I fully agree with the Deputy. We can all see that we are living in a very changed world and a more complex world, particularly when it comes to our overall security environment. That being said, I want to make it absolutely clear that the Government has no desire to change our position and our policy of military neutrality. This is something that is long-standing and something that the vast majority of people in this country support. However, it is my intention and the intention of Government to change the terms of how our Defence Forces can be deployed overseas. I, and I think many colleagues in this House, believe that it is untenable to continue with the current policy. Essentially, we have a situation whereby other countries, many of which are at war or in conflict at the moment, are able to make a decision that impacts on our sovereign decision-making process when it comes to where and how we deploy our troops. That position is untenable. Any considerations on international peacekeeping engagements should be within Ireland's exclusive sovereign control. It should be our own decision-making process and it should be purely within the remit of Government here so that we can have these debates in the Oireachtas with people who have been democratically elected by the people of this country. This is a very strong belief and firm view that I have. I thank the committee for the excellent work it did on the pre-legislative scrutiny. This legislation has gone through a number of stages at this point. I have considered carefully a number of recommendations from the report and brought this to Cabinet recently. Drafting work is under way to progress some of the recommendations, specifically around the international obligations but also in terms of annual reporting. I accept that where one element is removed from what has been a long-standing process, we have to make sure that any mechanism we have in the Oireachtas and across the committees has a level of oversight and scrutiny. What was stressed by the committee is that in any changes that are made, it is very clear that any peacekeeping mission that will be approved will be in line with and grounded firmly by the principles of the UN Charter and international law. That is something the committee has stated very clearly.

Sentiment score: 0.30

The Deputy said this is about protecting future Governments that might decide to deploy our troops to missions that are not based on the UN Charter and are not upholding and protecting fundamental principles of international law. What I am saying very clearly is that the legislation would have this enshrined in it. It would be very clear as to how and when our troops could be deployed. There would be a level of oversight within the Oireachtas. It would have to be voted through by a democratically elected Government. There would also be a level of oversight within the committee, depending on when or how many troops are being deployed. That would also be included in the legislation. We have a situation emerging at the moment. We now have some of the final members from the 128th Infantry Battalion who are going out to UNIFIL. That mission has not been continued because we know it would have been vetoed. If it had been vetoed and if a vote had gone through last year, our troops would have had to have left immediately. Decades-long service of Lebanon peacekeeping troops would have ended immediately. We would have had no ability to send our troops back unless we had a new mission put in place, be it a common security and defence policy, CSDP, mission, which is something at which we are looking at the moment. Moreover, and on top of that, we now have another mission, Operation Irini, that we are looking at very carefully but which very soon, in the coming weeks, could come to an end because it looks as though that mandate is not going to be renewed. What we want that mandate for is to be able to monitor the shadow fleet in our waters that is causing huge challenges and that is funding the war in Ukraine. There is also a potential environmental disaster looming with any of these ships. How do we know it is going to be blocked? We know the Russian person who is perpetrating these crimes is on the committee and is able to do it. The idea that Russia would be able to stop us from keeping our troops on a mission in the Mediterranean that would monitor what are illegal ships is absolutely crazy. It is crazy that we are in a situation that, as a country, we cannot deploy our troops because a country like Russia is going to be able to stop us.

Sentiment score: -0.01

The first thing to say is that any change to our triple lock does not change our position of neutrality. Our position of neutrality is about joining military alliances. If we are to deploy troops under this new legislation, it would have to align with, adhered to and be firmly grounded in the principles of the UN Charter and international law. That would be our law, so to do anything other than that would be to breach our law. This would be overseen by committees and by the Chamber. We fully support the UN. I make this point every single time I engage with it at an international level and it knows that. However, we know that the structure is not working at the moment. The fact is Russia would able to stop a mission that is currently under way in the Mediterranean in which our troops participate. They do a really important job in terms of arms. We want to now use that mission to be able to monitor the Russian shadow fleets - an illegal fleet that is funding an illegal war and a maritime disaster ready to happen. The fact that Russia would be able to block that does not make any sense. It is taking away our sovereign ability to make a decision as to where we send our troops but it is also stopping us from doing what we should be doing and that is monitoring its illegal activity and making sure we do everything in our power to stop it from being able to wage the war it is waging and possibly more beyond that. In terms of making it clear around the overall missions, again, it would not be within our power to send our troops to anything other than peacekeeping missions or, as we have seen in recent times because of the conflicts happening around the world, where we need to get people out safely. That is something we really need to be able to do.

