Apologies have been received from Deputy Catherine Callaghan. The joint committee is meeting with representatives of the veterans' associations for a discussion on the key issues affecting Defence Forces veterans. On behalf of the committee, I welcome Ms Maureen O’Brien, retired major general, and Mr. Billy Campbell, commandant, retired, Association of Retired Commissioned Officers, ARCO; Mr. Declan Sheridan, president, and Mr. Stephen Doyle, training and development officer, Irish Defence Forces Veterans Association, IDFVA; and Mr. Colm Campbell, chairperson; Mr. Cormac Kirwan, CEO; and Ms Audra Larkin, deputy CEO, Óglaigh Náisiúnta na hÉireann, ONE.

The format of the meeting is that I will invite major general O'Brien to make an opening statement on behalf of ARCO. This will be followed by Mr. Sheridan on behalf of IDFVA, and then Mr. Campbell on behalf of ONE. We will then move to questions from members of the committee. Each member has a seven-minute slot to ask questions and for the witnesses to respond.

I advise members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where he or she is not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask any members participating via Microsoft Teams that prior to making their contribution they formally confirm that they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.

Both members and witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction. Lastly, as the witnesses will probably be aware, the committee will publish their opening statements on the website following the meeting.

I invite major general O'Brien to deliver her opening statement.

As president of ARCO I thank the members for the invitation to brief the joint committee on the key issues affecting Defence Forces veterans from our perspective.

I am joined today by commandant Billy Campbell, retired, who is also a member of ARCO. ARCO was founded in 1993, initially to put in place a structure that would formally represent the interests of retired officers, including eligible spouses or civil partners, and children, in particular, to protect the value of military pensions. While our main focus has always been on pensions, we also engage in a wide range of issues, activities and events. Indeed, because of changes to officer’s pension arrangements, our membership is getting younger and many do not have a pension. Consequently the range of issues we address is growing.

ARCO is now a vibrant, evolving and flourishing representative association, providing a strong collective voice, advocating on behalf of retired commissioned officers, who are either fully retired or who remain active in the workplace with or without a military pension. We have almost 1,000 members.

ARCO encourages and fosters the unique solidarity and comradeship established during military service, and promotes and protects the interests and needs of members, and eligible spouses or civil partners, within its competencies. Internally, ARCO has provided a forum for analysis and debate, and the formulation of responses to anticipated developments that may impinge on the lives of retired officers. Externally, we establish and maintain pro-active involvement with kindred organisations and agencies. We provide a member of our executive committee to the Defence Forces benevolent fund’s executive committee, the council of the Alliance of Retired Public Servants as well as Cumann Árachais Oifeagach an Gnáth Airm, CAOGA. The primary role of CAOGA is to provide its members with the means to protect the long-term financial security of the member’s family in the event of the death of a key member of the family.

ARCO participates in, or represents retired officers at, State and Defence Forces ceremonial events, at national, regional and local levels. We engage with Government representatives, Departments and agencies. We present, within our competencies, presentations, submissions and statements on appropriate issues including defence, foreign affairs, veteran’s policy, remuneration, pensions and welfare.

The current focus of ARCO is the advancement of the combined veteran’s strategy produced by ARCO, ONE and Irish United Nations Veterans Association, IUNVA, in 2018. Recently, ARCO was delighted to receive a letter from the Tánaiste and then Minister for Defence, Simon Harris confirming that the Office of Veteran’s Affairs, OVA, was formally established on the 10 November. After many years of successful advocacy, ARCO recognises this decision as having significance across the veteran community. We view the establishment of the office as a commitment to supporting our veterans in recognition of the contribution and service they have made to the State. We look forward to working in partnership with the OVA and the other veteran’s groups to ensure that ex-service personnel receive the support and benefits to which they are entitled.

For the OVA to operate effectively, it is essential that a veterans policy is put in place, in particular in partnership with the recognised veteran representative bodies, Departments and State agencies.

I thank the Cathaoirleach for providing ARCO with an opportunity to meet with this committee and we look forward to responding to any questions or statements.

I am the president of the IDFVA. Our association to date represents over 900 members and we part of a broader veteran community of more than 140,000 individual veterans across Ireland and across the globe. We also integrate with veterans and their families; it is not just to do with veterans on their own. Since our founding in 2012, the IDFVA has worked to give a voice to veterans and address the unique challenges of those who have served. Veterans are our ambassadors for our Defence Forces, sharing our history and values with communities nationwide. Their continued engagement strengthens the bond between the Defence Forces and society. Many veterans will face major challenges, including limited recognition in defence policy, exclusion from key discussions, and rules around pensions and abatement that restrict their ability to serve in public roles.

We welcome the progress towards establishing a dedicated VAO and look forward to a comprehensive charter and forums to address health, welfare, and transition issues. The IDFVA was formed in response to the need for broader representation of veterans while exiting the Defence Forces and into their future. Our membership is open to all veterans of the Irish Defence Forces, permanent or reserve, regardless of gender, service location, or rank, provided they left with a conduct rating of “good” or, greater. Our association was founded by veterans who saw the need for more inclusive representation, working alongside ONE, IUNVA, ARCO, and all volunteer associations belonging to the Defence Forces. We provide a unified voice on key issues like homelessness, unemployment, addiction and mental health. With limited resources, we refer veterans needing specialised support to groups like ONE, where and when possible.

The IDFVA supports veterans through advocacy, job placement, vocational training, social inclusion and financial advice and guidance where possible.

The association is run entirely by volunteers relying on member subscriptions, donations and goodwill to sustain our work. We offer employment advice and skills training and promote veterans’ experience skills and knowledge to employers. We have served with pride and continue to support the Defence Forces and the nation, during the Covid-19 pandemic by providing logistics, collecting essentials and helping vulnerable members. In the international sphere, we actively collaborate with military associations both in Ireland and abroad to advance veterans’ causes and share best practices.

We engage on key issues affecting veterans. On policy inclusion, veterans’ perspectives are often missing from defence policy and decision-making, leading to unmet needs. On representation, veterans feel that there is a lack sufficient presence in national forums and policy documents, resulting in limited attention to their challenges. On the upcoming OVA and veterans charter, any charter must fully address veterans’ needs, providing clear support and consistent treatment for them and their families. We are concerned about re-employment barriers. Abatement rules discourage veterans from public sector jobs by reducing pensions, wasting valuable expertise and skills. These are lost to the public service when they go into the private sector. On pension injustice, veterans’ pensions are unfairly reduced at age 66 years, unlike other State employees. Restoring full pension rights would correct this and have minimal financial impact. Another issue is support gaps. Transitioning to civilian life is difficult due to gaps in health, welfare and social integration services.

