committee. There are very good proposals within these recommendations. I say that sincerely. I am working through them with my officials - indeed, I went through quite a number of them this week - as the full Bill is being drafted. Under the current proposals in the general scheme to amend the legislation, the requirement for a UN Security Council mandate will be removed. I again underline that the legislation in place allows members of the UN Security Council, by means of a veto or indeed threat of same, to bind this country's hands in its international peacekeeping engagement. Recent vetoes by a UN Security Council member on a proposed resolution for a full and unconditional ceasefire in Gaza last June, as well as the challenges evidenced over the summer with regard to the extension of the UNIFIL mandate to allow peacekeepers to southern Lebanon, are ample evidence of this. With regard to the latter particularly, in the event that the UNIFIL mandate were not extended, Ireland would have been in the position of having to plan to withdraw its Defence Forces personnel from UNIFIL immediately following the expiration of the mandate. I believe it is untenable, therefore, for the Government to continue with this policy. I again state my strong belief that such considerations on international peacekeeping engagement should be within Ireland's exclusive sovereign control and that decision-making on this should be purely within the remit of our Government and our Oireachtas, which have been democratically elected by the people of this country. I recognise, however, that in removing the UN Security Council mandate requirement there will be a need to strengthen the democratic oversight governing the ongoing deployment of Defence Forces personnel overseas. Therefore, in parallel to removing the UN mandate requirement, text will be included in this Bill which will require that the mandate of future operations be consistent with, and adhere to, the principles of the UN Charter and international law. These principles are being refined to ensure appropriate legal effect as part of the drafting process. I am interested in working with the Deputies on this. We will never reach agreement on the broad policy around this - I take that point - but I am determined to bring forward legislation in this area, as is the Government, and we will do that. I am, however, very willing to work with, and in fact very enthusiastic about working with, this House to try to develop an oversight mechanism to provide independent external assurance on adherence to these principles. I do not wish to speak for the committee, but from my rereading of the pre-legislative scrutiny report from the committee this week, I think the committee was teasing its way through that as well. I concede on the floor - not even concede but agree - that there is a need to beef up the legislation on that. I intend to bring this Bill to the Government shortly - the Deputies will ask me what "shortly" means, which is a fair question; I expect it to be within this year - and for the debate in the Oireachtas to begin thereafter. This will provide - and we should provide - ample time to work through the legislation, and I commit to providing that time from the Government's perspective. I want to make it absolutely clear that the Government has no desire to alter our policy of military neutrality. The amendments proposed will do nothing to change Ireland's traditional position of military neutrality, which has always been characterised by Ireland's non-participation in military alliances. Our engagement overseas will continue to be firmly grounded in the principles of the UN Charter and international law and will, of course, require the consent of the democratically elected representatives of the people of Ireland.

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?

The Government wants to get rid of the triple lock in order that it can send Irish troops abroad on EU or NATO-led missions. The Government will not tell us where it wants to send these troops. I oppose that. I defend our neutrality. I believe the majority of people do. However, I want to focus, at least initially, less on the substance of that but on the democratic question. The Government has refused, despite calls from many in the Opposition, to hold a plebiscite to allow the people to decide, so the closest thing we have to a view of the people is the presidential election. Neutrality was arguably the number one issue in the election, and there was a clear difference between the Government's candidate and the candidate I supported. Both said they supported neutrality, but the difference was that Heather Humphreys said it in the way the Tánaiste says it, which is to empty the word of any meaning. One candidate, Catherine Connolly, defended the triple lock; the other candidate opposed it. The candidate who defended the triple lock got 63% of the vote. That is an expression of people's will. The Government really has no mandate to proceed with this, particularly in the context of the promise to keep the triple lock being crucial in persuading people to change their minds in terms of the second Nice treaty referendum. People have voted for this effectively twice and the Government wants to get rid of it without allowing them a third vote.

The Deputies cannot pick and choose which mandates they like. I have a mandate - a very clear and a very large mandate - from the people of Wicklow and I have a mandate from-----

Not to get rid of the triple lock.

