We have not received any apologies. This meeting is clashing with that of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, which is unfortunate. Some members who really wanted to be here for the full duration may not be able to be present. There is a Private Members’ debate in the Seanad, and votes may be called in the Dáil. It is not an opportune time, but we will work as best we can to get the most out of the meeting.

The joint committee is meeting in public session for its engagement with the implementation oversight group and the Department of Defence in relation to progress on the implementation of the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces. On behalf of the committee, from the Implementation Oversight Group for the Commission on the Defence Forces, I welcome Ms. Julie Sinnamon, independent chair. From the Irish Defence Forces, I welcome Mr. Brian Molloy, head of transformation; and Colonel David Fitzpatrick, transformation management office. From the Department of Defence, I welcome Mr. Eamonn Murtagh, assistant secretary; and Ms. Deirdre Gallagher, principal officer, change management office. Fáilte go léir.

The format of the meeting will be that I will invite Ms Sinnamon to make an opening statement. This will be followed by questions from members. In the first round, each member will have seven minutes 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 they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, a member who attempts to participate from outside the precinct will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask any member partaking via Microsoft Teams that prior to making their contribution to the meeting, 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 relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

As the witnesses are probably aware, the committee will publish their opening statements on the website following the meeting. I invite Ms Sinnamon to deliver her opening statement.

I thank the committee for inviting me to address it in my capacity as independent chair of the Implementation Oversight Group for the Commission on the Defence Forces. I very much welcome the opportunity to discuss the progress that has been made and the plans for the months and years ahead on the implementation of the commission’s recommendations. I am grateful to the committee for the focus it has brought to the detailed implementation plan since its publication. I am joined by: Eamonn Murtagh, assistant secretary, Department of Defence; Brian Molloy, assistant secretary and Defence Forces head of transformation; the director of the Defence Forces transformation office, Colonel David Fitzpatrick; and Deirdre Gallagher, principal officer, Department of Defence.

The Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces detailed 130 recommendations, which represent significant change to the structure, culture and operations of the Defence Forces, with the goal of attaining level of ambition 2, enhanced capability, as defined by the commission. The Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces was published in February 2022, a few short weeks before the global security and defence landscape irreversibly changed with Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The detailed implementation plan for the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces was published in November 2023, building on the high level action plan published in July 2022, which set out the Government’s response to the Commission on the Defence Forces and the Government approval to move to level of ambition 2.

These recommendations are categorised in the detailed implementation plan under five strategic objectives, which are: first, strategic HR and cultural change to be delivered; second, new command and control and joint structures to be established; third, services to be reformed and restructured; fourth, Reserve Defence Force to be revitalised; and, fifth, joint capability development to be implemented.

As independent chair, I am also a member of the external oversight body of the Defence Forces. This body was established to oversee the implementation of the Report of the Independent Review Group on Dignity and Equality Issues in the Defence Forces. The recommendations of the independent review group are separate but linked to the strategic HR and cultural change objectives of the Commission on the Defence Forces.

The timelines set out in the detailed implementation plan published in November 2023 were necessarily ambitious to bring a sense of urgency and momentum to the transformation of the Defence Forces. Since accepting the position of independent chair of the implementation group in November 2022, while I observed good progress towards implementing the recommendations of the commission under each of the strategic objectives, I had hoped that more recommendations would have been fully implemented by the end of 2025.

At the end of 2025, 54 of the 130 recommendations had been completed.

Examples of the implemented recommendations include: significant enhancement of pay and benefits for Defence Forces personnel including all personnel of private 3-star and able seaman rank are now paid the full rate of military service allowance applicable to the rank, and the requirement for that cohort to mark time removed; extension of healthcare to officer ranks to enlisted ranks in September 2023; a new vision for the Reserve Defence Force and accompanying regeneration plan published in July 2024; mandatory gender, diversity, and unconscious bias training was introduced across the Defence Forces in August 2024; a full-time gender adviser has been appointed in October 2024; joint cyber defence command created in December 2024; blanket exclusion of the Defence Forces from the working time directive removed in January 2025; climate and continuous attitude survey, the value our people survey, was launched in March 2025 and the results of the first iteration communicated in January 2026; the Office of Veterans Affairs established in November 2025; and a new strategic reach aircraft delivered to the Air Corps in December 2025 and a third C295 aircraft delivered in October 2025.

The implementation of each of the 54 recommendations have, individually and collectively, had a positive impact on the transformation of our Defence Forces. With that said, under the initial detailed implementation plan published in 2023, 74 recommendations were due to be closed by the end of 2025. While work is ongoing on each of the recommendations that have not yet been completed, seven of them fall under the important area of career and talent processes, and promotion systems and are targeted to be completed in 2026 according to the recently published updated implementation plan. These include: talent management system and career streams to be introduced; career progression route maps developed; revision of the continuous professional development plan; revised promotion systems implemented; competitive selection process implemented; targeted retention practices developed; and access to promotion opportunities revised.

I accept that transformation takes time, and that solid foundations must be built from which transformation can be realised. From a delivery perspective, my view is that those solid foundations are now in place and that it is imperative that we maintain and build on the progress that has been achieved to date. It is essential that the pace of implementation is increased and that recommendations are delivered in line with the updated plan. This is particularly important in the geopolitical context, which is even more relevant today than ever before. While the months and years ahead will bring further challenges, I am confident that, collectively, this unique opportunity can be grasped to deliver real change within the Defence Forces and move towards level of ambition 2 as quickly possible.