Sentiment score: -0.05

I fully agree. The world is changing. We need to expand our Defence Forces. We need to enhance our capabilities. However, we need to make sure we have the men and women in our Defence Forces to be able to operate and be able to grow in the way we need to. That means looking to retain those we have but also encouraging more and supporting our cadets as well. As the Deputy will be aware, there has been significant progress made more broadly in terms of pay and conditions for the Defence Forces personnel, particularly over the past six years. There has been a renewed focus, and rightly so, in making sure we increase pay and that the pay is reflective of the work and training that is happening. I met with representatives of RACO on 22 January 2026 and they, of course, raised the issue of cadet pay with me. It is an issue that is currently on the conciliation and arbitration agenda. I have agreed on top of that to give further consideration to the issue and the process that is ongoing. I outlined at that meeting, however, that any cost-increasing claims must be addressed within the parameters of public pay policy. I think we all know that but we want to make sure that structure is progressing and that claim is progressing as well. The Deputy will be aware as well that different pay scales apply during training, obviously, for different periods for cadets and recruits. The current pay scale applicable to cadets ranges from €26,248 to €39,026, depending on their qualification. In addition, cadets are provided with accommodation and meals free of charge for the duration of their training as part of their overall package. What is important here as well is that we are investing in where they are staying and where they are eating their meals. In the past two weeks alone, I opened quite a large new canteen facility, essentially, in the barracks in Dundalk. In the past two weeks, I also opened accommodation in Haulbowline for a significant number of new recruits. We want to make sure we are investing significantly in where they are staying, where they are being fed and where they are training and in their gym where they need to do their training. This year alone about €70 million is being spent specifically for accommodation. That is an investment in the men and women of our Defence Forces. At the same time, I appreciate that when it comes to overall pay and cadet pay, in particular, we need to make quicker progress through the conciliation and arbitration agenda. This is something on which I have committed to working with them.

Sentiment score: 0.26

I agree. I would like to see things move on. I would like to see a resolution as quickly as possible. It is obviously going through the process. Again, the current public service pay agreement to which the members of the Permanent Defence Forces are party provides for that local bargaining process. It provides for that 3% of basic pay, with the 1% to be paid from the current agreement and the balance to be addressed in any successor pay agreement. There is an opportunity beyond the current engagement to examine pay and conditions, including cadet pay, through that process. There is a number of different ways in which we can look at this. It is encouraging, not only for cadets. However, if you look at the number of applications for cadets in 2022, it was 1,297. If you fast-forward to this year, it is 2,878. We are seeing a significant increase in the number of applications, more broadly, across the Defence Forces. There were 16,500 applications last year and up to the end of March of this year alone, there have been 7,000. There is a significant increase in interest and I think it is because we are investing more. We are clear that we want to expand the Defence Forces. We want to invest in the men and women who are there but we want to invest in greater capabilities. There are more opportunities, be it in the Naval Service, the Air Corps or the Army, for people and that is reflected in the overall figures.

Sentiment score: 0.39

I stress that the claim was received by the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers. The claim is being dealt with under the conciliation and arbitration scheme for members of the Permanent Defence Forces. The Deputy will appreciate the discussions under the conciliation and arbitration scheme are confidential but I look forward to, and hope we can have, that constructive engagement and that conclusion reached as soon as possible. The Deputy is correct. There is quite a variation from €26,248 to €39,026. I would stress, however, that if you are a cadet coming in, your accommodation is paid for and your food is paid for. Obviously, for a lot of people, that would account for a significant portion of any wage that they would get on a weekly or a monthly basis. More broadly, we need to make sure we are doing everything that we can to focus on increased recruitment and retention. We have a defence sector working group, which was established to examine the representative associations' proposals. We are working with RACO and PDFORRA proposals under local bargaining. What that is doing is identifying measures to increase recruitment and retention, with a particular emphasis on the Naval Service because with the new national maritime security strategy and with the need for us to do more when it comes to maritime security, our focus on the Naval Service is important and the cadets within that. We are seeing an increase in numbers also.