No, but I have a mandate to bring forward legislative proposals. I have a mandate to table draft laws, as do the Deputies opposite. I have a mandate to debate and discuss those laws, and my mandate is perfectly valid, as is the mandate of every Member of this House. The Deputies cannot pick and choose which mandates they like. We tend not to talk about the President in this House. I will not do so or talk about the President-elect other than to wish her every health, happiness and success as she prepares to take office. The Deputies should not over-interpret results from any election. Question No. 4 is a fascinating parliamentary question in that Deputy Murphy is deciding to attach motives to the Irish people. We have not seen this since de Valera had to look into his heart to decide where the Irish people stood. Deputy Murphy is deciding what motivated people to go out and vote in the presidential election, a very brave thing to do. I am not sure it tallies with any evidence we have seen from exit polling information that was published by Ireland Thinks. If we want to talk about mandates, one of the figures we should talk about is the fact that 70% of the people of Ireland who had a right to vote either did not vote in the election or chose to spoil their vote. Let us talk about that as well. I would not get carried away in making decisions on the result of a presidential election, which was resoundingly won by President-elect Connolly, and I wish her every success. We are beginning to see that Deputy Murphy will attach to the President-elect every view of every policy he wishes. The President-elect was very clear in the election campaign: I heard her say many times that she would have no role at all in the substance of the legislation. She will have a very clear constitutional role, which she will discharge with distinction, as every President of Ireland ever has done. That is my first point. My second is that if we are on the issue of opinion polling - Deputy Ó Laoghaire made the point that the majority of people of Ireland do not favour the change to the triple lock - I do not have the data in front of me but I do remember seeing a poll in The Irish Times that was published only a number of weeks ago that showed opposition to changing the triple lock down and support for changing it up. I think, therefore, that the Irish people are well able to differentiate between military neutrality and amending our laws as to how we dispatch and deploy our troops overseas.

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.

I am not sure it was a majority, though.

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

That is good.

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?

The Tánaiste speaks about his electoral mandate, and there is no question about that. The basis of his party's mandate is its election manifesto, which referred to "preserving our long-standing policy of active military neutrality" and maintaining military neutrality. There was no mention of redefining that or getting rid of the triple lock. Therefore, the Tánaiste does not have a mandate for what he is trying to do. There was the vaguest hint and glance to making such a change in the Fianna Fáil manifesto, but it did not refer to repealing the triple lock. The Tánaiste's party made no such commitment. This is precisely the point. We are not claiming that the presidential election was a referendum on neutrality, pure and simple, but we want a referendum on neutrality. We want a referendum on the triple lock. We want the people to be able to decide. Why is the Tánaiste so scared of allowing the people to have their view and their say on this? I would like to ask the Tánaiste about one point of substance. He repeatedly speaks about "the principles of the UN Charter", which are also mentioned in the heads of the proposed legislation. That is deliberate, is it not? The Tánaiste will not speak about a commitment to abide by the UN Charter or the articles of the UN Charter. Instead, he refers purely to the vague and broad "principles" of Article 2, which do not bind the Government to stick to international law.

That is a space in which I am willing to and wanting to engage. I fully accept quite clearly that we do not agree on the issue of changing the role of the triple lock. I think the Deputy's position is to leave things as they are. I do not say that flippantly. I think that is the Deputy's position. My position is that we are going to change it. I am very happy to have a conversation about the substance of the legislation in terms of how we build in a degree of external oversight of the commitments that the legislation gives in relation to the UN Charter. I am very happy to do that. I am also happy to tease through the detail that the Deputy relayed in terms of the specificity of the UN Charter and how the legislation can look at that. I do not believe we can run back to the Irish people with a referendum on every piece of legislation. This is not an attempt to change Ireland's position on military neutrality; it is an attempt to change how we dispatch peacekeeping troops overseas. We would be shirking our own responsibilities as legislators who are sent here to get on with the business of debating, and who are trusted by our constituents to do that in a considerable-----

The context is the commitments in past referendums.

To military neutrality, which has not changed.