The updated detailed implementation plan, which was published on 10 February, was a long time in development, reflecting the complexity of implementing change of this magnitude in the Defence Forces and experience in delivery and progressing recommendations. It sets out the multi-year actions that will be taken to implement the recommendations of the Commission on the Defence Forces. There are revised timelines for some recommendations, including in the career and talent management space, which I just discussed, and the enhancement of capabilities reflecting the challenging international defence market.

That said, it is critical that we achieve the commitments for the implementation of recommendations and strive to surpass these targets where possible. By the end of this year, a further 22 recommendations are expected to be implemented, including the development of revised career and talent management systems, as I have outlined, and the commencement of the roll-out of primary radar capability, which, when fully operational, will ensure that a complete recognised air picture can be maintained.

By end of 2027, a further 18 recommendations will be completed including the new high-level command-and-control structures of the Defence Forces being in place. By the end of 2028, a further 16 recommendations will be completed, including the delivery of the capability enhancements envisaged, such as the delivery of the military radar programme and roll-out of the armoured fleet programme.

In parallel, there are ten recommendations for which a further evaluation must be completed before a decision on implementation is considered and six recommendations relating to the step up to the level of ambition 3, which must revert to Government and which will also be progressed throughout this period. There are four recommendations that now scheduled to be completed post 2028. These include the target to achieve an overall 35% female participation rate across the organisation and three capability projects, namely super medium helicopters, the further development of remotely piloted aircraft systems and the programme of naval vessel replacement to ensure a balanced fleet of nine modern ships by early in the next decade. These capability projects will be progressed in the period up to 2028 and delivered thereafter, in line with the Defence Sector National Development Plan 2026 to 2030.

It is important to acknowledge, as the commission did, that when implementing a specific capability defence, planners may, in their detailed analysis, assess that the same effect can be delivered by different methods and, as such, the equipment recommendations outlined are intended to be indicative rather than prescriptive once the recommended capability requirement is met. We need to consider opportunities for future-proofing and-or implementing enhanced capabilities in the most effective and efficient manner.

In any organisation, public or private, fundamental transformation comprises the culmination of changes across its rules, structures and leadership mindset, none of which happens overnight. In light of the experience with implementation over the past number of years and the solid delivery foundations now in place, I am confident that the revised timelines for implementation of various recommendations are both realistic and challenging. If implemented in line with the updated plan, they will increase the momentum of delivery since the publication of the commission’s report.

Over the past three years, alongside delivery of transformation across structures, people and processes, there has been a strong focus in the Defence Forces on measures that will embed change. As a result, I believe the Defence Forces are on a significantly stronger footing now to realise the changes and timelines envisaged under the updated detailed implementation plan.

As the committee can see from the updated timelines, in addition to the strategic HR and cultural change recommendations that I have already mentioned, 2026 is a particularly critical year in the delivery of key milestones across each of the strategic objectives. These include the delivery of key infrastructure and capability projects, further strides in the regeneration of the Reserve Defence Force and considerable work on the legislative agenda that underpins the crucial changes to Defence Forces’ structures. In my view, it is critical that each of the 22 recommendations for this year be delivered in order to build on the momentum generated to date. In my meetings with the leadership of the Defence Forces and the Department of Defence, I have expressed my clear expectation that these projects will deliver tangible results for the women and men of the Defence Forces within the timeframes set.

As outlined in the updated detailed implementation plan, the move to level of ambition 2 will require additional personnel, ultimately moving to a total of 11,500. At the end of 2025, the strength of the Permanent Defence Force stood at 7,756 with the number of civilian staff working in the Defence Forces at 424 and the number of civil servants at 12.

When I was previously before the joint committee in October 2024, I outlined that the immediate focus was on stabilising the numbers of personnel in the Defence Forces. In 2025, there was, for the first time in a number of years, a growth in numbers, albeit modest. Although not a specific recommendation with the updated detailed implementation plan, the work force plan requested by the Minister and referenced in the recently published Strategic Framework - Transformation of the Defence Forces will be an important mechanism to set out the journey towards 11,500. Specifically, the action under the strategic framework is for:

A a robust Work Force Plan to incorporate recruitment progress, expected retirements, and resource planning for expected capability enhancements under the Strategic Framework and the forthcoming Capability Development Programme 2028 to 2040 to achieve LOA 2 in the first instance and in preparation for any decision to move to LOA 3 to be submitted to the Minister by April 2026.

Gender diversity is a particular focus in Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces, which includes a number of recommendations aimed at addressing gender-related issues.

While much work has been done, with many gender-related recommendations implemented such as the implementation of a female mentoring programme, the appointment of a full-time gender adviser and the revision of gendered rules and regulations, the level of female participation and input at all decision-making levels of the organisation is too low. A significant increase in focus on this area will be required to secure greater impact.

Attainment of level of ambition 2, LOA2, requires significant investment across all five strategic objectives. The procurement and acquisition of capabilities and the development of infrastructure needed to realise level of ambition 2 continue. Joint civil and military teams are tasked with a variety of projects, including investment in aircraft, subsea domain awareness capability, armoured land fleet and Ireland’s primary radar system. The Government’s allocation of €1.7 billion under the National Development Plan 2025-2030 will result in the achievement of the capability recommendations accepted by the Government by 2028, or in some instances shortly thereafter, under level of ambition 2.