Our proposals include an integrated digital veterans card, which would be a single card for healthcare, transport, veterans ID and, where possible, discounts and other benefits for veterans to improve their financial lives. We also propose to establish an independent group to review and award medals for acts of courage and service.

We would emphasise the importance of leveraging veterans’ skills for the benefit of the State. Veterans bring a wealth of skills, leadership qualities and experience back into the public service. Their unique backgrounds make them valuable assets in a range of roles. We would ask that a minimum of 5% of all public service roles be ring-fenced for veterans. This would allow them to utilise their skills and support their transition to civilian employment while also enriching the public sector.

Last but not least, we would raise the issue of honouring veterans with the national flag in death. The Irish tricolour is a powerful symbol of service, sacrifice and national pride. Every veteran should have the right to the national flag draped over their coffin as a final mark of gratitude. The flag should then be respectfully folded and presented to the family as a lasting tribute to their loved ones. This dignified gesture visibly honours veterans, demonstrates national appreciation and reinforces our commitment to those who have served.

I would like to thank the committee for its attention and for the opportunity to represent the voices of Ireland’s Defence Forces veterans. I am happy to answer any questions when the chance comes.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to talk about issues affecting veterans of the Defence Forces. As veterans, we always remember those who lost their lives on peacekeeping operations or on operations at home. The greatest respect that we can pay the fallen is to take care of the living. This morning, I want to reference: support services; our veterans; policy; finance; and what we can do together.

ONE was formed to address the consequences of the major demobilisation after the Emergency and has evolved into a charity that seeks to address the needs of veterans in the 21st century. To meet these needs, ONE has 31 branches, 15 veteran support centres for advice and support, and homes for homeless veterans in Athlone, Cobh, Dublin and Letterkenny. We are undertaking phase 2 of our expansion plan with the addition of 18 single en suite bedrooms across three new homes at a cost of over €3.5 million in Cork city, Limerick city and Newbridge. Phase 3 will see the development of further homes in Galway and Louth, leading to a total of 81 single bedrooms in nine houses by the end of 2027. Over 1,100 veterans have been housed by ONE since our first home opened, with in excess of 90% of those moving on to permanent accommodation.

We have six veteran support officers, or counsellors, of whom four are in partnership with the HSE. These are qualified counsellors who provide nationwide support to struggling veterans. Our plan is to have seven veteran support officers funded by the HSE by the end of 2026, which is our 75th anniversary. Since September, our 24-7 helpline has been funded by the HSE. Our counsellors, 24-7 helpline and houses are available to all 145,000 veterans of the Defence Forces.

The needs of our veterans will never remain static and ONE must continue to evolve and build on the excellent work of our predecessors over the last 75 years. We are undertaking research to help guide us in that process, in particular the further development of other support services.

To understand the requirement for support services, it is important that we have a parallel understanding of our veterans. People volunteer to join the Defence Forces to defend our country, protect vulnerable communities at home and overseas and support the other institutions of State. History teaches us that defence and security do not just happen. It demands people of character and competence. It requires sacrifice and generations of men and women willing to volunteer to serve their country. By definition, sacrifice involves giving up something truly precious for the benefit of others and we honour that sacrifice in how we care for our veterans in their time of need.

The needs of our veterans developed from difficult situations and the circumstances in which some veterans now find themselves are real and challenging. While the vast majority of veterans are very successful in new careers or adjust very well to retirement, there are many who need our continued support. This is due to family breakup; homelessness; mental health issues; addiction and dual diagnosis; the impact of institutionalisation and other issues impacting the transition to civilian life; trauma; loneliness; and the risk of suicide.

The recognition of service is also important and, by way of example, the decision to restrict the award of the 1916 centenary commemorative medal to those who served during 2016 failed to acknowledge the outstanding service of veterans to the State and its Defence Forces.

Veteran support services are delivered through the tripartite framework of policy, strategy and service delivery. ONE believes that these services must be reflected in government policy and what we have found is that the creation of the service on the ground is helping to drive policy. We define veterans’ policy as a declaration of the Government’s political activities, plans and intentions relating to veterans of the Defence Forces.

It is hoped that the recently announced establishment of the Office of Veteran Affairs at the strategic level will lead to the development of veterans’ policy in partnership with the veterans’ organisations, Departments and State agencies. We again call for the establishment of a national veteran support bureau to co-ordinate service delivery. Much of the veteran support network is in place but it lacks the capability of a central hub. This leads to a lack of uniformity in service delivery and gaps in support for veterans. A national veteran support bureau, located in the GPO, would ensure adequate provision of services and act as a one-stop-shop for immediate support services for veterans of the Defence Forces.

Military service is synonymous with danger and risk, and that deserves a corresponding policy-based commitment by the Government when things go wrong. In simple terms, those who serve today must know that they will be cared for tomorrow.

The Government recently committed to increasing investment in defence to address the change in the security landscape. The recent budget saw an increase of approximately €145 million, with a record €1.5 billion allocated to defence funding in 2026. While we welcome this, it is correspondingly important to increase investment in support services for those who have served our country. I used the term "investment" deliberately because we must move from donating to investing in our veterans. Investment implies that there is a return, and that return is service to our country.

The annual operational costs of ONE are approximately €1.7 million, of which €792,000 or 46.6% is from the State. The future operational costs are estimated at about €2 million, and we are seeking to move to about 63% of that being State funding.

Honouring those who have served is not just about what we say at commemorations or at meetings like this one this morning. It is about how we honour our veterans every day of the year. It is remaining committed to providing support in every way that we possibly can. It is about service that is serving them as well as they have served our country. I use the term "we" deliberately because it is a collective and shared responsibility. It is not about blaming others or simply hoping for a solution. Blaming others is not a strategy and hope is not a course of action; rather, it is waiting for someone else to do something. We are not helpless spectators and the veterans who need our support do not have the luxury of waiting. We must repay their service by working together and ensuring that no Irish veteran is left behind.

I thank the witnesses for coming in this morning and for their opening statements. In relation to the letter indicating that the office of veterans affairs is being set up, which was received ten days ago, is there any indication as yet that there will be scope within the new office for an input into policy formation, as the witnesses have all sought? I know it is early days, but I would be very interested in an initial response on that. Whoever wishes to have a go can respond. The reference was in ARCO's statement so perhaps Ms O'Brien could respond.