No, to the triple lock.

The triple lock.

I ask the Deputies to allow the Tánaiste to answer.

I would like make a point about last year's general election. This gets mentioned a lot. In fairness to my predecessor, who is now Taoiseach, the process and the policy process of changing the triple lock was advanced in the previous Government. The Deputies will remember the comments of Micheál Martin in the previous Government. When we then went before the people - Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael - we were clearly not indicating that we were going to change that position. We had only articulated it a couple of months earlier. This Government and the previous Government have been quite clear on this. I think a majority of Irish people will come with us in relation to this issue. I think they differentiate between that issue and the question of military neutrality, as they should because I am massively in favour of military neutrality as well. I welcome the recognition from the Opposition today that we are not going to extrapolate every policy issue for the next four years on the basis of an overinterpretation of the results of the presidential election.

2. Deputy Sinéad Gibney asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the status of the multi-role vessel programme, and rationale for any change from multi-role vessels to multi-role combat vessels in the context of the reduced ability of multi-role combat vessels to provide humanitarian assistance and disaster relief domestically and internationally; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [60447/25]

We have been talking about the replacement of our Navy ships and upgrading our fleet for some years. Throughout it all our focus has been on multi-role vessels, MRVs, as they are the best equipped to do what our Navy does best in providing humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. Are we now pivoting to multi-role combat vessels, MRCVs, as has been reported, which marks a shift away towards a more aggressive naval policy?

The short answer is "No". I was enquiring about this recently. I have seen some media speculation in relation to this. I have been honest with the House. A major opportunity and challenge for the Defence Forces is going to be to secure a multi-role vessel programme and the upgrading of that. That is where the focus is and will remain. I am happy to provide that clarity. My priority as Minister for Defence is to ensure the operational capability of the Army, the Air Corps and the Naval Service is maintained and developed further in order to enable the Defence Forces to carry out the roles assigned by the Government. The capital funding of €1.7 billion allocated to defence in the latest national development plan up to 2030 represents an increase of €600 million on the previous baseline of €1.1 billion. The revised capital allocations will enable targeted progression on key elements of our commitments to get to level of ambition 2. The Commission on the Defence Forces specifically recommended a programme of naval vessel replacement under level of ambition 2 to ensure a balanced fleet of modern ships, including a multi-role vessel, is reached in the next decade. This recommendation has been accepted in principle by the Government. Preliminary work with respect to the consideration of this recommendation with the support of marine advisers is currently under way and nearing conclusion and will inform the next steps in this regard. The Naval Service currently has a fleet of eight commissioned vessels. These eight vessels consist of two P50 class large patrol vessels, four P60 class offshore patrol vessels and two P70 inshore patrol vessels. Capital investment in the Naval Service vessel renewal and replacement programme is ongoing. The programme of works for the midlife refit and upgrade of the two P50 class vessels has been completed. Two P70 class inshore patrol vessels purchased from the New Zealand Government were commissioned into State service as LÉ Aoibhinn and LÉ Gobnait in 2024. The Deputy will be aware of the challenges faced by the Naval Service in recent years, and to this end I have instructed the Defence Forces to develop a regeneration plan for the Naval Service which I expect to receive in the coming weeks. This will allow for the plotting of a path forward for the future direction of the Naval Service. It is not my intention to advance the procurement of a multi-role combat vessel, but rather to address the recommendation in terms of the multi-role vessel programme.

I am comforted to hear that we are not going to invest as a State in multi-role combat vessels because my key concern is that we have a long-established priority to acquire multi-role vessels, which give us a flexible fleet that is capable of surveillance and humanitarian functions. They are vital for maritime disaster relief, our capacity for peacekeeping and our ability as an island nation with a volunteer Coast Guard to respond to the needs of people in case of emergency. In delicate peacekeeping and humanitarian situations, multi-role vessels are much less likely to be met with resistance than an armed warship and have much more flexibility in the assistance that we can provide. I do not deny that we need serious investment in our Defence Forces, but we need to be clear on what we are trying to achieve because multi-role combat vessels would not deliver our humanitarian and disaster relief aspirations. They would limit us to a much more aggressive role at a huge cost to the Exchequer. We are currently unable to staff the ships that we have. Combat vessels are bigger and more expensive, require more specialised staff and are more expensive to run. I have not heard any discussion on the opportunity cost of going down that path. I am glad to hear that it is not on the agenda. The Tánaiste listed off some technical names of vessels. Will he clarify that none of those are combat vessels?

