152. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if he will consider the introduction of service commitment schemes to retain key specialist functions within the Defence Forces and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18075/25]

Sentiment score: 0.18

We all share a great deal of concern about the challenges faced by the Defence Forces in recruitment and retention. It is severe right across the organisation but it is felt most keenly in the area of specialist staff such as air traffic controllers, engineers and explosive ordnance disposals officers. This is a major challenge. There is a lot of competition from the private sector. We need to consider this and how we retain some of this crucial staff.

Sentiment score: 0.23

Much of the Tánaiste's response related more to the recruitment side of things. We have a significant challenge in that regard and we are not out of the woods by any manner of means.

Sentiment score: 0.14

My specific question primarily relates to the retention of highly skilled people. I have put to the Tánaiste previously that much of the debate on this topic has been for an external audience. In truth, for all the big speeches, much of the substance of what is needed to ensure the sustainability of the Defence Forces is absent. The Tánaiste has been talking about fighter jets while we have sent boats to sea in recent months without a functioning main gun because we do not have artificers to operate it. I understand that whole classes have come out of some of the schemes and all but two or three of them have been bought out by major private sector firms. I understand that in recent weeks, three or four people involved in air traffic control at Baldonnel have left the Defence Forces, which creates potentially significant difficulties for the Air Corps and the Government jet. If the Tánaiste would comment on that, I would welcome it. The problem I am identifying is in retaining staff. We need to consider schemes to ensure that personnel are retained and not taken by the private sector.

Sentiment score: 0.20

As I understand it, the scheme to which the Tánaiste referred relates specifically to pilots.

Sentiment score: 0.00

The Defence Forces face challenges. If anybody is going to be decoupling the issues of pay and recruitment, it certainly will not be me. It is very much the case that they are linked. The point I am raising relates to the retention of existing staff and not recruiting new staff, which is also a challenge. Aside from the category that is covered by the service commitment, there are whole areas with significant problems. I will later ask the Tánaiste a question about cybersecurity. How are we going to be able to retain people, particularly in Ireland, with the number of tech companies here? How are we going to be able to retain people with cybersecurity expertise with the competition we could face? I have made a point about the issues relating to artificers. There are also issues in respect of explosive ordnance disposal officers. The cyber, tech, IT and pharmaceutical sectors are seeing staff members being trained by the State and the Defence Forces and understand the benefits of recruiting them. There is not enough in the Defence Forces to keep those personnel. These schemes have been used in the past. I encourage the Tánaiste to consider them in advance of the next budget so we can retain staff.

Sentiment score: 0.16

156. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if he will outline his proposals to remove the triple lock neutrality protection; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18077/25]

Sentiment score: 0.04

Yes.

Sentiment score: 0.40

My question is somewhat different from Deputy Gibney's, although hers makes an important distinction that needs to be made. People have been talking about the Security Council. There is no dispute that the world is changing. That is recognised. It is a question of what Ireland's place in this changing world is. If we remove the triple lock neutrality protection, we will potentially expose ourselves to significant external pressure to participate in missions that the Irish public does not wish to participate in and that, according to the Tánaiste's bona fides, he does not wish to either. It is a rash approach and one not in our strategic interests. Several of the examples given are not, in fact, covered by the triple lock. The triple lock was brought in in 1960 in respect of peacekeeping missions. The triple lock legislation and the defence Acts do not prevent the rescue of Irish civilians or prevent us participating in missions to intercept drugs or anything like that. To examples such as those given, we have no objection. The triple lock is the problem there.

Sentiment score: -0.07

There was not a person in Ireland who wanted us to withdraw troops from the Golan Heights or was in favour of that, and that was done for budgetary reasons. That was for budgetary reasons because of the Government. That was the primary obstacle. The last time Irish troops were pulled out of a peacekeeping mission, it was entirely the decision of the Irish Government and it was not informed by anything to do with the triple lock. I do not think that particular example bears it out. I would again make the point that it is not the case that there are some UN missions that will go ahead without us because of the triple lock that we would otherwise like to participate in. There are no UN missions without the UN mandate. The UN is imperfect but the point is that if we are talking about participating in UN missions without a UN mandate, we are talking about participating in non-UN missions. We are talking about participating in missions without knowing what kind of missions they are. The Minister talked about conflating the two issues. The Irish public can be forgiven for that, given the context of the various referenda and the statements of successive Irish Governments, primarily made up of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, which made that connection themselves during the course of referenda when arguing that the triple lock was a crucial protection for neutrality. That was the argument made then. I think the Irish people can be forgiven for remembering that.

Sentiment score: 0.06

What is the timeline for that?

Sentiment score: 0.00

154. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence to outline, further to recent Dáil debates, his views on past health and safety measures in the Air Corps, and potential engagements with interested groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18076/25]

Sentiment score: 0.26

Over the course of many years, it seems many Air Corps personnel, primarily young working-class people who took jobs in the maintenance department of the Air Corps, were exposed to very hazardous and dangerous conditions with very few, or effectively no, safety precautions, certainly nothing by way of masks, adequate ventilation and so on. There are huge concerns about the health implications this has for those former personnel, and I will detail that later. I want to specifically ask the Minister if he has engaged with any of those affected or their representative groups and how he intends to ensure their health is safeguarded and supported.

Sentiment score: 0.56

I do not accept that for one second. Over many years, this House has dealt with many issues that have been proceeding through the courts and the State rightly did not intervene as between the two different parties or try to disturb the process of the courts. However, that is totally separate from whether the State itself identifies that there is a policy issue and a need for a policy response in relation to a category of people without interfering in the court process. That has happened numerous times, for example, with regard to the Magdalen laundries and different things like that where schemes were set up. There is nothing at this moment in time to prevent the Minister, without interfering in court cases, from engaging with representatives of those who were affected to ask what the State can do in terms of an examination of the health outcomes. The best example, although it may not be perfect, is the one I gave from Australia, the Study of Health Outcomes in Aircraft Maintenance Personnel, SHOAMP, which identified the implications because personnel were facing serious issues.

Sentiment score: 0.09

I put the Tánaiste on notice that I will be bringing this up again in six weeks and six weeks after that too. I am going to continue to pursue this. I would like it if we could bracket the State Claims Agency part and put that to one side because that is not what I am talking about. That needs to proceed and I hope it works out well, or as well as possible, for those affected. One of the key points is that not everybody can afford to take the State to court. One of the organisations representing people is the Air Corps Chemical Abuse Survivors, ACCAS. It does not comprise clinicians, and I am not a clinician, but it has identified 97 untimely deaths, and I believe it has used that phrase deliberately and carefully. It will take a health study to identify what can be connected or what is connected to chemical exposure but it seems to me, given that a direct connection was found in Australia and the Netherlands, these men, as it is almost exclusively men, perhaps with one or two women, were exposed to very dangerous chemicals. A lot of them are really sick. Many of them have died, and their families and friends believe they did so prematurely. This is very serious. I encourage the Tánaiste to engage with the ACCAS and any other relevant people to try to find a policy solution, aside from the courts solution.

Sentiment score: -0.01