We are very hopeful. It is promising that the organisation has been set up. We did not know how this was going to progress until it was set up. There was no strategy towards anything. The next thing is the new policy. Deputy Smith mentioned a veterans' charter type of thing. We are optimistic. We were not as optimistic before but we are now.

Has there been an indication within the letter that the veterans' organisations will be called in?

All the different veterans' associations meet the Department on a quarterly basis. Sometimes we brief it and sometimes it briefs us. Now, we are expecting the Department to start talking to us. It will be a partnership, not a case of "us and them". That is what we are hoping for. In fairness to the members who are in the Department of Defence, they now have a reason to be more active and spontaneous with this. We are very hopeful and optimistic.

That is good. In the final presentation, it was stated that there would be a one-stop-shop bureau - wherever it would be located. Presumably there is a chance to get to something like that through the OVA.

All the veterans' organisations have advocated collectively on this basis for the establishment of the office of veterans affairs. It has been about 11 years in gestation. We advocated for it first in 2014. We are delighted that it is coming about. We see it as the key enabler. It has to be in place first before it can help to create the policy above it and the service delivery below it. We see it operating at a strategic level. As Ms O'Brien said, we have had two meetings with the Department of Defence so far on its creation alone, plus the other meetings we had beforehand. The vast majority of issues affecting veterans do not reside within the Department of Defence. They are in housing, mental health and social protection. We see the office of veterans affairs, like in all other countries, working across Departments in a whole-of-government approach because that is the only thing that will solve this.

I may be a bit out of line with this question, but we are now nearing the end of a decade where the Minister for Defence has simultaneously held another brief, and that continues with the new briefs. Do the witnesses think the Minister holding two briefs impacts the ability to progress Defence Forces policy or actions?

I will not answer for the other associations but I will stick to veterans' issues in my comments and not current issues affecting the Defence Forces. An Tánaiste mentioned in this House on 18 September that he expects the Minister of State at the Department of Defence to eventually take on the portfolio of veterans as well. That is where we would like to see this go.

If I could give an example, this committee in Canada is titled the National Security, Defence and Veteran Affairs committee, so we could actually start with this committee.

That is very interesting. Does Mr. Sheridan wish to comment?

In relation to the portfolio held by the Minister for Defence, in most cases there were two portfolios. Over recent years, it always seemed like the defence one was the lesser portfolio. The person had two roles to deal with. Veterans try to come in on the coattails of defence, and in fairness, it was an impossible task. The establishment of a veterans affairs office is a massive opening to get our voice across, to explain the situation with veterans and how they have found themselves after service. Perhaps there are issues that should have been addressed but were not addressed and we can address them now.

The other thing I have seen since this has happened is that the associations themselves have become more bonded together and more unified moving forward. We have all got the same goals and objectives. The key top ten goals would be equal across the board. From our point of view, now that we have a unified voice, we can move forward and help veterans.

Veterans also see then that there is another avenue to get their voice heard and to raise some of the issues that we have, some of which are very small but are very meaningful to veterans. They could be addressed quite quickly with a willingness to sit and discuss them. If we have somebody independently aligned with us as veterans, then maybe the door will open a little bit easier and the ear can be bent a little bit better in the sense of getting stuff done. From our point of view as veterans, it is definitely a positive.

That is very good. In the short time I have left, I want to get something across. I do not expect a response. It relates to assisting a veteran's family through financial hardship. I had a situation recently where a veteran with full service passed away. The veteran had a very rudimentary formal education and he had literacy issues. When changes came to the pension, the then Defence Forces member did not fully understand it but always assumed the family would be looked after. Unfortunately, as it transpired, due to literacy issues, the member did not make the necessary changes to his pension at the time. As it turns out, he has passed away and his family are in financial hardship. I know the veterans' organisations do unbelievable work and there is a whole list of supports they provide. I asked parliamentary questions about this case but there is nothing that can be done. I would really appreciate it if there is anything the organisations could assist with or if they could point me in the right direction. I thank the witnesses very much for attending this morning.

Maybe that is something we will develop as the questioning goes on, in relation to families and the impact on them. I want to go to Senator Clonan because he has to go to the Seanad. He will be followed by Deputy Stanley.

The witnesses are very welcome. I thank the Chair for letting me in. Unfortunately, I will have to leave to speak on the Order of Business in the Seanad, so I apologise if I have to leave early. As a fellow veteran, I am delighted to see the witnesses here, particularly Colonel Campbell and Lieutenant Colonel Kirwan from ONE. I really appreciate that they reached out to me and recruited me for some activities. I would urge any of the members of the committee to see the work that ONE does. The service it provides is absolutely extraordinary. I thank Lieutenant Colonel Kirwan for looking after me in the cadet school. I am not saying that he babysat me - I will not use that term - but he certainly looked out for me. He was a great mentor and colleague. I really appreciate that. It is great to see him here today.

My question is for Major General O'Brien. I have to declare a conflict of interest in that I am in receipt of a military pension of roughly €11,000 per annum. However, I am very exercised by the abatement of the pensions of retired Defence Forces personnel. It was recently brought to my attention that disability pensions for retired personnel are also being abated, which is an extraordinary injustice. I wanted to ask Major General O'Brien in what way I can assist ARCO in that regard. We have a new Minister for Finance who I believe is very sympathetic to the Defence Forces. It is my understanding that a lot of these abatement measures were brought in through the financial emergency measures provisions and that it is not a major issue to have some of them reversed. I know that some of the members here, for example, Senator Craughwell, have successfully managed to address some of these issues just by way of engagement. My question is to see how I can assist Major General O'Brien.

I welcome Mr. Sheridan and Mr. Doyle. This is a question for everybody. One of the things that struck me is that all of us who have travelled as veterans know that when you travel abroad and mention the fact that you are a veteran or it comes up in the conversation, the treatment and respect you receive - I do not know how to describe it. There is a totally different social contract in other jurisdictions. It does not exist here. It struck me, and this is not a criticism by any means, that we have this extraordinary community of about 140,000 or 150,000 retired personnel, but it seems to me that only about 1% are actively engaged in our veterans' associations in whatever format. We are not reaching 99% of them and we are certainly not reaching the broader community. My view is that we do not tell our story well enough, and those of us who do tell our story are often subject to a bit of hostile scrutiny and pushback. We are told, "do not be blowing your own trumpet or singing your own praises". However, I think that is one of the things that sets us apart from the international military in that we are not encouraged to tell our stories. There is a great literary tradition in the international military of telling the stories and writing books, plays and screenplays. It is not that common here, and there are great stories to be told. They are the general questions.