Sentiment score: 0.17

I thank the Deputy for raising this. I acknowledge the Deputy's engagement around the issue. I welcome the opportunity to set out the position as it stands. As there are multiple ongoing cases before the courts, as I have stated previously, I am limited in terms of what I can say so that I do not prejudice any of the ongoing litigation. The Deputy has said previously that it is possible to discuss both but I always want to be careful in that regard. The advice available to me is that any view I have here needs to be carefully expressed so that we do not undermine the current process. Each claim has to receive the necessary case-specific analysis and consideration because what is clear is that each individual case is different to a certain extent. I had a number of briefs from my officials on this. I then requested further detailed analysis from them. I have received that and carefully considered it. I convened a meeting with the Attorney General, representatives from the State Claims Agency and officials from my Department to discuss the matter further, having sought various different advices. There are accusations that the State is prolonging legal proceedings as a deliberate tactic but that is not the case. It is important to stress that at every step of the way, the engagement that we have had, be it through the State Claims Agency working with individuals, has been to try to find a resolution and to work constructively with them. The State Claims Agency has confirmed to me that it has made representations to the legal representatives of the litigants to explore the possibility of mediation to find a resolution to this issue. This is the way we want to move forward - that we can mediate and find a way forward - but those approaches have been rejected pending the cases having been set down for hearing. I would encourage all those involved. We want to find a way forward. We do not want this to have to go to a court setting. There is an offer there from the State Claims Agency to work with it and with its legal representatives. We all want to find a mutually agreeable resolution, taking into consider what people have gone through and the current individual situation for those involved in this overall. I would encourage them to take up that offer and to engage more broadly with us.

Sentiment score: 0.21

There are 22 active cases before the courts, which we are trying to engage with. Like the Deputy, I want to understand whether this is something that is happening on a wider scale but at the same time, we have to identify whether or not there is a consistent pattern here. Work has been done within the Department to see whether this is something that has been happening on a broader scale and whether there is a consistent pattern beyond the 22 people the Deputy is talking about here, and even within those cases where there is not a consistent pattern in terms of health implications or issues that have come to the fore. I am not for a second disputing the fact that the people who we are engaging with have health concerns and have had health concerns. There has never been a dispute that there needed to be better measures in place in terms of health and safety, whether it was gloves or handling. Whether the exposure had the overall effect, as has been set out by the individuals in the 22 active cases, is what is being discussed and engaged with at present. I would encourage all those to engage further in a mediation process that we have been actively trying to pursue because I think this the best route to be able to come to a conclusion for all of the individuals concerned.

Sentiment score: 0.54

The Deputy referenced Australia. The case in Australia involved de-seal and reseal programmes. The maintenance workers were quite literally required to physically climb into fuel tanks of F111 fighter jets. They worked in extremely cramped conditions for extended periods with chronic confined exposure to concentrated hazardous substances. Nobody has suggested at any point that this is in any way aligned with the conditions in the Air Corps.

Sentiment score: 0.03

We have said very clearly that there need to be better health and safety standards. That is something that has been made very clear and those changes have been made. As the Deputy has outlined, we have a significant number of different conditions that have come to the fore with the litigants who have been mentioned. However, it has not yet been identified whether this was specific to the exposure.

Sentiment score: 0.38

I told the Deputy that there was a body of work being done initially to see if there is a connection. Is there an increased level of particular types of health complications? Was there an increased level within the Air Corps during that time because of that exposure?

Sentiment score: 0.18

That body of work is still under way at the moment. I do not think we can say this is the same as Australia.

Sentiment score: 0.00

That work is under way and I will bring that to the Dáil and to the Deputy's attention when I can. If people have been harmed here, I want to make sure we know about it. I also want to make sure that those involved in the process can engage with us and come to a conclusion on that process.

Sentiment score: 0.16