As the independent chair of the implementation oversight group, IOG, it is incumbent upon me to emphasise how crucial this financial investment is in the implementation of level of ambition 2. I would therefore welcome any available additional capital provision that can be made available over the course of the period to 2028, which can be used to support acceleration of delivery of enhanced Defence Forces capability in line with LOA 2.

Enhanced capability comprises multiple elements and not just the provision of equipment. As set out earlier, the commission recognised that there may be different ways to achieve a desired capability. This is all the more relevant in the period since the publication of the report given the significant advances in technology potentially allowing a different mix of technology, equipment and personnel to deliver the required capability.

The implementation oversight group meets regularly, with officials from the Department of Defence and members of the Defence Forces providing updates on the work that has been undertaken towards achieving the goals of the Commission on the Defence Forces. Where a recommendation has been completed, and where appropriate, the benefits of the implementation of the recommendation are tracked. The aim of this is to ensure that the implementation of the commission’s recommendations is having the anticipated meaningful impact. This tracking is carried out through a combination of metrics, including staff and cultural surveys and personnel recruitment and retention data. This should come more to the fore during the second half of 2026 and 2027, after a sufficient passage of time to measure the impact of measures since implementation. The implementation oversight group will critically assess the impact of the recommendations implemented and the trajectory of the transformation agenda, as set out in the detailed implementation plan. In the event that we find that the intended benefits of actions taken are not being realised, we can and will recommend that further actions are taken to realise the intended outcomes.

In summary, while considerable progress has been made since my last appearance before an Oireachtas committee, particularly in laying the groundwork for change, there remains a need for greater pace of delivery. As I set out earlier, it is critical to achieve the annual targets for the completion of recommendations set out in the updated detailed implementation plan and, if possible, surpass them. This year is a crucial one, particularly for the delivery of the career and talent management systems recommendations. The implementation oversight group continues to be focused on providing the requisite monitoring and governance for delivery of the remaining recommendations.

I thank the committee for this opportunity to open our discussion and welcome any questions members may have.

Go raibh maith agat. We will go to members now. I remind people that votes may be called in the Dáil so I will stick very strictly to seven minutes. I ask that members do the questions and the answers within the seven minutes so that everybody gets at least one round in.

I thank the witnesses and wish them well in the very important work they are doing. I would love to see us achieve level of ambition 3 as soon as we possibly can. In her opening remarks, Ms Sinnamon referenced the Commission on the Defence Forces and its excellent report but obviously the geopolitical situation has changed quite radically since it was published. In terms of the plan and the impact that might have on the plan, I understand €600 million is to be spent on armoured fighting vehicles and armoured personnel carriers. What is the rationale for that ? What perceived threat is it supposed to meet?

I will pass that over to Mr. Murtagh, who is handling the capability programme in the short to medium term.

The Senator is right in that there was an announcement by the Minister earlier this year with respect to the armoured fleet replacement programme. Effectively, her announcement directed officials to engage on a Government-to-Government basis with France to partake in negotiations around an armoured fleet programme. There was no decision on the extent of moneys that would be spent on that. We are really in the stage of identifying what the roll-out should be. The aim is that by the end of this year we will have agreed the kind of scale of armoured fleet that we need as part of the replacement programme. I cannot comment on what was media speculation in terms of the €600 million, because there has been no decision on what the level of investment will be, save for it being over a good number of years to get that capability on board. It would be a little premature to outline the nature and scale of that armoured fleet. It is more about the strategic decision to move to that Government-to-Government approach and the benefits that can have.

In terms of the rationale for the fleet replacement, for what purpose does Mr. Murtagh see the vehicles being used?

There is a couple of things there. First, there was a specific recommendation under the commission's report proposals and the Government policy to implement that recommendation. Second, there was a recognition that although a mid-life extension programme has been implemented, the existing armoured fleet will be coming out of condition in the 2030s. It is to make sure that we are positioned for the future and that we will have an armoured fleet for whatever purpose we need. It also speaks to the point the chair outlined whereby we have to always consider what the appropriate mix of technology and capability is. As the Senator outlined, things have changed since what was envisaged in February 2022 when the commission published its report. That sort of detail will be considered over the next year but also in the context of the capability development programme that will also be published this year, which will cover the period 2028 to 2040.

My concern is because the situation has changed dramatically. A cost-benefit analysis would be useful for this committee in the absence of a national defence strategy. I do not know when that will be published. As a committee we have no idea how that expenditure or those priorities will align with the national strategy whenever that is published. I am just trying to establish if Mr. Murtagh sees a threat of ground invasion by mechanised formations. Is that the reason we are investing in armour or is it for some overseas role that he imagines or hypothesises for the future?

A lot of the answers the Senator is looking for have two elements. One is the ability to deliver on the recommendations set out in the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces, so it behoves us to do that. Another is the capability development programme, which covers 2028 to 2040. This is the means by which we will set out the future trajectory of capabilities and needs, and the appropriate mix of capabilities, to address the risks we face. I suspect that much of the interest the committee may have in this area will be addressed in that documentation, to link between what policy is saying and what capabilities we need to deliver against that policy.

Is there an opportunity for the monitoring group to be flexible given what is happening externally in the context of a changing threat landscape? Can the group input back into that process and change priorities? Does it have any latitude in that or is it bound, strictly speaking, by the recommendations in the report?