I am a great admirer of the LGBTQI community because they mobilised the so-called straight community to support them in their campaign for marriage equality and all of the rights that absolutely are their right. There is something in that for us as a community of veterans to mobilise the broader community to understand who we are in the way that is so successful in the international space.

In terms of, we will say, the respect of veterans, I represent ARCO at an awful lot of events, but I do not think the public realise those events are on so there is a bit of work to do there. Compared with other countries, and this is just my perspective, we have a history - our civil war politics - that perhaps does not view veterans in the same way as other countries might.

In terms of abatement, initially, I think that a lot of officers who left the Defence Forces went to jobs that had specific requirements that were not available in other public services. In fact, exceptions were made in some of those cases; not all, but their cases can be made. Does Mr. Campbell want to say anything else about abatement?

As the Senator knows, abatement is something right across the public service. The kick for touch answer to exceptions, of course, is that it would impact right across the public service. Of course, members of the Defence Forces earn their pensions in a different way than other people do. Members of the Defence Forces have had to put their lives on the line in many cases in earning those pensions. Therefore, it is a special case that needs a voice. We have been banging on the door about it for a long time. The fact that disability pensions, which have been earned because individuals have been injured in the course of their duty, have been abated is something that should not happen.

In relation to the abatement itself, as I said, when we have Defence Forces members leaving the Defence Forces, they are taking with them out of the Defence Forces huge skills and knowledge. They have trained for years to get to the level they are at for the Defence Forces to make them a professional, efficient service. Once they leave the Defence Forces, however, that is lost in the civil and public service because they are not allowed to go into them because they are abated, and they are punished financially by joining these. A lot of veterans have worked hard to get to the level they are at to get their pension, and they do not want to give it away or give it back. They do not feel that by taking up a civil or public service role, they should be punished or get less than the person who is working beside them because of the job they do. Their pension is separate, and they have earned it for the role they have done, as Mr. Campbell said, through the skills and knowledge they have learned. What gets us as veterans, when I look back, the State pays to train us as soldiers to get us to that level and yet it refuses us access back into the system when we retire, which is something we need to look at because we take those skills with us. The private sector snaps us up and loves us because of the skills we have, and I do not blame it. However, we have created that opening to feed the private sector rather than the civil and public service, which is not good.

We will leave that part there and go on to disability. In the last month, I have realised and found out, as the Senator said, that the disability pensions that have been earned or gained through service within the Defence Forces have now been abated. My thoughts and my understanding of the abatement was that on the day people left service, if they took up a civil or public service job or earned more than they were earning on the last day of service, only then would it become abated. Therefore, someone who has a pension from the Department of Defence, which is viewed by Revenue as an income, not as a pension - Revenue states that it is an income - and now has a disability pension, which brings them way below that barrier, is now abated. There is something wrong when people are being abated on something that is way below what they left on. As I said, their first pension as a military pension under Revenue guidelines is seen as an income, not as a pension. Effectively, therefore, they are being abated on the single pension that is a disability pension. We, as veterans, are the only group in the State who are impacted like this. At the moment, there are other organisations being asked whether they are suffering from the same thing. From my point of view, however, I am led to believe that we are the only organisation in the State that is being impacted under this heading. It does not seem to be a fair system if it is only us.

I am going to have to move on to Deputy Stanley.

I thank the Chair very much. I will just say to the witnesses that if we can work together, particularly on the disability issue, it might provide a pathway to addressing some of the other issues. I thank everyone very much.

I welcome the guests we have here from the representative bodies. There is one missing. One extra body was to be here today.

Yes. It sent apologies due to-----

What was the name of it?

It was the Irish United Nations Veterans Association, IUNVA.

Okay.

I welcome that the office of veteran affairs is being set up. This has been a request of ours for a long time. One thing that struck me is the number of representative bodies. There are four separate representative bodies, along with the UN veteran society, which does good work. In the town I live in, Portlaoise, Post 27 does very good work for UN veterans. It also works with ex-members of the Defence Forces across the board and it is fairly flexible in that regard. Is the fact there are five representative bodies a problem? In our work as politicians we see that if things are fractured and spread out across a number of bodies, it can weaken a case we are making. I would like a short answer on whether that causes problems.

When we look at Ireland, the first thing on the agenda is the split.

I think of that too. I have seen that a good few times.

The various organisations were set up for different reasons. ONE, for instance, concentrates on the aspect of veteran welfare. Mr. Sheridan's organisation and IUNVA concentrate on pay, conditions and pensions for retired enlisted personnel. We concentrate on the pensions of officers. It is basically different aspects of the same organisation. It is the same brotherhood and sisterhood.

They all get on well together.

I referred earlier to the fact that in 2018 we did a combined veteran strategy together. We meet regularly and there is no split. As Mr. Billy Campbell rightly said, it is about staying in our lane, for want of a better term.

I was not coming at it from that point of view. I thought that it might become dissipated and fractured. My next question is for ONE. Mr. Colm Campbell said it is 57% State funded.

Mr. Kirwan, the CEO, will take questions on finance.

Where does the other 40% come from?

The breakdown is that we are 46% or 47% State funded and we have to fundraise the balance, which is 53% at present. We generate the funding through charity partnerships, fundraising membership, lottery and other initiatives to create awareness in the veteran community and among the general public for them to donate to us. It is a challenging environment in the context of all the other worthy charities out there.

The funding is in the region of €1 million a year, or maybe €800,000 or €900,000.

We have to fundraise approximately €900,000 and we receive approximately €800,000 from the State. The overall cost of running the organisation is approximately €1.7 million for the delivery of services.

I know that ONE is doing good work. There are a lot of veterans out there, approximately 140,000, and Senator Clonan mentioned that many of them are not reached. What is being done on housing is very impressive. ONE is a registered charity. Is it an approved housing body also?

That is correct.

It is an AHB, the same as Clúid and Respond.

We are a registered charity, an approved housing body and a company limited by guarantee, as well as being a veterans' association.