I am conscious when I read out the answers that a lot of these numbers and the likes are quite technical for people following this debate. I largely agree with what the Deputy has said. The replacement of the flagship LÉ Eithne with a multi-role vessel is what is provided for in the equipment development programme. It is also what is provided for in the recommendations of the Commission on the Defence Forces. That is the plan. The equipment development plan is a living document. We continue to review it. We continue to update it based on the level of funding available, organisational priorities and timing issues. The Defence Forces are currently re-evaluating all their strategic equipment and infrastructural priorities to align with the revised capital allocation they have received. The Naval Service vessel renewal and replacement programme will be progressed in accordance with this. The Naval Service currently has a fleet of eight vessels. Four of the vessels are regularly deployed on maritime defence and security operations. These four vessels are the three P60 class vessels and the LÉ Aoibhinn, which is a P71. All four vessels conduct patrols on a rotation basis. I will set this out to the Deputy in a note, but the answer to her closing question is "No, they are not".

None of them are combat vessels; excellent. We need to have a candid conversation about sub-sea infrastructure and the shadow fleet because that is the other context in which this arises. We could have the finest combat vessels available patrolling every inch of Irish waters, but most of the sub-sea infrastructure we are talking about also runs outside of our territorial waters. In those situations, we would be completely unable to do anything to protect those cables, no matter what kind of ships we had. We know this because it has happened on the edges of the waters of NATO member states in the Baltics. While combat vessels may provide an opportunity to virtue signal to other EU countries about our willingness to take part in an arms race, the reality is that our capacity and fleet is best served by equipping them for humanitarian and disaster relief and surveillance. MRVs can monitor cables and foreign vessels and can also save lives on a scale that MRCVs cannot. It is comforting to hear that there are no plans to invest in combat vessels. I will be holding the Tánaiste to account on that.

I thank Deputy Gibney very much. The point she raised around undersea cables - we may have a question on it later - is an important one because we need to have a better awareness of what is happening below our seas. The MRV programme can do that as can the radar programme. The rollout of that radar programme is priority one, two and three. It is a programme that will start to be rolled out in 2026. It will be fully rolled out by 2028, to have a better awareness of what is happening below our waters because we would all have an awareness, a very quick and clear awareness, if something went wrong in that space as well, and not just here but right across other parts of Europe. We have an obligation to ourselves and to the global community, particularly in our exclusive economic zone, EEZ, and to co-operate and collaborate in that space. I am very conscious, cognisant and satisfied all of that can happen within the current capital upgrade programmes being planned by the Defence Forces and the current levels of operation at an EU level that are consistent and in line with our military neutrality.

Question No. 3 in the name of Deputy Seán Crowe is being taken by Deputy Ó Laoghaire.

3. Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the current status of the procurement process for the military primary radar system; if rollout of the system will commence in 2026 and full operational status will be achieved by 2028; if there has been any change in the total cost of approximately €300 million for the programme; if the current training courses for such operations in the Defence Forces are compatible with the new system; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [60897/25]

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?