The initial focus for us, and particularly this year, is to try to get back on track. At this stage we were to have 74 recommendations implemented. We are at 54 of those. While the Commission on the Defence Forces talked about level of ambition 2, it also said there are many ways of achieving that.

There may be different ways of doing it and that is part of the capability development programme. There is a significant capability, cultural and HR agenda. A lot of those issues that were to be completed by the end of 2025 are now going to happen in 2026.

Could I just ask two very brief questions on that pillar about the culture? We had the external oversight body in last week. I asked Ms Patricia King if she felt that the Defence Forces was a safe place for women and her response had a particular formula of words. In Ms Sinnamon's view are the Defence Forces now a safe place for female personnel?

I am a member of the external oversight body, so obviously we have a high level of engagement in trying to address the cultural issues that were identified through the IRG report, etc. The most recent document we have is the cultural survey, and of the people surveyed from the Defence Forces, it definitely highlights that there is still a job of work to be done. There is the fact that in the last 12 months before the survey, 24% of people said that they had witnessed unacceptable behaviour and 78% of those people also said that they would not make a complaint because of a lack of confidence in the system and a fear of reprisal and retaliation. It is a work in progress in terms of addressing all of the cultural issues that have been identified in the Commission on the Defence Forces and all the others.

I thank Ms Sinnamon. As with last week, I really appreciate the clarity and the frankness of the responses. I wish her the very best and apologise because I have to leave to go to the Seanad for a Bill. Ms Sinnamon is doing great work and the best of luck to her with it.

I thank Senator Clonan. We genuinely appreciate the focus on this because it is really important. The commission report is just a report until it is implemented and this helps to keep a focus on it.

I thank Ms Sinnamon for her opening statement. I wish the group well in its work. The last time we met we had different hats on.

That is right. It important to change hats from time to time.

Yes. I know Ms Sinnamon is doing important work on this. The five strategic objectives are the overarching piece that sets the framework for what is being done. There is a lot of work to be done and the one that stood out from the independent oversight group was about the unacceptable behaviour and the fact that so many of the respondents would not feel at ease reporting something. That really is shocking. I am sure it exists in a lot of workplaces but I think it shows that despite the Women of Honour and all the efforts to try to change it, significant work still needs to be done. We also know from the independent oversight group that it is not just offences against women but also offences against men, unfortunately.

I will keep my questions short because I have limited time. Of the 74 recommendations that are left what will be the most difficult one to implement?

Given my background and the areas that I have focused on, there will be no surprise in my answer. There are specific recommendations on the level of female participation both in overall terms and at senior levels within the organisation. I co-chaired the independent review group, Balance for Better Business. Having looked at trying to increase the level of female participation at senior levels in private sector organisations, I know it takes time and it is slow. More focus is needed on this and a higher level of attention is needed to be able to come up with all of the interim targets and the work plan to achieve those targets.

It is a big ship to turn around.

Yes.

I accept that. Last week here we went through the culture that was inherited in the Defence Forces from the British model of the military. In the 100 years since, not that much has changed. I am interested in the issue of capacity for Ireland as a small neutral State. I welcome the fact that the wake-up call has come. As a relatively small, neutral State, we have to have a capability to protect our infrastructure. We have to be able to have a level of readiness and defence. The upcoming EU Presidency will bring that into sharp focus. One of the things that is really crucial is the strength of the Reserve Defence Force. This has been a hugely neglected area. When I was a teenager or a bit older, people I would have worked with went off on FCA camps for a fortnight every summer at different times. The level of training might have been different and not as up to date. We have a relatively small Army, with the Defence Forces target in total, including the Naval Service and the whole lot, being 11,500. Surely we need to be putting a greater emphasis on trying to get the Reserve Defence Force up to the level. Am I correct in saying that the current strength is 1,500 or is the target more?

The current figure is 1,611.

No, just the figure for the Reserve, please.

The Reserve currently is just north of 1,600.

Yes, and at the moment I think it is about 900. Is that right? Is it 800 or 900 at the moment?

The current establishment is 4,069 and the current strength across the Army Reserve and the Naval Service Reserve is 1,611, as of the end of February 2026.

How many does the Army Reserve have?

The Army Reserve currently is establishment 3,869 and strength 1,481.

But the Reserve?

Yes, and the Reserve.

I think to actually know that figure is very important. What is the final target there? What measures can be taken to achieve that? Does the implementation oversight group see this as a key priority? Maybe I am wrong, but I think it is a key priority.

It is a priority. The initial task was to come up with a regeneration plan for the Reserve Defence Force. That was published in October 2024.

It was October 2025.

There are a number of work packages intended to bring that from a plan to a reality. The bulk of that work is being monitored. In fact, at one of the recent implementation oversight groups we had a presentation on all of the actions that have been taken. I will ask Mr. Molloy to come in with the detail on that. It is tracking online but it is at the early stages of implementation of the plan that was published.

Sorry, the Reserve Defence Force regeneration plan was published in October 2024, so I gave the wrong information. It is a priority area within the CODF and 16 work packages are assigned to the Defence Forces. We stood up the Office of Reserve Affairs, as the Deputy will be aware. Nine of the detailed implementation plan work packages have been completed and the remaining seven are ongoing and are tracking to plan at the moment. When the Reserve regeneration plan was published, 27 actions were included. Twelve of the 27 actions have been completed. Another three are progressing on schedule as was originally set out. While the remaining 12 are behind schedule, they remain on the critical pathway for delivery in total. None are actually running behind schedule and unlikely to be delivered on the critical pathway. There is a significant amount of work to be done. As the Deputy identified, one of the targets that has been set is the need to attest 300 new members of the Reserve every year. We are behind on that target, but today my office spoke to the colonel in charge of it about where we are for 2026.