I was a councillor and I have been a TD for the past 15 years. I have come across a lot of ex-members of the Defence Forces who have dealt with some of the issues mentioned in the opening statement, including family breakup, addiction and mental health issues. A man who died recently had suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. He served abroad and was in some difficult situations, as I understand it. Is mental health a big issue in terms of the housing situation and from a welfare point of view?

Absolutely, and it is a growing issue. The associated mental health issues that go with homelessness, including fear, shame and guilt, all play into the homelessness issue. We see homelessness across all groupings of the veterans we work with. We see it emerging now in the younger veteran population also. Mental health is the primary presentation, alongside homelessness.

Where ONE cannot provide accommodation itself, there is local authority accommodation. Some of the accommodation ONE provides is short term or transitional for a period of time in an en suite room, and the hope is the person gets into their own home. The next step is the local authority or, through the local authority, getting into housing through an approved housing body such as Clúid or Respond. Has ONE experienced difficulties with local authorities? At this point, the veterans are predominantly men. That will change, and it is good that a lot of women are coming into the Defence Forces. Has ONE seen this is a problem in terms of dealing with local authorities? Has it found it to be a difficulty to get around? I have my experiences with it. What way do the witnesses find it?

Any engagement to date with the local authorities has been very positive. Our most recent pilot project was in partnership with Cork County Council, where, in the past six months, we have transitioned four residents out of our home in Cobh to independent living. That has created capacity to take in four other homeless veterans. The working relationship with Cork County Council is a template for other local authorities to embrace. It was a risk because it had never done it before but it saw the level of support that ONE was in a position to provide to the veterans and they transitioned on. It has been very successful and has resulted in the organisation being in the position to support nine veterans in the Cork region, who primarily served in the Naval Service.

The concern I have is that veterans would end up in difficult circumstances and even homeless, and some have done so. I know this country has been a bit better at it than other countries, but the link with local authorities is very important in order that we are able to get assistance for them and get people in. We will not solve the mental health problems and the employment problems if people do not have the key of the door. The key of the door is the key to everything.

That is a key point but I must move on. Deputy Stanley can come back in but I am conscious of the Seanadóirí.

I welcome the witnesses and I thank all of them sincerely, and all the members they represent, for their service and dedication to the State on behalf of us all. What is very warming, if I can use that word, is that this service continues on behalf of their members. It is great to see and I wish them well. The new office that is being set up is a very positive development. It is long overdue and brings a potential pathway to address some of the issues that have been raised this morning. That is important. Is there anywhere, in Europe or further afield, to reach out to, which the witnesses would consider a best practice model that could be implemented in the office we are setting up?

There are a number of models out there. The Dutch model is one we look at closely. It has three levels of veteran support co-located in the same building. There is the policy element, with its veterans commissioner, the strategy element, with its office of veterans affairs, and the service delivery element, through its welfare services, all working from the same hub. The Canadian model is probably the golden template. That is the ideal. Everybody would look at the Canadian model. With the exception of its involvement in world wars, we have worked next to the Canadians on many missions around the world. We have an awful lot in common with their veterans.

We worked in the Golan Heights and other places with them, so there are a number of models. There is a very good model in Northern Ireland. What is extraordinary in the UK is that each of the constituent countries has a different model. This is a bit strange but veterans are treated differently England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, there is an improving model in Northern Ireland that we could look at as well, but there are a number of models. We have communicated four of those models to the Department of Defence. We have research being undertaken on our behalf at the moment which is looking at other models and which will advise us on the matter.

We are part of the World Veterans Federation. This is a 60-million-strong veterans' organisation across the globe and it is an international organisation. One of the better groups we have been with over the years has been the Norwegian Veterans Association for International Missions. This is quite a big and well structured organisations and has a lot of support from the state and the local businesses. There are lots of templates or structures that we can tap into and use. Recently, Mr. Doyle and I were in Northern Ireland dealing with the cross-Border services which have often been of support in relation to mental health, medical supplies and support. This is all done off the radar, but we can now tap into the office of veterans affairs and push all this information there and let that hope start to grow and open the doors for everyone. That is quite a good system. These organisations are more than willing to open their arms and take us in and give us advice, guidance and support. There is a lot out there and we need to just tap into it.

What are the numbers. Is it in the hundreds of thousands?

Yes.

We are in direct dialogue with them on a monthly basis in regard to development more on a political level than an interpersonal level regarding the development of ex-servicemen. By extension, they consider a veteran still in service, not just the person who has walked out of the force. Once a person is wearing the uniform they are effectively a servant of the State. They are eager to take on our model and proceed with our learning and development and e-learning education models, to make sure we do not fall through the nets, that we are going to hit the ground running. They are transitional skills which sometimes are not transitional. There are KSAs, knowledge and skills which people have in their roles as a paratrooper or a machine gun operator or whatever. Attitude is key and every soldier coming out now has a very good attitude. He is punctual, polite and present. We can develop the education and skills through our entity, which is what we offer. We have 4,000 skills there that can be readily available at a very cost-effective price. That will be the special offer for the veterans' community as opposed to the public community and their families by extension, so that they hit the ground running and they have a foothold within the corporate world. Then we can develop that further depending on their career path. We have worked on this in conjunction with a man called Steven Moore. He has just been formally discharged from the police force. He is looking after all the blue light services, taking care of their transition to civilian life. He does not have the capacity that we have so we are now working hand in glove to cover the whole of Ireland, for all emergency services personnel, including military and it is a huge undertaking. It is just on the cusp of being launched now. We have the JV in place and we will probably launch in about six weeks.

That is very impressive, I have to say.

While we are talking about setting up the office of veterans affairs, the Department of Defence did research as well. We provided it with some of that information, if not the vast majority of it. It is aware of the best practice and we can take the best going forward. We will work together with the Department and all the organisations, taking the best out of each.

Yes, that is good. There is so much excellent work going on behind the scenes, which I was not aware of. It is very encouraging to learn that this is going on. I am assuming that while people are in service, there is a medical scheme that all personnel can be members of. I am wondering about when someone retires. I know with Garda medical aid, serving gardaí are members of the scheme and there is an option to stay with it on retirement. What is the situation regarding veterans, from a medical perspective and medical care thereafter, when they get to that stage?

For some of the veterans who present to our service, the loss of medical care is the catalyst for a lot of medical problems that follow on in the years following retirement. We work with many veterans who do not have medical care post retirement and it is quite a problematic area for them.

There is no option to continue within that scheme?

No. When a member of the Defence Forces retires, they would have been using the medical services in the Defence Forces. Now they are out in civilian life, and in doing so they have to first of all find a GP who will take them on. That can be difficult at the best of times. Their medical records have to be transferred and they have to consider health insurance and things like that. It is a complete new world from all the services being provided for them up to this point and now they are out the gate, as it were, and they have to start from scratch again.

I will just add that another organisation has come on stream very recently, namely, the Retired Enlisted Members Association, REMA. It has introduced what they have in PDFORRA, the permanent medical aid system, PMAS. It has now introduced a veterans' medical aid system, VMAS. It is basically to do with cross-Border medical services to facilitate them and speed them up. It is to assist them in getting medical treatment or a hip replacement or that kind of operation done cross-Border. That is a start and it is a step forward. VMAS is now open to all veterans. I do not know if the members of the committee are aware of it. There is a small subscription fee for it. It does not go to the extent that we need it to go regarding provision of general medicine and the health and welfare of the veteran. We have asked that part of the ID card should include the doctor-only services card where it is free and it is part of the veteran's ID card. When we get to speak to the OVA we are hoping that this will be included.

I imagine it would be a top priority.

Yes, we would hope so.

I thank the witnesses very much for their presence here. Most of all I thank the members of the Defence Forces for their service to the country over decades. It is only right that people who serve the country, particularly in dangerous, hazardous and difficult circumstances be properly supported. I think it the least that society can do.

I have a couple of questions on the abatement. Some of it has been covered but from my understanding of it, the abatement in terms of the public system generally was introduced in the sixties. At that stage it exempted public representatives, members of An Garda Síochána and members of the Defence Forces. This seems to have changed in relation to the Defence Forces. I am not sure whether it changed in relation to An Garda Síochána. Perhaps it did or did not and the witnesses can perhaps clarify that for me. From their statements, I understand the witnesses are saying that there was no consultation at the time that these changes came in during the financial difficulties of 2011 and 2012. Subsequently, how was it justified or how was it explained to the witnesses? It seems that there was never any rationale provided. In relation to that, it seems strange that an approach was taken at one stage in the sixties in relation to a category. The category then changed in 2010s. Were members of An Garda Síochána excluded at that stage or do they continue to enjoy the position that they had pre-2012?

No, they are in the same position. All State agencies are now in the pot but there was no consultation or discussion in relation to it. It was a letter of instruction from the Department of public expenditure and reform but there was no formal consultation with any organisation. There might have been a mention of it, but there was nothing formal. It has left a large void in the sense that, when we used to leave service, we used to look towards the public service and Civil Service for roles. It was a nice transition to allow us to carry on with our skills, to bring our knowledge and skills into that system and that was knocked. To tell veterans that they would be abated and lose part of their pension or all of their pension, depending on what they were doing, was not a good result. The result was that they could not move on.

It was not a good result. The result was they could not move on.

It seems to me that one thing the Defence Forces are good at is that people go in with a certain level of skills, but by the time they come out they have picked up further expertise, skills, education and training of various kinds. It seems this is potentially a disincentive for people who have skills that could be of benefit to many parts of the public service. There was mention that the abatement affects the disability pension as well. I am not clear if that is a particular type of pension that relates to the Defence Forces or if it is the Department of Social Protection's disability allowance.

It relates to service in the Defence Forces. It is their disability pension from the Defence Forces.

Okay, that is useful to know. This follows on from Senator Gallagher's point. Clearly, by the nature of service in the Defence Forces, there are occupational risks. There have been issues over the years with deafness, exposure to chemicals in the Air Corps and different situations like that. Mr. Sheridan has identified some of the schemes that exist and I am sure they are positive. This is not something I have proposed before, but I am curious about his thoughts. Have there ever been discussions about different criteria for access to medical cards or anything like that, maybe in partial recognition of service but also of the particular health needs that former members-----

On recognition of their health needs, if they had a health issue when they were leaving the Defence Forces, they would have looked for their disability pension. Whether they carried on with a pension or took a lump sum would depend on the percentage they got or what way it was handled. On trying to look after veterans after they have left, I said earlier that the two portfolios were there and the defence one was always the smaller one. The roles and how they were defined were fairly busy, and we were on the coattails trying to get a bit ahead. That is why the office of veterans affairs will open that door for others to go to discuss what we are talking about now, and hopefully we will get some forward movement on that.

The other two organisations may wish to jump in on this. I am not necessarily discussing what the situation is currently. I am asking if this is something they believe needs to get some consideration as regards access to medical cards on different criteria, in recognition of both service and occupational health needs.

I am conscious I am running out of time so I will throw in one more question. Obviously, the bulk of people who serve in the Defence Forces are in the State, but others are not. Others are in the North, Britain, the United States, Australia or wherever. I imagine that poses a challenge, but I also imagine the witnesses' organisations are able to offer services and support to them as well. Will they say a bit about how veterans abroad are supported and how they could be better supported by the State?

From an ONE perspective, the services we provide are primarily focused on the Twenty-six Counties in the sense of our mental health support and our homes. However, we have been able to advise veterans abroad with regard to support, particularly in the UK, that will benefit them based on whatever struggles or experiences they are having at that time. It is really only advice and mentoring as to where they can go with it. From our perspective, all our professional services are on the island of Ireland.

I think I saw Mr. Campbell indicating assent to the idea of medical cards.

Could we split medical care into physical and mental for ease of reference? I am not suggesting it is easy. We started our mental health programme in 2020 in answer to the lack of mental health support for veterans when they left the Defence Forces. If I am a serving soldier in the Defence Forces, my mental health support stops, no matter what has happened to me. I get a maximum of six sessions after I leave the Defence Forces and then it stops abruptly. You cannot treat mental health that way. It just cannot be done. Therefore, we brought in our first veteran support officer in 2020. We now have six counsellors and a 24-7 helpline. That is in answer to that. The Deputy's suggestion to do the same thing with physical health is excellent, and is probably where we need to go, but we will certainly need increased funding for something like that.

We are under time limitations. Maybe what has been discussed in Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire’s questions can be taken up in answering the others.

I welcome the witnesses. While I was aware of their organisations, I had no clue as to what was being done, so I congratulate everybody. On ONE, I see homes have been made available in Athlone, Cobh, Dublin and Letterkenny. Phase 2 expansion will have an additional 18 bedrooms in apartments in Cork city and Limerick. In phase 3, there are developments in Galway and Louth, leading to a total of over 1,100, which is impressive. That brings me to the next question. Are there any plans for Sligo? We have Finner Camp approximately 20 miles away with a large contingent of soldiers. You would imagine there would be people there needing the organisations' services.

