Vol. 419 No. 9
23 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence if he will outline the extent to which the recommendations of the Gleeson report on Army pay and conditions have already been implemented, the remaining stages, if any, yet to be implemented; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
29 Mr. Moynihan asked the Minister for Defence if he will outline his plans regarding the introduction of a short service commission in the Permanent Defence Force as recommended by the Gleeson report, and if he will make a statement on the matter.
44 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Defence if he will outline the progress made to date in regard to the implementation of the non-pay recommendations of the Gleeson report, and if he will make a statement on the matter.
48 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Defence the steps if any he intends taking to improve the promotional opportunities and career prospects for Defence Forces officers; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
50 Mr. S. Barrett asked the Minister for Defence the action being taken by his Department to move towards the Gleeson report recommendation to cap ranks.
56 Miss Flaherty asked the Minister for Defence the action being taken by his Department to move towards the Gleeson report recommendation to cap ranks.
66 Mrs. Taylor-Quinn asked the Minister for Defence if the Gleeson report recommendations on (a) Border duty allowances, (b) overseas allowances and (c) security duty allowances have been implemented, and if he will outline the action, if any, that is being taken to ensure that recommendations on all other allowances are implemented.
67 Mr. Bell asked the Minister for Defence if he will outline the sections of the Gleeson report which have been applied in full, in part, or have not been applied; the reason for the non-application of any such sections; if he will further outline the plans he has to complete the remaining unapplied recommendations of the report, and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 23, 29, 44, 48, 50, 56, 66 and 67 together.
Since publication of the Gleeson Commission's report there has been continuous attention by my Department to the recommendations therein in order to ensure their implementation.
The Gleeson report contained a total of 170 separate recommendations covering all aspects of the Permanent Defence Force remuneration and conditions of service as well as organisation and management.
On the basis of a simple count, which is not an adequate reflection of progress, about 75 per cent of the recommendations may be regarded as disposed of or almost so. Substantial action has been taken in regard to the balance which relate to the complex areas of organisation, management and so on.
The increases in pay for all ranks which were recommended for introduction have been fully implemented and pay has been further enhanced by application of the increase provided for under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.
Increases in security related allowances — for security duty and prison duty — and in overseas allowances have likewise been fully implemented and these allowances have also attracted subsequent increases. Border duty allowance was increased by 77 per cent arising out of an interdepartmental committee report before the Gleeson Commission issued their findings.
New allowances for bomb-disposal teams, for instructors, for officers on substitution duty and for personnel maintaining essential public service are fully in place as recommended and administrative arrangements to provide for a number of further new allowances are nearing completion.
There have been ongoing discussions between my Department and the representative associations in regard to the implementation of recommendations on non-pay aspects of conditions of service. Meals provided for soldiers now have a greater variety of food items and better nutritional value and more personnel now receive free meals and accommodation. Uncertified sick leave facilities for non-commissioned personnel are now in operation. The first phase of a new comprehensive welfare and counselling service for the Defence Force, involving the employment of civilian specialists in social work, has been introduced.
The Commission's recommendations in regard to military personnel on overseas service have been implemented. For those in Lebanon this has meant increased allowances and free telephone calls home to relatives. Charges have been waived for certain items of equipment which attracted a charge in the past. Personnel have been reassured that requests for free repatriation on compassionate grounds will be sympathetically considered.
The Commission also made a wide range of recommendations in the areas of management, military structures, organisation and deployment, manpower and personnel policy and super-annuation. These are complex matters and a programme to address them systematically and comprehensively is being pursued.
Considerable progress is already evident and an examination of organisational and administrative changes affecting the Permanent Defence Force is being undertaken.
In addition, a new scheme of promotion on merit for commissioned officers as recommended by the Gleeson Commission is being phased in and a number of competitions for promotion to lieutenant-colonel and to more senior ranks have been held in line with the new arrangements. The competitions which have been held are regarded as interim arrangements pending completion of discussions with the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers aimed at agreeing a comprehensive scheme for officer promotion at all levels in the context of a defined career programme.
The time-frame for completion of implementation of recommendations in the areas to which I have referred is dependent on the complexity of the issues involved and in many cases on the necessary consultative process with the representative associations. From inquiries which I have made I am satisfied that the implementation of the Gleeson recommendations has been pursued with vigour and determination. This has been and will continue to be the underlying approach.
In relation to the approximate 25 per cent of the Gleeson report recommendations that have not yet been implemented, could the Minister give an indication of the amount of time, energy and effort going into examination of those issues? Could he also be a little more specific on when he expects the full and final recommendations to be implemented?
The short answer is that it is not possible to give a time-frame for implementation of the recommendations because of their complexity and of a consultative process which must be carried on with the representative organisations. The Deputy's underlying concern is the seeking of an assurance that there will not be any delay in implementation of the recommendations and I can give the Deputy that assurance.
Arising out of the Gleeson report, could the Minister advise the House what structure or arrangements exist to ensure that the increases in pay and allowances already implemented will be kept in line with the cost of living increases that will inevitably occur so that there will not be an appalling repeat of the cyclical occurrence in this State of soldiers' pay and conditions falling behind those of others and leading to massive frustration? Will the Minister indicate the overall time-scale for the more important structural changes to take place, which changes fall within the 25 per cent of recommendations that have not been acted upon?
I should like to tell the Deputy, in relation to the approximate 25 per cent of recommendations yet to be implemented, that it is not the case that none of them have been addressed. There are ongoing discussions in that area.
As I told Deputy Durkan, I cannot give a definitive time-scale because of the consultation process that has to take place. I assure the Deputy, however, that there will be no undue delay on the part of the Department or the military authorities.
There are two points I should like to make on the question of keeping increases in pay and allowances in line with general cost of living increases. The position that arose previously may have been because there was no representative organisation in place at that time. Judging by the outcome of the recent conference, and the activity of the representative organisations, I do not anticipate any Government in the future being allowed let such a position develop again. In addition, a conciliation and arbitration scheme for the Defence Forces is almost complete, which scheme will obviate the danger of a recurrence of what happened.
Would the Minister accept that the discussions and consultations which must necessarily arise from the findings of the Gleeson Commission, who listened to all sides and prepared a very detailed and well reasoned report, should be kept to the minimum and should not in any way be designed to frustrate or impede the implementation of the recommendations and, in particular, of the structural reforms necessary to update not only the distribution of the Army network throughout the country but also the interplay between the Department and the management side of the Army? I feel there would be a great inclination at that level to maintain consultation and demand discussion simply as a device to avoid the implementation of the report. Could the Minister give an assurance that consultations will be brought to a speedy conclusion in order to ensure the full and early implementation of the recommendations?
That is a hypothetical question because approximately 75 per cent of the recommendations of that committee have been agreed to. I do not anticipate the difficulty the Deputy forsees in relation to the remaining 25 per cent although, obviously, the 75 per cent that have been implemented probably would have been the easier ones. I can give the Deputy the assurance he seeks, that the complexity of the issues involved will not be used as a delaying tactic on the part of the Department or the military authorities with regard to implementation of these recommendations.