The understanding is that we are on schedule to hit the 300 target and then maintain it. A significant amount of work has been done to get us to a point where we can build on the Reserve. There is more to be done.

Can we take it-----

The Deputy is over time.

Can we take it, by way of a summary, that the matter is being regarded as a priority?

It is.

I thank Deputy Stanley. There will be a second round but I am very keen to allow everybody to contribute first.

I thank Ms Sinnamon for her presentation. The period since the publication of the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces in 2022 has seen profound and continuing geopolitical instability. To what extent is the implementation of the report’s recommendations taking into account the challenging international context and, of course, Ireland’s position in it? Are all of the recommendations still relevant and sufficient? In particular, is the move towards level of ambition 2 still adequate in the current international defence and security context?

I thank the Deputy for the question. The global context has deteriorated significantly, which we all know from every news report we listen to. This has increased the urgency, and, on the basis of discussion across the system, everybody knows there is a need to accelerate the implementation of the Commission on Defence Forces recommendations.

Whether we have to move the decision on level of ambition 3 will entail a Government decision as opposed to an implementation group decision. Our immediate focus is to try to accelerate level of ambition 2 and get back on track in terms of the programme I set out to try to get as many of the recommendations implemented as possible, in 2026 initially. Some of the groundwork for the recommendations that will be implemented in 2027 and 2028 will be in 2026. It is a matter not just of looking at the 2026 recommendations but also of ensuring we are on track for early work for the others and considering the impact of recommendations that have been implemented to date to see whether they have had the expected impact or whether something else is needed.

I have another question. The personnel number at the moment is 7,756. Does Ms Sinnamon believe 11,500 personnel is achievable by the end of 2028?

The achievement of 11,500 by 2028 is massively challenging. One of the documents I referred to in my opening statement is the strategic workforce plan, which the Minister has requested the Chief of Staff to produce. It is being developed and will be with the Minister by April of this year. That is a plan that is meant to consider recruitment, the people who are due for retirement and the mix of skills required to achieve level of ambition 2 and the pathway to that. It will set out what is specifically required to get to 11,500, linked to level of ambition 2.

We will see in April what the glide path to 11,500 looks like. We stabilised in 2024 and there was an increase of 207 in 2025. This year, there will be more than that recruited, but we are a long way off 11,500. I will be able to answer the question the next time I am here, with the benefit of a strategic workforce plan that I hope will achieve what needs to happen.

I thank the witnesses very much for being here this evening. I want to jump straight in on the 11,500. Clearly, we are seeing that large numbers of people are coming forward to join the Defence Forces. The salary that is on offer now for a private soldier is quite impressive although we have serious problems with commissioned officers’ training. The cadet salary is absolutely ludicrous. Given the age at which we now allow people to sign up for cadetships, offering young men and women €25,000 a year is nonsense.

I am wondering where the logjam is. Is there a shortage of training personnel? Do we not have enough instructors? We visited Grangegorman and were extremely impressed with what we saw there. I hope we will visit Dún Uí Mhaoilíosa in Galway, the location of my hometown battalion, to see some of the work going on there.

I want to make all my points while I can because I have committees and other business to attend to. On rank differentials, we increased the salary for incoming private soldiers, but there is no great incentive to become a corporal because the pay differential has not been maintained. That continues to be the case the whole way up the line, from what I understand. Differentials are important. I come from both military and teaching backgrounds and have noted that people would not apply for special duties or assistant principal posts unless the money was enough to encourage them. Once they apply, they stay.

We are also looking at career talent management. I could refer to the 43 projects, but what is the point of doing that? The witnesses are as aware of them as I am. I understand there is a need to engage more with representative bodies on career talent management. The system is complex, whereby people in different specialisms may need to be treated differently. The colonel present will know there is a big difference between an infantry officer and an engineering officer or cybersecurity specialist, for example. I am wondering what is causing the long delays in getting this sorted and getting it moving. This is a retention issue. The HR recommendations, such as training establishment and specialist pay, point to a serious issue that is not being addressed. I would like to know where the problem is in reaching 11,500.

I would like to know whether, when people leave, they are asked to join the Reserve. When I was leaving the Defence Forces, nobody asked me whether, on the basis of my leaving, I would like to be part of the Reserve so as to maintain my specialisms or training. It is a bit too late now. I am 72 and do not believe they want me anymore.

Another issue that has been brought to our attention is that a young person joining the Reserve who needs a medical examination seems to encounter a logjam. In some cases, they are expected to go to their own GP and pay for it. Where is the problem? There are young people who want to sign up. I started my military career in the Reserve, or the FCA, as it was known at the time. In those days, there were ten or 15 people at every street corner in Galway waiting to be picked up by the engineers or the artillery, transport or infantry personnel. I do not know how we lost all of that. There are people with specialisms whom we should be encouraging to join up, like those in cybersecurity. A document with a vision for cybersecurity in Ireland will be coming out in a few weeks from my office. Part of that vision involves the Reserve Defence Force. You do not have to be able to run 5 km to be a Reserve specialist in cybersecurity. What you have to be is good on the keyboard and you have to know your way around the system. The Taoiseach pointed out at one stage here that a rather rotund individual, even if follically challenged, may very well fit into what we would call the Reserve Fianna if they are good at cybersecurity and would be available.