On the expansion of our services, particularly vis-à-vis that homeless challenge, we feel the nine homes by the end of 2027 or 2028 would cover the demand. On Sligo, we will have a home in Galway, and we currently have a home in Letterkenny. We have found to date that homeless veterans in the Sligo region are being accommodated in our property in Letterkenny. The information we are getting on the ground about needs is coming from veterans themselves. We feel those two homes alone would potentially deliver the guts of 12 or 13 bed spaces on any given night. We feel at this moment that that would meet the demand in that part of the country, particularly in the north or north-west new regional health area. Similarly, the homes in our other locations are co-located close to military installations, as the Deputy identified in the context of Finner. That provides business continuity in the event of an issue happening in the home, so we can move individuals on a short-term basis into military installations as we find alternative accommodation of the same standard that will allow us to continue providing our services. Specifically on Sligo, we feel the current home in Letterkenny and the home we hope to open in Galway will meet the demand in relation to homelessness in the veteran community for that north and north-west region.

There is accommodation available in Finner for homeless people.

Yes. We currently have 51 bed spaces as it stands and we will increase that to 81 over the coming two or three years. That takes into consideration phase 2 of our expansion, which will bring another 18 rooms on stream in Cork, Limerick and Newbridge. They are currently in play. Once they are in play and are coming close to completion, phase 3 of our expansion plan will be to find suitable locations in Galway and Louth. That will bring us to our 81-bed space capacity to specifically meet the demand of homelessness within the veteran community.

That is 1,100 places, which is fantastic for people who need the accommodation. We welcome the establishment of the new veterans office. That is major progress. Mr. Campbell mentioned the Canadian model. Will he expand on that?

The Canadian model is hugely resourced. They staff it well and it is structured well in that they have a minister for veterans, and it works down from there. They have a veterans policy, which is truncated into an easily read document that everybody can understand, like a veterans charter that Mr. Sheridan mentioned earlier. We must remember, however, that the veterans charter has to be based on something. It is not a wish list. It has to be cemented by policy. Canada has all the building blocks in place. Having that complete package is the secret. We believe that is achievable here at low cost.

I imagine that would be through the new office.

Absolutely. For example, we have our veterans' homes and mental health support.

They are not based on any policy. They are based on things we created. They rely on people to drive them. We are fortunate to have very good people in all our veterans' organisations who drive this. We firmly believe all our services should be based on policy because money follows policy.

I was a member of the FCA around 50 years ago and we had fantastic two-week annual trips to Finner, which we thoroughly enjoyed. I thank the witnesses for their answers.

Does the Senator remember any of them?

I remember them quite clearly. I will say that.

He still has the boots.

I will move on to Deputy Brabazon. Senator Craughwell will be our final speaker then. The Minister is waiting to come in.

The advantage of being one of the last to speak is many of my questions have already been asked, so I will be brief. I echo the positive comments Senator Gallagher made about the witnesses' work and organisations. I thank them for their service.

I will home in on the housing issue for veterans. It was mentioned that ONE is registered as an approved housing body. I started turning over in my mind, as a former local authority member for a long time, the way approved housing bodies interact with local authority housing lists. They allocate and give local authorities the people to be housed. How do the witnesses look after a veteran in that context?

There is an obvious issue with housing for serving members of the Defence Forces. The witnesses have clearly told us about the issue with veterans, and that is a problem as well. Would the Department of Defence be better placed, because it knows the numbers it has had in the past and the numbers of veterans it is dealing with through its pensions system, to plan for the housing need of current and retired members?

I will answer the question about engagement with local authorities. We are heavily invested in that whole space because we work hand in glove with local authorities, particularly on our applications as part of our phase 2 expansion plan for capital assistance scheme funding, which allows us to develop the home in the first place. With all the capital assistance scheme funding mechanisms, there are different nomination rights. For example, if you draw down 100% from the capital assistance scheme, then the local authority has absolute control over the nomination of individuals off its housing list to our home. That is perfectly good. We look to draw down 95% funding, which gives us approximately a 25% nomination right. The bottom line is we are constantly engaged with the local authorities. Regarding our new homes in Cork city and our new home in Limerick, we are already meeting with local authorities regularly on those projects. We have already reached out to the Housing Agency to assist us with engagement with Kildare County Council on the home we purchased in Newbridge. We work hand in glove with local authorities to ensure homeless veterans are on their respective housing lists.

We are addressing the challenge of homelessness, particularly within the veteran community but we are configured only to deal with the veterans themselves. We take individual veterans, male or female, into our homes. Our ambition is, within a three-year window, to pick that individual up off the ground, because that is where they are at, give them back life skills and then transition them into local authority housing in their community and enable them to offer value back to that community. That is our template. We work closely because we could not operate without the support of the local authorities. We have a strong working relationship.

Does anyone else want to answer the general question about the Department getting involved for current and retired members?

Will Mr. Doyle move a little closer to the mic, because we are not picking him up?

I keep thinking I am with the Army on the range, shouting at them. I do not get out often.

In answer to the Deputy's question, people in residence who are on a meagre or low income by today's standards should have the opportunity to afford reasonable accommodation which has fallen into disrepair on the base. That is an issue that should be addressed and could easily be addressed internally through the engineer corps. I am not a spokesperson on that but it has been said to us on numerous occasions. With the cost of living, there is no disposable income. This could be done on instantly. It is not a long-term thing. There is a five-year chance to save it. There would be no commute to work and people would be living within the community and bringing commerce back into the community.

The Curragh Camp is now hollowed out. There is no one living there and it has suffered greatly. All these little things as a collective could add up to the greater sum of bringing life back into the base and maintaining buildings which now have to be demolished. Because some are historically listed, they have to be refurbished at a huge cost to the Exchequer. These are all simple fixes if they could be actioned in a way that did not involve overholders who could stay there indefinitely. It would be a step into the community so the veteran would not become homeless. That is just my tuppence worth. That is not my side of the house. That is not my hat but the concept should be addressed.

Is Deputy Brabazon okay with that? I thank him. I appreciate his brevity. Senator Craughwell is the final speaker. He should just be aware the Minister is waiting to come in.

