Ireland is addicted to contracting away all kinds of State capacity

By treating governance as contract administration, we are letting our sovereignty erode gradually through every decision we outsource, writes Paul Davis

In healthcare ICT, the Children’s Health Ireland group has bought systems that cannot perform basic functions. Medical histories have vanished, appointments have disappeared, and even managers cannot log into their own accounts. File picture

Tony Geraghty’s warning earlier this year in the Irish Examiner about the strategic costs of outsourcing Ireland’s defence deserves serious attention. 

As a former Naval Service officer, he understands what happens when capability gaps turn into dependency. But the problem runs deeper than airspace monitoring or maritime surveillance.

Defence outsourcing isn’t an isolated policy choice, but the logical endpoint of a decades-long habit. Ireland has learned to contract out nearly everything the State once did itself. 

Each time, the justification sounds identical, on paper specialists promise speed and savings, and they certainly offer flexibility. After all, why retain expensive in-house expertise when you can purchase it on demand?

Consider the proposal to outsource electronic tagging of offenders. It’s presented as something technical and routine, the sort of thing that should save money. 

For most of us, tagging just feels like basic data collection, something routine, almost mindless. It doesn’t feel strategic, and it definitely doesn’t feel political. But in truth, it’s often both, whether we realise it or not. 

Tagging enables observation, observation enables monitoring, and monitoring underpins enforcement. Once the State stops doing even the basic watching for itself, it drifts from governing into merely overseeing whatever a contractor delivers.

We’ve seen this pattern destroy accountability across Irish public administration. In infrastructure delivery, reliance on external project managers left the State unable to act as an intelligent client. 

The National Children’s Hospital stands as a monument to what happens when the State retains responsibility but surrenders control. Cost overruns weren’t inevitable — they were the predictable result of procurement logic displacing strategic judgement.

In healthcare ICT, the Children’s Health Ireland group has bought systems that cannot perform basic functions. Medical histories have vanished, appointments have disappeared, and even managers cannot log into their own accounts. 

The State outsourced technical expertise and has now discovered it lacks the capacity to challenge vendors or enforce accountability when delivery fails.

In regulation, data dependency has limited the State’s ability to oversee the very actors it regulates. 

Paul Davis: 'The National Children’s Hospital stands as a monument to what happens when the State retains responsibility but surrenders control.'

ComReg, the communications regulator, relies on quarterly data supplied by the telecoms operators it is supposed to hold to account. 

When Eir was found to have breached its access obligations, ComReg had to pursue enforcement through the High Court, a process that took years and settled for a fraction of the penalty originally sought. 

Relying on industry-provided information sounds efficient until you need to question it, at which point you discover the independent capacity to verify has quietly disappeared.

Defence outsourcing carries the same risk, but with sovereignty itself at stake. Monitoring airspace or maritime activity requires judgement, it requires an understanding of patterns, of interpreting intent, and then responding proportionately.

These functions cannot be meaningfully retained when the underlying capability resides elsewhere. Geraghty is correct that if we don’t exercise sovereignty in practice, it becomes theoretical. 

Lost skills

But there’s a procurement dimension Ireland has ignored for too long. 

That is that capability, once lost, is prohibitively expensive to rebuild.

Building a pipeline of people takes years, far longer than any procurement cycle. 

Skills atrophy, institutional memory fades, and career pathways disappear. 

You can sign contracts overnight, but you cannot recreate expertise that way. 

By the time the pattern of dependency becomes visible, the capability has already gone.

Ireland faces genuine challenges staffing and resourcing the Defence Forces. 

No one disputes that. But partnerships should augment domestic capacity, not replace it. 

A State that cannot monitor and defend its own territory hasn’t found efficiency. It has accepted dependence by another name.

Accountability

There’s a democratic dimension that Irish policymakers consistently ignore. 

Outsourcing distances decision-making from public accountability. Contracts tend to be opaque, and the metrics used to measure success are narrow. 

When delivery fails, responsibility fragments. The State remains answerable, but its capacity to explain or correct failures is diminished. 

We saw this clearly during the cervical screening scandal, where CervicalCheck relied on external laboratories. 

When quality failures emerged, it became impossible to assign accountability. 

The State bore responsibility, but the capability to prevent or detect failure resided elsewhere.

Defence follows the same logic. Each individual decision appears sensible in isolation, outsource surveillance here, analysis there, monitoring elsewhere. 

The cumulative effect is rarely examined. We tend to optimise for short-term cost efficiency while surrendering long-term strategic capacity. 

Lost sovereignty

European partners can and should contribute to Irish security, and shared capabilities make sense where they are genuinely complementary. But Ireland’s tendency is to treat co-operation as full substitution. 

We don’t improve capacity, what we do instead is abandon it entirely in favour of contractual arrangements.

This matters because neutrality without capacity isn’t neutrality, it’s dependence dressed in different language. A credible neutral state needs to know what’s happening in its own airspace and waters. 

Sovereignty isn’t an abstract legal status. It’s exercised daily through mundane acts of governance such as collecting data, monitoring compliance, enforcing rules, and making informed decisions under uncertainty.

Ireland’s defence debate exposes a pathology that extends far beyond military capability. We have normalised outsourcing as default. 

We’ve convinced ourselves that the State doesn’t need to do things, it just needs to contract others to do them. 

It’s framed as efficiency, but in practice it reflects a deeper failure to understand what effective governance demands.

The question isn’t whether Ireland can afford to retain core State capabilities. It’s whether we can afford not to. 

Every failed infrastructure project, every dysfunctional ICT system, every regulatory failure where the State lacked the capacity to enforce its own rules, all these point to the same conclusion. Contracts are easier to sign than careers are to sustain. 

What's your view on this issue?

You can tell us here

But when something goes wrong, and in Ireland it reliably does, you discover that contractual responsibility is not the same as institutional capacity.

Defence outsourcing would simply add military capability to the growing list of functions Ireland has contracted away. 

Geraghty is right to warn about the immediate strategic costs. The institutional costs may prove even higher.

• Paul Davis is associate professor of Management and head of the Management Group at DCU's Faculty of Business