The Senator should allow time for the answers. I am sticking to the time.

I am about to finish. That was a lot of information. I am sorry but I had to get it all out.

On recruitment to the Defence Forces and the number of applicants, we see that 14,000 people may apply whereas only 800 may actually join. The figure of 14,000 is misleading in the first place. If I click on the Defence Forces website, I may decide within minutes that it is not for me. The figure does not encapsulate only those who have gone through the full process, applied and sent in an application. People decide very quickly that they are not interested.

One issue on which a lot of time was spent by the external oversight body, with which I know the Senator had a long session last week, is the recruitment processes and what must happen.

A lot of progress has been made on the work package side and on getting out to schools to talk to people in order to create a greater level of awareness. There is also streamlining of some of the things that put people off. It is not complete. There is more work to be done. Psychological testing puts a lot of people off. The relevant question is whether it is needed. It is the whole process of recruitment from the start, but 14,800 is a misleading figure in the first instance. The medical issue has been raised previously, and Mr. Molloy will address that in the context of the Reserve.

The Senator raised a few good points. He also raised them previously. The numbers are interesting. The Senator has spoken with the head of strategic HR, Declan Carville, on a number of occasions. Mr. Carville is doing a lot of work on the recruitment process. He is working on the timeline to try to make sure it is more seamless and to structure it in such a way that it is clear when someone is coming through that they are actually applying to the Defence Forces, and that they are aware of and meet the eligibility criteria. Something like 20% of the applicants included in that approximate number of 14,000 were not eligible at all. They were never going to be members of the Defence Forces. We lose somewhere between 80% and 90% as soon as they see a psychometric test. You get down to a smaller number of people who are willing to go through the process. You then call those people for medical exams and fitness tests. We are looking at the medical logjam. There have been issues.

Reference was made to the delays with medical exams for the Reserve. That puts people off as well. They apply for something and it takes a period, sometimes months, for their application to be moved on. Their head has changed in terms of where they are and where their thinking is. They do not necessarily want to follow through. We are taking steps, and the head of strategic HR is applying a lot of resources to try to resolve these issues, make sure that the application process is made as seamless and as easy as possible and see to it that we get as many of them on to the parade ground as we can, and bring them through from that point.

What about career and talent management?

There is an ambitious suite of HR initiatives to be progressed this year, seven of which I listed earlier. That is not going to happen unless there are substantial discussions with the representative associations to develop the proposals as opposed to dealing with them at the end. That will have to happen through external oversight body, EOB. We have had conversations directly with the HR team in the Defence Forces to the effect that this engagement has to start as soon as possible. It is a matter of working collaboratively to come up with solutions as opposed to rubber-stamping something at the end.

I thank everybody for coming in. I acknowledge all of the recommendations that have been fulfilled to date. I share the witnesses’ desire to see more urgency, as outlined in the Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces.

My first question, even though I do not have it written down, relates to what happened to the sense of urgency outlined in the first Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces. I will start, as I did last week, on a point of clarity regarding the Value Our People survey that was carried out. Did the 24% of the people who said there was inappropriate behaviour indicate that they had experienced it or that they had witnessed it?

That they experienced it.

Okay.

Some 24% of people said that they experienced unacceptable behaviour in the past 12 months.

That is perfect. I thank Ms Sinnamon. I thought she used the word "witnessed". I wanted to clarify that.

No, the question asked if they had experienced it.

That is perfect.

In her opening statement, Ms Sinnamon gave a good outline of what happens and what the IOG's role is where a recommendation is completed. I am interested in what happens when a recommendation has not been completed and when a deadline has been missed. By my reckoning, only 41.5% of the 130 recommendations have been completed to date. What is the IOG's role in instances where recommendations have not been completed? Will Ms Sinnamon outline the position in that regard? It is my understanding that 43% of the outstanding recommendations have been pushed back for between one and three years in the new implementation plan. That is another 60% of those outstanding. What is the IOG's role in that regard?

My next question relates to the opening statement. Ms Sinnamon indicated that "solid delivery foundations [are] now in place." I am delighted to hear that, and would like her to expand on it. Ms Sinnamon also stated, "the revised timelines for implementation of various recommendations are both realistic and challenging." I would love to know particularly about the career and talent management processes. I asked this question at last week's meeting as well. Is it genuinely realistic that they will be delivered by November of this year? Is it the case that there has to be more collaboration and conversation with the representative organisations before they come into play? Do the members of those organisations have to vote on or have a conversation about this? Is that how it works?

Ms Sinnamon referred to a new vision for the Reserve Defence Force and a joint cyber defence command. I am delighted to see that was created. How is that going? Given the geopolitical situation and how warfare is conducted nowadays, we know we could be targeted in the cyber sphere. Has any thought been given to joining together, enhancing and developing the Reserve Defence Force and cyber? This is similar to what Senator Craughwell mentioned. Has any thought been given to the creation of an Irish national cyber reserve? It could be utilised well in the context of specialised members of Defence Forces who we lose because they get jobs in civvy street but who would still like to give something back to the State. I am from Carlow, and SETU offers a strong master's degree in cybersecurity. I am confident that there are students for whom internships could be run in the summertime as part of developing our cyber reserve. There is an open door too in the context of information sessions, even at secondary school level during TY for people to talk about the Reserve. They do not necessarily have to know how to march, stand in a trench or do anything like that, but they can be there as a back-up for us because we will need that in the event that we are again subjected to a cyber threat. Having people in reserve ready to step up, as is done in other jurisdictions, would make being a reservist a bit more sexy, if I can use that word. I think they would like that. Those are my thoughts for now.