On this point we agree. A key priority for Ireland and our Defence Forces, our Naval Service and our country has to be to ensure we have as best an understanding as possible of what happens in our seas, below our waters. A key priority for me is to ensure the operational capacity of the Defence Forces is maintained and developed to get us to the level of ambition 2, LOA2, as defined by the Commission on the Defence Forces, CODF. The CODF recommended the development of a primary radar capability to ensure that Ireland can maintain a complete "recognised air picture" and that this should be an immediate and top priority. There are three elements to the military radar programme: the land based long range primary radar; the ground based air defence, GBAD, systems, to include a counter-unmanned aerial systems, C-UAS; and the maritime ship-borne radar. This programme of work is ongoing and I am pleased to tell the Deputy that good progress has been made. When fully delivered, the recognised air picture will incorporate this suite of military radar systems, which will have the capability to detect all aircraft traversing our airspace, including any that may be operating with their transponders turned off. Full delivery of the programme will be complex because it needs to be rolled out in a sequential area. This has been prioritised with a target date of 2028 identified in the detailed implementation plan. That being said - and this is an important message for everybody to know - elements of this capability will be rolled out in phases, starting in 2026. Our radar capacity will increase from 2026 and will be fully completed by 2028. My Department has engaged with a number of countries, including all EU member states, to ascertain their interest in supporting Ireland to deliver this capability. Based on the responses received, earlier this year I directed my officials to commence bilateral discussions with a small number of countries, with a view to assessing options for delivery. These bilateral discussions have now concluded and technical assessments of the various options for delivery of the entire programme are very close to finalisation. I anticipate that this phase of the programme will conclude before the end of this year, with the Government decision before the end of this year as well.

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?

Yes, we do. I take the point on the value for money or good value for the taxpayer. I will update the House once we get to the point where we place contracts and the like. Obviously, securing value for money is important. The only priority above that is securing this. That is why I think wise decisions were taken in years before my occupation of this office to put in place structures where we could engage with other governments in other countries, particularly, but not exclusively, in the European Union, which may have the ability to provide this equipment to us in a quicker manner. Speed and value are absolutely key priorities. I expect to be in a position to update the Government on this very shortly and once I have done that, I will be very happy to update the Deputy, the House and the Oireachtas committee. All capital expenditure associated with the delivery of the programme will be met from within the capital allocations 2026 to 2030, which were recently agreed as part of the review of the national development plan. We are at a critical stage now in terms of this project and, pending a final decision on the options of delivery, it would be premature for me to make any further comment on likely costs. Training needs will be determined and delivered as part of the delivery of the programme also.

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?

The information available to me is that the existing personnel's training needs will be the priority. Training needs will be determined and delivered as part of the delivery of the programme and will encompass equipment level training, including maintenance, as well operational and tactical level training. Training and upskilling our current personnel as opposed to additional specialist personnel is the information available to me. On sequencing, obviously I want to be transparent and helpful but also respect, as we all do, the security-sensitive deliberations in relation to the rollout of any programme being rolled out to increase our own national security. Planning and preparations for our Presidency of the European Union are well under way and the phased early delivery of elements of the military radar programme in 2026 may form part of these preparations. A key focus, and a key early focus of the programme, should be our counter unmanned aerial system capability. We have a structure in place to keep the Oireachtas committee up to date and we will do that in a sensitive and appropriate way.

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]

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.

The first thing I will say, and I know we will all join in this, is that debates about triple locks and all that are terribly important but in the here and now there are men and women being deployed overseas. I had the honour of reviewing the 127th battalion that is heading out as part of the UNIFIL mission to southern Lebanon imminently, this month. We thank the 362 men and women of Óglaigh na hÉireann for that. I make that point because we get to talk about things in the abstract here. These are 362 men and women who are going to contribute to our very long, decades-old peacekeeping involvement in southern Lebanon. On the broad issue of recruitment and the impact of recruitment and numbers for the security and defence of the country, our programme for Government sets out a number of commitments relating to national security as well as priorities for recruitment and retention in the Defence Forces. In this regard, the previous Government approved a move to a Permanent Defence Force capability equivalent to level of ambition 2, which requires us to get to an establishment figure of 11,500, including a civilian component, by 2028. To support this and the implementation of related measures, the recent budget provided a record allocation of €1.49 billion for the defence sector, an increase of €145 million on 2025. These funds include, among other things, a provision for the recruitment of a net 400 additional Permanent Defence Force members per annum. In order to meet Government targets, the Defence Forces are making concerted efforts to ramp up recruitment. Last year, for the first time in a long time, there was a stabilisation in numbers, with 708 inductions to the Permanent Defence Force and discharges of 674. That was the first year for a long time there was a net increase, albeit small, in personnel. I am pleased to say that signs for the year to date give cause for further positivity - I was briefed on this by the Chief of Staff yesterday. Application numbers already exceed the total for last year and discharges are significantly fewer than this time last year. There are many more people applying and fewer people seeking to be discharged. We have tried to introduce a range of measures to support and bolster Defence Forces recruitment, and perhaps I can come back on them in a moment.