I will try to get through this fairly quickly. I am really sorry I missed the opening statements. I had some personal issues I had to deal with fairly urgently.

I have a general question across the three organisations on psychological services. General Campbell pointed out that when a person retires, he or she gets six sessions and after that is out the door with a "Thank you very much for your service". I referred to him as "General Campbell" because I have a huge issue with Ireland being one of the few countries in the world where the moment somebody who gave service to the State leaves, they lose their rank and become Mr., Ms or Mrs. It is outrageous.

What brought this to my attention was an acting sergeant major in Galway who retired having spent four years in the acting rank. The public recognises the rank of sergeant major but it does not necessarily recognise the rank of company sergeant. I felt it was extremely important that he retire with his rank. Fortunately, the Minister at the time did as well and he retired at the rank of sergeant major. It is a huge issue.

I am sorry to digress a little. There are senior NCOs in this country who serve with the United Nations. It applies more to officers than to NCOs. The United Nations may need to set up a study group and somebody in Washington or New York turns around and says, "Oh, General Murphy served with us in such and such a place", but General Murphy was, in fact, a colonel who was in acting rank. So, they ring and say, "We'd like to have General Murphy", and are told, "Well, we don't have a General Murphy; we have a Colonel Murphy." They then say, "Oh right, we're not going to deal with him because he must have got busted when we went home." While the pension might stay at the substantive rank, the retiring rank should always remain with the person. I am arguing for Senators as well. When we retire, we should retain our title.

Is the Senator indicating he will be retiring?

Returning to psychological services, I will give the witnesses all the questions together and they can deal with them then. On cross-Border support, the Chair is aware there is huge interest from the Duke of Abercorn in Brooke House and its extension into Donegal. They are looking at two possible centres in Donegal. If we could get together on it, there is shared island funding we could draw down. Colonel Kirwan has dealings with veterans' organisations in the North. Is that something he would consider? He might have a think on that while I bang on.

There was a question on Garda abatement. Actually, abatement does apply to gardaí. The only people it does not apply to are three former military officers who got a waiver on abatement because their service in another area was regarded as vital. The Minister has the right to waive abatement. Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas do not pay abatement under any circumstances. That is one worth looking at.

General Campbell might remember he and I discussed a veteran's pin some years ago.

I introduced legislation, and that legislation is still sitting on the dusty shelves of the Oireachtas and could be enacted. Is that something the three organisations would be interested in? As a former veteran of the UK myself, I have a veteran’s pin. When I go to the UK, if I put it on my jacket, I can walk into any public building where a charge applies free of charge, and I can get treated as a veteran. I think it is highly important that we are able to recognise our veterans.

I am sad that IUNVA and Major General Brennan are not here. All four organisations are hugely important. That begs the question of how much crossover there is between the organisations. I can understand ARCO’s position, ONE’s position and the Irish Defence Forces Veterans Association’s position, and they are all filling a hole somewhere. Is there any way that we can try to bring all of those together under one umbrella body? Would it serve any purpose?

There are quite a few questions there. I want to give the witnesses time to answer.

Okay. I will hold back at this stage.

I will answer the questions on the shared Ireland funding. We are engaged with Brook House. I was privileged to go up and visit Joan Clements, the CEO of Brook House, and to see the fantastic facilities they have in Enniskillen. We have put in three separate shared Ireland funding submissions for a joint project between us, and in each case, we have been unsuccessful so far. The anomaly with the shared island funding is that Brook House can put that in independently, as a charitable organisation that provides support services to veterans, whereas the information that we received is that it has to go through a lead Department. Up to now, we have been supporting Brook House’s applications as the secondary partner because the service it is going to provide will benefit veterans both of the Irish Defence Forces and the UK Armed Forces-PSNI who have suffered with issues associated with service. We work closely with Brook House, which is a fantastic organisation.

Regarding the psychological support, I will ask Ms Larkin to comment.

People are entitled to six sessions upon retirement. It is important to note that the issues affecting those transitioning are not just psychological, but also cultural and social. From a psychological perspective, once those six sessions are used up, no more care is provided by the Defence Forces. We normally see that the issues do not really present until after that period of time.

That is shocking. In the case of veterans from the Congo, we looked after our troops at that time by providing married quarters. There are stories that turning up the radio was one of method of hiding what was going on next door due to post-traumatic stress, such as violence in the house and things like that. There is a need for ongoing psychological services. You do not just walk away from your uniform. You bring everything that was behind you with you. That is a huge one for me.

I know the Minister will be coming before the committee. My last question concerns families, and it applies as much to ARCO as it does to ONE or the Irish Defence Forces Veterans Association. When the partner who was a serving member dies, where is the welfare for the rest of the family?

From a ONE perspective, we not only provide support to the veterans themselves, we also provide support to the family. They avail of the same services as the veteran.

It is important to ask whether we should be more one. Members of ARCO can be members of ONE, and that is open. However, we admire and love the work that they are doing and there is no point in double-hatting. ARCO was set up for a specific reason and we can deal with those issues. Just because you are an officer does not mean you do not have mental health issues or homelessness. The work they do covers everybody.

All of the associations present, as well as IUNVA and REMA, are inter-agency in the sense that all our members are from all services in the Defence Forces. We are not specific to any one particular unit, rank or structure. We are spread across the services. We have our own roles but we are covering all services, ranks and genders, reserve and permanent. That is something we are already united on in the sense that we are together.

That is good. I want to make a couple of points. We have contacted REMA for a submission and, hopefully, we will get a submission from it. We have had correspondence from Major General (Retired) Kieran Brennan, honorary president of IUNVA, explaining that it was just due to an admin glitch that he is not here today. He certainly looks forward to the office of veteran affairs developing in the Department of Defence. We look forward to having him here at another stage.

I commend the work of Brook House. I have been to Brook House to see the work that is being done there. I hope the shared Ireland unit will see the merit of the cross-Border work that can be done there.

I am shocked that it is just six sessions. Anyone who knows anything about counselling or therapy would know that a total of six sessions is not at all adequate.

There are many more issues that we could discuss. I thank the witnesses for being here today and for the statements they submitted. That is very valuable to us as a committee. We will continue to work with them on all of the issues they have raised. There is an open door at this committee at any time for either written submissions or to come before us. On behalf of the committee, I once again thank the witnesses for their time and engagement this morning and for the very helpful material they provided in advance of today's meeting.

The meeting will adjourn until the joint committee meets in private session at 3.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 26 November.