I will start with what happened to the sense of urgency. It is not that there was not a sense of urgency. When the timelines were set out initially, they were ambitious. There was no realisation of the depth of work required to deliver many of them, particularly those on the HR side.

In my previous life, I spent a lot of time on transformational change. It takes a great deal of time to get all the bodies involved and doing it. As a result, I think the timelines were overly ambitious.

There was more detailed work done just after I joined the implementation group. Deloitte was working closely with the Defence Forces in terms of supporting the process. It might have looked as though something could be done in six months, but people were being very optimistic that it was ever possible. Why I say the foundations are there is because there has been a massive amount of engagement on many of these subjects over the past 12 months. There is still a lot to be done.

On the Deputy’s question about the representative organisations, there will have to be engagement with them. The level of engagement will have to increase from where it is now. That is something which has been raised by the EOB with the senior team on the HR side in the Defence Forces. That engagement has to be strengthened if the deadlines are to be met. We are engaging with the representative associations to inform them that they have to get on board.

Where is the engagement stalling? Why is it not strong enough? What does Ms Sinnamon mean that it needs to be strengthened or increased? Who is reluctant or resistant? Why s it not at the strength required?

Rather than developing something from A to Z before you have a dialogue, you need to co-create a lot of things in today’s HR environment. There is room for more engagement at an earlier stage.

Why is that not happening?. If it needs to be strengthened, is that because the representative associations are reluctant to engage? Is it the other side? Is there not a timeframe in place? Are requests not going in? What is the process? I do not understand why it is not happening, particularly if it needs to happen.

In the recent engagement we have had from the EOB side, we made it clear to both sides that there needs to be a higher level of engagement on the specifics of how these proposals are going to progress.

Is Ms Sinnamon allowed to tell us what both sides said in response?

I think they both recognise that it has to happen. I think it will happen. It will be accelerated as a result of the interaction. I do not know if Mr. Molloy wants to add to that.

If the Chair does not mind, I will do so. I know we are over time.

I will allow a little extra time for Deputy Callaghan.

I was just going to comment very briefly on the cyber piece, because it is interesting. As part of the Reserve regeneration plan, there are a couple of projects going on. There is a joint Department of Defence-Defence Forces project under the Sparx programme, which is an innovation programme operated across the two sides and which focuses specifically on how reservists' civilian skills can be utilised more. There is due to be report on that next month or in May. There is also a project which is focusing on a third-line Reserve-type model that would be exactly the kind of thing the Deputy is talking about – and Senator Craughwell raised it too - whereby those reservists with specialist skills, including in the area of cyber, would be subjected to different fitness tests and requirements in order that those skills could be leveraged.

We participate in international cyber events that incorporate members of the PDF, the RDF, academia, etc. There was a cyber event in Tallinn in October or November of last year. We sent some people from the joint cyber defence command to that. It is an area we are actively engaged in and that is being developed as we go forward as part of the Reserve regeneration plan.

I think it would show the Defence Forces and the Reserve Defence Forces in a very proactive, positive and modern light.

There is a key role for the implementation group and me, as its chair, in circumstances where recommendations are pushed out or not being met in the context of keeping toes to the fire when people say certain things and looking for the specifics behind it. Ultimately, we are not implementing it. This is about keeping the focus on the steps that have to be taken and getting the people into the room together to discuss where things are behind and to look for plans to try to get them back on track. We spend a lot of time on that.

I thank Ms Sinnamon for explaining that. I would have loved to have seen it outlined in Ms Sinnamon's the opening statement in terms of providing a balance. If it is not explained, we are left in the dark thinking “Oh my God, if recommendations are missed and there is nothing happening". Even in the context of the implementation group's role, it would have been good to have that explained at the outset. If there was an opportunity for it to issue a written explanation outlining that after these proceedings, I, for one, would appreciate it. I hope the Chair does not mind me asking for that.

Sure. I thank the Deputy.

I thank the body for its work to date and wish it well with its ongoing work. There are a number of issues I had intended to raise but they have already been covered by colleagues. There is no point repeating what has already been said.

On the career and talent management process, Ms Sinnamon quite rightly said that the representative bodies have to be engaged with. They have to negotiate on behalf of their neighbours and ballot their members. This is a long process and arduous task. Is the deadline of November this year realistic?

On the representative organisations - I have engaged with them from time to time - I understand that they have been attempting to engage with the Department for the past few years and that requests for engagement have been refused. Is that correct? If so, why were they refused? Are the witnesses aware that they were refused?

The November deadline is challenging but possible. I say that having spent a lot of time negotiating change in other places. It is possible.

On whether the Defence Forces refused to engage, I am not aware of that.

No, the Department refused to engage.

The Department. No.

The are seven specific recommendations on career and talent management that are led by the head of strategic HR. There has been a huge amount of work done in the past number of years. There is some concern about whether this will all get done before November, but the last furlong is always the longest. That is why there has been the level of engagement that the chair and Mr. Molloy outlined. That is where we are with that process. I am not aware of any lack of engagement, particularly on the career and talent management piece, at all. It is certainly a focus for all of us. Representatives from the EOB were before the committee last week. The Minister highlighted how important those seven recommendations are as a manifestation of the change and transformation required within the Defence Forces. That is my perspective.