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.

By the end of April, the Defence Forces will have submitted to me, and I will publish, a workforce plan that shows how we get to where we need to be in terms of personnel by 2028. That will require a number of pinch points to be addressed. We are now seeing real interest in joining the Defence Forces. We can all take a sense of encouragement from the fact that people want to wear the uniform of Óglaigh na hÉireann and the numbers this year will be up on last year because more people are seeking to join and fewer people are seeking to leave the Defence forces this year than last. We still need a step change, and I fully accept that. We have introduced a range of measures. We have increased the maximum age of recruitment and the age of retirement. We have extended private secondary healthcare to all personnel. The application of the provisions of the working time directive, subject to certain exemptions, has been a very welcome development. We have brought about increases to the patrol duty allowance payable to Naval Service personnel. We have extended the Naval Service tax credit for a further five years. We have extended the service commitment scheme for pilots in the Air Corps to air traffic control personnel. We have engaged external expertise to support recruitment into the Naval Service. We have introduced a professional structure payment allowance. We have seen a significant-----

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.

I am very open to the idea of a specialist pay review. I said that to the Deputy on a previous occasion. We will examine that in the context of the next national pay agreement, along with the workforce plan. The Deputy put forward a set of challenges as to why people sometimes leave parts of the public service. I put forward a different set of reasons. I referred to full employment, a vibrant private sector and foreign direct investment, which provide a huge opportunity for people with skills to work in a variety of different areas. On the broader issue of pay, we cannot say it enough to people considering joining the Defence Forces that we should debunk some of the myths. I am not referring to myths put forward by anybody here, but recruit pay in the Defence Forces on completion of training, which takes around 24 weeks, now starts at €41,880. A school-leaver cadet on commissioning starts at just over €45,000, rising to over €51,000 after two years. Where a graduate joins, the pay rate on commission begins at over €51,000. Challenges undoubtedly remain, but we are now seeing a record level of expenditure and pay because the personnel in Oglaigh na hÉireann are our best assets.

6. Deputy Barry Heneghan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the level of preparedness within the Defence Forces to respond to cyber or physical interference via subsea communication cables; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [60462/25]

This question has been asked twice already, so it is good that I have a clear insight. My question refers to the preparedness within the Defence Forces to respond to cyber and physical interference. I will discuss how we should strengthen our interconnectivity in terms of not only data but also electricity. The Minister knows I want our system to be decentralised and for there to be private wires. I want an update on the readiness of our Defence Forces.

I thank Deputy Heneghan for continually raising this matter since his election to the House. My colleague the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration has the lead role for cyber security and the Department receives inputs in the security domain from An Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces. The National Cyber Security Centre, which, as is appropriate, is now part of that Department, is the authority responsible for cybersecurity in the State, including incident response, cyber resilience and information provision. To develop this cyber defence capability, the Defence Forces have established a joint cyber defence command. This new command will be capable of conducting the full spectrum of cyber defence operations at home and overseas, to enhance national cyber defence resilience and contingent capabilities. Additional staff have been approved to resource cyber command in achieving its initial operational capacity. Turning specifically to the offshore infrastructure to which the Deputy referred, my officials continue to engage with the Departments of Climate, Energy and the Environment and communications on the protection of Ireland’s offshore infrastructure. The Defence Forces routinely carry out monitoring and surveillance of Ireland’s exclusive economic zone, EEZ, using our Naval Service assets and Air Corps maritime patrol aircraft. In addition to at-sea monitoring, the naval operations command centre in Haulbowline carries out remote monitoring 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I look forward to visiting it this month to be further briefed and view its work. Challenges with putting ships to sea have been well documented and were discussed in the House earlier. This year, we are seeing the benefits of a number of initiatives I have overseen, such as the patrol duty allowance, with the number of patrol days to date having exceeded the total number of patrol days completed in 2024. We have already seen more ships at sea for more days at sea this year than we did over the whole of last year. The Naval Service continues to maintain a constant presence in the Irish EEZ. Earlier this year, I approved the Defence Forces' participation in the common information sharing environment, CISE. This will support better monitoring and surveillance of growing threats at sea and will help improve the Defence Forces maritime domain awareness. In other words, we exchange information with other European countries. This will be of significant importance to our maritime security.

I thank the Minister for the update. Saturday is the one-year anniversary of the death of former Senator Billy Lawless, on the day the general election was called. I want to put on the record of the House that his previous PA is working with my team. In her words, there is not much to say about him but simply that it was a huge pleasure to have worked with him and he was one of a kind. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam. This issue is important because the economy and our infrastructure now depend heavily on undersea cables and other hidden networks. As an island, we are uniquely vulnerable, something I know the Minister is well aware of. Therefore, the ability of the Defence Forces' ability to respond to cyber and physical interference is a matter of national security and resilience. The private wire piece will help in this regard when paired with long-duration energy storage, which we are discussing in the climate and energy committee. It will strengthen our national security by reducing our dependence and decentralising our current energy system. It will create micro grids across the country in specific areas with hospitals and schools that need energy, in case we ever come under attack or suffer damage to our cables, although we hope we never will.

I thank Deputy Heneghan for reminding us of the forthcoming anniversary of Senator Lawless, a man I had the honour and privilege of knowing and serving with in these Houses. He was a man that my predecessor, Enda Kenny, was honoured to appoint to Seanad Éireann. He served with distinction in the Seanad but he also served with distinction beyond the Seanad, both as an incredible businessman and an incredible advocate for Irish people in America, most particularly in Chicago. I know he had very close links with the Obama Administration. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam dílis. We think of him and his family and the Deputy's member of staff at this time. The point the Deputy makes is right and I will ask my defence advisers to give further consideration to that. I ran out of time the last time but I did want to say that we have just announced the signing of a multimillion euro contract with Thales DMS for the provision of towed sonar capability for the Defence Forces. That, too, is going to make a big difference in terms of our security because the new sonar capability will now be used on Irish naval vessels to monitor activities in the Irish exclusive economic zone, in particular in the vicinity of our subsea communication cables or our gas pipelines. As I said in response to an earlier question, work is also ongoing on the development of radar capability. I will keep the Deputy up to date.

I thank the Tánaiste for his kind words. Back to the same point, I am delighted to hear about the investments going into protecting our offshore infrastructure. However, in relation to the benefits of private wires not only will it help the investments the Government will be making but it will allow critical infrastructure, businesses and communities, to generate and use power locally. By creating those semi-independent energy hubs, they can then operate off the grid if our grid is ever physically attacked or there is a cyberattack. By decentralising the supply and removing the single points of failure of our offshore supply, private wires make Ireland's overall energy system more resilient, more secure and far better. It will also help with the housing crisis and it will help with the cost per unit of electricity because we are increasing the supply and reducing the demand. Everyone will benefit from this. I met with the Office of Parliamentary Legal Advisers, OPLA, last week regarding my Bill and I hope to get support from across the House.

I thank the Deputy for his work on this and for his advocacy and the time he is putting into it. The Government largely agrees with his position on this. The Minister, Deputy O'Brien, leads for the Government in terms of the private wires legislation. I will ask that he keep in close contact with the Deputy in relation to this. The Deputy is right, however. I have been briefed on this and I, too, am convinced that this assists in relation to housing, energy costs and our ability to attract investment into Ireland. At a time when energy, energy security and energy supply is under such pressure - not just here but across the European Union - we need to be innovative, flexible and able to work in a number of different directions to try to get to where we need to get to. I will ask the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, to continue to liaise closely with the Deputy.