When do the witnesses envisage that the negotiations or the consultation will commence?

We can come back on that. There is engagement ongoing, but we will come back on that.

There is ongoing engagement with them. It is not a waterfall approach that has been adopted. That is to the best of my understanding, but I can confirm-----

In relation to this particular matter.

Yes. There are quite a lot of HR-related pieces which fit into the overall suite relating to career and talent management. Those recommendations will all be delivered at the same time because they are so interrelated in terms of performance management, for example, versus promoting systems versus career course eligibility. All those pieces move together.

The EOB has been quite direct in saying that there is a need to intensify the discussions between the two sides.

I would hope so. We are heading into April.

Yes. The deadline of November might seem like a long way away, but-----

No, it does not.

-----it means that there is an urgency to those discussions. They will be intense discussions.

I thank Ms Sinnamon.

How many meetings have been held with the representative associations and the Department over the past two years regarding career and talent management?

We will have to come back on that.

I do not work directly on that with Mr. Molloy, but I know that there has been ongoing engagement. We will have to come back to the committee on that.

Could Mr. Murtagh come back with the meetings because we have a job to do here on that? How does the oversight group measure the impact and effectiveness of the recommendations that have been completed?

It has not been a large part of our work to date. Some of the recommendations do not need follow-up. For example, one either recruits a head of strategic HR and a head of transformation or one does not. If we look at the training on gender bias and diversity, has that any effect? A total of 4,600 people have been through it and systems are in place to be able to broaden that out, using technology, to a wider group of people as well but, at the end of the day, we need to follow up and ask what difference it makes and what is the understanding.

The cultural surveys will also be a great guide for us. We have figures we talked about. It is not every organisation that would set itself to put that type of cultural survey and the results of it out. It is baseline data. There will be another survey later this year so when I am back before this committee, we will be able to say it was 24% and is whatever percent it is today. By tracking the results coming through the cultural surveys, the retention of staff within the Defence Forces is being addressed. There are exit interviews with staff who leave the organisation. What is the feedback? The lived experience of staff is really indicative of what is happening. Initiatives have been implemented on remote learning. These are really important in terms of much of the feedback that came back, particularly that which addressed the progression of females throughout the organisation, but not just females. Those initiatives have been implemented. Have they had any impact in terms of the change in those figures? Those will be very easy to track. At our last meeting, we said we want to take the ones where there has been a passage of time and we can ask whether they have made a difference and, if not, do we need to go back and revisit them?

Does the group have clarity around the matrix it will use for the measurement of the success of each of the recommendations? Has the group done that for each of them?

We have not developed those-----

It would be interesting for the committee to know how the group is measuring them in order for the committee to keep track of them in terms of accountability?

Within the transformation management office, which sits in my division, we are setting up a cell on benefits realisation and impact assessment. We have not yet done it so I do not have anything to bring to the committee but it is following on from the implementation oversight group feedback we got, which was around coming up with a matrix of metrics. There will be different metrics for different ones to see what we can actually measure so the next time the implementation oversight group is in front of the committee, it will have that kind of data and be able to share it with the committee.

It would be very good if the implementation oversight group could provide that so we all know what to expect.

With 130 recommendations, the risk is that one can implement things but some of them do not have the desired effect. That is why it is really important for us as an implementation group to revisit some of the things to see whether they have done what we thought they would do.

In the context of continuous learning, they are as useful as the ones that are successful. Why is psychometric testing a block there? Is it a block in recruitment for firms?

I am not an expert in the area. My understanding is that it is not unique to the Defence Forces and that psychometric testing is perceived as off-putting by people. We are looking at a number of different things right up to and including the nuclear option of getting rid of psychometric testing but there is a value in terms of behavioural and cognitive capabilities that can be measured at a very baseline level for eligibility. It is something we have looked at. We have piloted taking it out in certain areas to see what kind of impact it has had. The difficulty is quantifying the impact when we are doing so many other things at the same time in terms of trying to drive recruitment. It is not unique to us. We are looking at alternative types of it and the timing of it in the process to see whether we can get people in and then, in a less challenging environment, get them to have a look at the output with psychometric tests. It is not unique to us but we are looking at a range of options to see whether we can get over the issues it seems to be creating.

There is real value in psychometric testing. Recommendation 110 recommends that the role and functions of military intelligence be urgently clarified and underpinned by appropriate legislation within the context of a coherent national intelligence architecture. The recommendation states that it is urgent. At what stage is this at? It says here that it is accepted in principle. How do the witnesses see that working?

That originally concerns a further evaluation when the report was originally published in 2023. What that identified was a need for that legislation to be put in place. The mechanism in terms of the actual Bill it is considered most appropriate to progress that on is the Bill concerning the command and controls under C2, which is another part of this. That Bill is down for priority drafting in this legislative session and the expectation is that this legislative process will commence this year. That is the appropriate Bill and mechanism to get that legislative framework in place so it is attaching it.

We will suspend the meeting due to a vote.

On behalf of the committee, I thank the chair of the implementation oversight group, the officials from the Department of Defence and the representatives from the Defence Forces for their time and engagement this evening. The meeting now stands adjourned until the joint committee meets again in public session at 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 16 April 2026 to discuss the annual report of the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces.