These are Priority Questions to the Minister for Finance.
Priority Questions
I think the Acting Chairman means the Minister for Defence.
I apologise; the Minister for Defence.
My life is complicated enough without my becoming Minister for Finance.
The Minister is double-jobbing.
Two jobs are enough. Three would be just too much altogether.
Defence Forces Reserve Funding
Seán Ó Fearghaíl
Question:1. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence the key changes he is proposing regarding the Reserve Defence Forces; if legislation will be necessary to effect these changes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [54929/12]
I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the key changes that are being introduced in order to ensure the future viability of the Reserve Defence Force, RDF. A value for money review of the RDF was recently completed and published. This review highlighted a range of issues that need to be addressed in order to improve the cost-effectiveness of the RDF; it also highlighted that existing organisational structures are not fit for purpose. The current effective strength of the RDF is approximately 4,500 personnel and the organisational structures were designed for a strength of 9,692 personnel. The review found that this strength was not achieved from 2006 onwards, despite the fact that there were no restrictions on recruitment prior to 2009. It also highlighted significant issues with regard to low uptakes of training within the RDF and a high turnover of personnel. All of these issues have an adverse impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of the RDF.
A major reorganisation of the RDF is one of the key changes being introduced to address these findings. The new organisational structure for the Army Reserve is based on a single-force concept under which Defence Forces units will have permanent and reserve elements. These units will be based in Permanent Defence Force, PDF, installations throughout the country and in 16 locations outside of those installations. This new model will offer significant advantages in terms of training and improved interoperability and will enhance the overall capability of the Defence Forces. The changes to which I refer will reduce direct expenditure on the RDF by €11 million, while maintaining the budget for reserve training activity.
The new organisation is based on a revised strength ceiling for the reserve of 4,069 personnel - that is, 3,869 in the Army Reserve and 200 in the Naval Service Reserve. This strength level was recommended in order to ensure the maintenance of appropriate reserve capabilities within the existing resource constraints. This requires the withdrawal of gratuities from members of the reserve and reassignment of the budgetary provision into paid training. I have requested the Chief of Staff to report back to me on the other important recommendations contained in the report, including the First Line Reserve, training and recruitment and retention.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
Changes to Defence Forces regulations will be required for the new organisational structure. They may also arise in respect of other developments such as the increased use of the reserve in a voluntary unpaid capacity for aid to the civil authority tasks or changed criteria for retention on the effective strength of the reserve. I wish to emphasise that the contribution and commitment of each and every member of the reserve is appreciated. I sincerely hope that all members of the reserve will continue to serve within the new organisation.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I acknowledge that there was a significant decline in participation in the RDF, particularly during the middle part of the previous decade. One is obliged to wonder why that decline occurred. I also wish to acknowledge the substantial contribution made to the State and local communities by the RDF in its many previous manifestations - the LSF, the LDF and the FCA - and over many years.
I accept that the Minister has been faced not only with a difficulty in respect of funding - the level of which being made available to the RDF has been dramatically reduced - but also with one which relates to numbers. The problem is that he is now perceived as being extremely effective when it comes to wielding the scalpel. People within the RDF look at him as the person who reduced the number of brigades from three to two. They are also aware of what he, as Minister for Justice and Equality, has done to the Garda station network throughout the country. Does the Minister accept that there are very real and grave concerns to the effect that he has embarked upon a course that will eventually lead to the evisceration of the RDF as we have known it?
The Deputy will not be remotely surprised if I disagree with what he said. What we have tried to do is to effect a reorganisation of the RDF which reflects the reorganisation of the PDF in order that the former will be fit for purpose and include a restructured organisation which will result in a greater connectivity with the latter. We must encourage those committed individuals who are proud of their participation with the RDF and who engage in training as required. We must also ensure that money that is spent on the reserve is to the benefit of the community.
In the context of the review that was undertaken, there are currently some 4,500 members of the RDF. The most recent figure I have in respect of training for members of the RDF relates to 2011, when only 2,010 of these personnel took up the full seven days' training that is required. We are operating in a different environment now and it is not a case of taking the scalpel to anything. What we are seeking to do is to ensure we establish modern structures that reflect the reality of the functions the RDF can perform and that will facilitate greater connectivity between it and the PDF. We must also ensure that resources are not wasted. For example, the numerical strength of the cadre of staff from the PDF designated to provide training to the RDF was based on an assumption that the latter would have a staff in the region of 9,000. An RDF of that size simply does not exist. By reducing the number of PDF personnel detailed to RDF training, we have freed such personnel to engage in normal day-to-day PDF operations and training. This, in turn, has meant that public funds are not being wasted.
I have an obligation, as Minister, to ensure that at a time of reduced resources, when we will be receiving €13.5 billion - the difference between what the State is taking in and what it is spending - from the EU, the ECB and the IMF in 2013 in order to pay for essential services, we use such resources wisely. This is one of our objectives. Another of those objectives is that we should give the RDF a new lease of life. I hope the reforms being introduced will have that effect.
I accept the point the Minister makes to some extent. However, one must question the extent to which participation in the RDF has been promoted by the PDF. One must also ask whether those who were participating and who had signed up were encouraged to actively partake of the training courses on offer. Will the Minister provide an explanation as to the impact on serving members of his proposal to withdraw gratuities and redirect the money involved towards the provision of additional training? Substantial savings to the Exchequer have already been achieved. There would be manifest benefits to the Department, the PDF and society at large were we to encourage many of those under the age of 25 throughout the country who are unemployed to become actively involved in this form of important civil service.
As we must move on to the next question, unfortunately there is not time for the Minister to reply.
The Acting Chairman is very tough on Members.
He should allow the Minister to reply.
Question No. 2 lapsed.
Defence Forces Reserve Issues
Mattie McGrath
Question:3. Deputy Mattie McGrath asked the Minister for Defence if he will consider retaining the Reserve Defence Forces centre in the town of Clonmel, County Tipperary in view of the fact that there are two units (details supplied); the way he intends existing members based in the Clonmel centre to be accommodated if they have to travel to barracks in Cork and Limerick; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [54996/12]
A value for money review of the RDF was recently completed and published. In my previous reply I outlined the key findings and recommendations contained in that review. I also set out the necessary changes being introduced to the organisational structures of the reserve. These changes will help to ensure a viable reserve into the future.
The new organisational structures are based on a single-force concept which differs from the current model of reserve organisation. Army units will have permanent and reserve elements, rather than a parallel reserve structure as at present. This approach offers significant advantages in terms of access to equipment and training. Under this organisational model, the only Army Reserve elements outside of PDF installations will be 16 reserve infantry companies. All other Army Reserve combat support and combat service support elements will be co-located with their PDF counterparts in PDF installations.
Excuse me, Minister; is that the reply to Priority Question No. 3?
Yes. In the case of No. 1 Brigade, this location will be in Cork. On this basis and to achieve a geographic spread, it is no longer feasible to retain reserve elements in Clonmel. While the closure of many RDF locations is regrettable, the findings of the value for money review clearly highlighted that the current approach was no longer viable. All members of the reserve will be afforded the opportunity to apply for positions within the new organisational structures, having regard to their particular needs.
Reserve personnel from Clonmel may choose to apply for a position within their existing corps, which will now be based in Cork. Alternatively, given the distance from Clonmel to Cork, these personnel may choose to apply for a position in an infantry unit. The reserve infantry units closest to Clonmel will be based in Waterford, Kilkenny and Templemore. Personnel will be able to avail of retraining should this be necessary. I reiterate that the contribution and commitment of each and every member of the reserve is valued and appreciated. I sincerely hope that all members of the reserve will continue to serve within the new organisation. This applies equally to all members, including the members in Clonmel.
I could be forgiven for thinking the Minister's reply to my question was the reply to the first question. All the answers from the Minister are the same. I am really disappointed and quite disgusted with the Minister's attitude towards the PDF and the RDF. I question whether it is constitutionally proper for the Minister to be both the Minister for Justice and Equality and also the Minister for Defence. He has almost banjaxed the two outfits. It is his intent to leave us without any defence. The other day I heard the Minister refer to Derry, An Doire, as Londonderry. I question his fitness for office in these very sensitive positions. I note the Minister's reply to my question about the members of the RDF in Clonmel and his mealy-mouthed words of congratulations and thanks for the service while at the same time he is cutting their gratuity and leaving them go to hell or to Connacht. We kept Cromwell out of Clonmel but we could not stop the Minister from closing our barracks. He will render our gardaí ineffective because they do not have squad cars or tools of the trade. I am quite appalled at the Minister's reply. We want to encourage young people to become involved, to be civic-spirited and to join the RDF. Like Deputy Ó Fearghaíl, I ask why they were not encouraged to participate in the seven-day training course. The Minister seems to believe the volunteers are lethargic, but I do not think so. There may be other reasons. I ask the Minister, in all humanity, to be fair.
The number of brigades is being cut from three to two. This is a savage attack. We found new premises in Clonmel after a delay of a number of months when the RDF had no place to train. The volunteers had to stay at home because they had no place in which to train. The Department rented the premises. Is it now the case that the rental contract will be broken? This decision is an insult to the serving RDF members in Clonmel and Tipperary. I pay tribute to their sterling work over the years in support of the Army throughout the county and the country. They are badly served by this Government and by the Minister in particular.
This is supposed to be Question Time.
It is. The Minister answered the question and I am replying-----
One Deputy at a time, please. Deputy McGrath has the floor. He has four minutes if he wishes to use them.
Yes, I want to use them. I want to express the disbelief and shock of the people of Tipperary and surrounding districts who have been involved with the RDF over many years. I pay tribute to former members - some of whom are retired and are quite ill - and to current serving members who are being discarded as if they were not fit for purpose or not wanted. Is that the thanks our State offers these people who took risks, who made the choice to undertake a seven-day training course every year and to be available and ready to support the Army and An Garda Síochána at different times? We cannot just close the book on this chapter as if it never happened. Tipperary and Clonmel have a proud tradition of association with the Army for nearly 350 years. The barracks in Clonmel lies empty. People who live next to the barracks have been telephoning me from 24 November until this Monday to complain about the noise of the burglar alarms. This shows the scant interest of the Minister in that institution. The barracks have been handed over to the property division of the Department. It is a listed building which is part of the proud heritage of the connection of the Army with Clonmel and the south east. Business people in Clonmel are very annoyed because when their business security alarms are activated nobody will put up with it. Local people cannot sleep at night because of the noise of the alarms ringing in their ears.
Question No. 4 is in the name of Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl.
What is happening, a Chathaoirligh? This is Question Time. The Deputy was entitled to put a question to me and I am entitled to respond to it.
Sorry, Minister; if I may make a point-----
With all due respect, a Chathaoirligh, in fairness to Deputy McGrath, he has put a series of questions to me. There is some misunderstanding on your part as to how we conduct Question Time. I disagree with some things the Deputy has said, but I do not quite understand. It is quite usual that I make an initial reply, after which a Deputy asks a question and I respond.
With due respect to the Minister and to the Deputies present, I am informed that six minutes are allowed for a Priority Question. Of that six minutes, the Minister has two minutes in which to reply. If the Deputy asking the question wishes to utilise the four minutes remaining he or she can do so.
He can just talk away for four minutes. That is not correct.
The usual allocation is two minutes, two minutes, one minute and one minute.
Two minutes, one minute and one minute are the times for Other Questions.
It is not fair to the Deputies opposite. It is not correct.
A time allocation of two minutes, one minute and one minute is used for Other Questions. I am the Acting Chairman. I am being advised by the clerk in front of me.
I am trying to be of help to the Opposition. In fairness to Deputy McGrath, the Acting Chairman indicated to him that he had four minutes. My recollection from other Question Time occasions is that the Chair normally indicates to the Deputy opposite when he or she had gone past a particular point in order to allow time for the Minister to respond. It is also unsatisfactory for the Minister, whether it be myself or any other Minister. Towards the end of his contribution, Deputy McGrath had a question. In the beginning it was just the usual invective. It would be reasonable if one could respond to his question.
I am adhering to the advice I have been given. The Chair is impartial. The Deputy has four minutes. I am carrying out the advice to the letter of the law. We must move on to Priority Question No. 4, from Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl. The Minister has two minutes to read out his reply and Deputy Ó Fearghaíl has a further four minutes, which can be broken into segments. If Deputy Ó Fearghaíl takes four minutes, well and good. If he does not take the four minutes, the Minister has the option to reply.
To be helpful, I will take just two minutes.
I think there has been a very dramatic change in the way Priority Questions are dealt with.
The Minister is being unfair to the Chair.
I am trying to be of assistance to Deputy McGrath. For once he might actually not feel the need to shout across the floor at me.
Defence Forces Personnel
Seán Ó Fearghaíl
Question:4. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence his views on whether there are sufficient opportunities for promotion at all levels of the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [54930/12]
I announced details of the reorganisation of the PDF on 17 July last, which resulted from the Government decision to maintain the strength of the PDF at 9,500. As the reorganisation entailed a reduction in numbers across all levels of the organisation, it will have some impact on the career prospects of some members of the PDF. The approach being taken in the reorganisation is designed to maximise the operational outputs of the PDF.
The table provided outlines the total number of vacancies by rank, based on the PDF rank establishment of 9,500 as at 31 October 2012, the latest date for which figures are available. Competitions for promotions for enlisted personnel have been completed and promotions of successful candidates are ongoing. Officer promotion competitions commenced last month, from which there will be promotions in due course. All promotions will be carried out within the resource envelope allocated to the Department of Defence.
In respect of the Reserve Defence Force, the central recommendation from the value for money steering committee was for the retention of the reserve with 4,000 personnel spread countrywide, with these personnel to be based in barracks and in 16 other locations. This will involve the consolidation of existing reserve units throughout the country into a smaller number of full-strength units.
The Deputy will appreciate that until there is significant further progress on the implementation of recommendations made in the value for money report, it will not be possible to determine where recruitment vacancies and promotion opportunities may arise. As such, it is not proposed to undertake recruitment to the Reserve Defence Force or promote existing personnel at this time.
PDF strength by rank as at 31 October 2012 versus PDF rank establishment of 9,500
|
9,500 Rank Establishment |
Strength at 31 October 2012 |
Vacancies by Rank |
|
|
Lieutenant General |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
Major General |
2 |
2 |
0 |
|
Brigadier General |
8 |
8 |
0 |
|
Colonel |
41 |
34 |
7 |
|
Lieutenant Colonel |
137 |
131 |
6 |
|
Commandant |
336 |
337 |
-1 |
|
Captain |
452 |
436 |
16 |
|
Lieutenant |
256 |
319 |
-63 |
|
Sergeant Major |
43 |
35 |
9 |
|
Battalion Quartermaster Sergeant |
44 |
42 |
1 |
|
Company Sergeant |
245 |
166 |
79 |
|
Company Quartermaster Sergeant |
199 |
171 |
28 |
|
Sergeant |
1,330 |
1,057 |
273 |
|
Corporal |
1,800 |
1,757 |
43 |
|
Private (including Cadet) |
4,606 |
4,656 |
-50 |
|
Total |
9,500 |
9,153 |
347 |
Note:
Equivalent Naval Service Ranks
Brigadier general/commodore
Colonel/captain
Lieutenant colonel/commander
Commandant/lieutenant commander
Captain/lieutenant (NS)
Lieutenant/sub-lieutenantsergeant mayor/warrant officer
Battalion quartermaster sergeant/senior chief petty officer
Company quartermaster sergeant/senior petty officer
Company sergeant/chief petty officer
Sergeant/petty officer
Corporal/leading seaman
Private/able seaman
In written responses in recent weeks the Minister indicated that the total number of promotions at NCO level since the announcement of the review in July was 129 and that the total pertaining to commissioned officer rank was 90. There could be disproportionality in this regard. Will the Minister comment on this? Does he share the concern I expressed previously that there is considerable unease and pessimism among members of the Defence Forces owing to the peremptory manner in which he opted to change the three brigade system to a two brigade system without engaging in the deliberations proposed as part of the White Paper process? I suspect he does not.
I do not accept that there is such a difficulty. We had a three brigade structure posited on a Permanent Defence Force strength of 11,500. When I entered office, the Defence Forces were heading towards a position where, based on the funding provided by the previous Government, there would have been a strength of fewer than 8,000. We consolidated the number at 9,500. I received a commitment from my Government colleagues that the Defence Forces would be funded to ensure this strength. It made no sense to retain a three brigade structure in circumstances where the actual and real strength would be 9,500. It is correct and appropriate that we have a two brigade structure. That was the recommendation made to me by the Chief of Staff, the Secretary General of my Department and those working under them. They addressed the reorganisational steps to be taken.
With regard to promotions, the military authorities have advised me that up to 10 November, there were the following promotions: one major general, four brigadiers general, 233 officers and 309 enlisted personnel. Obviously, with the reduction in the number of barracks and personnel and the move from a three brigade structure to a two brigade structure, it is clear that there would be reductions in the officer and NCO ranks. The reorganisation entails reducing the number of management and administrative posts in the Defence Forces. This will obviously mean reductions in promotional opportunities within the Defence Forces similar to those experienced across the public service as a whole. However, targeted promotions within the strength ceiling of 9,500 will continue to be made in the Permanent Defence Force. In addition, very significant opportunities for training and career progression will continue to be available within the reorganised structure for the Permanent Defence Force. From my contacts with members of the Defence Forces, there is now a sense of optimism. The members know where they stand with regard to numbers. The Defence Forces will continue to commit themselves to assisting the civil power domestically and continue to perform extraordinarily capably in carrying out the various international duties in which they are engaged through the United Nations.
I understand there are complex procedures in place within the Defence Forces for promotions. Is the Minister satisfied that procedures were applied consistently in all promotions? Will he explain why those going for promotion, in the Air Corps, for example, did not have their overseas service considered in some instances? If he cannot explain it now, I will be happy to receive correspondence from him.
I cannot comment and I am sure the Deputy would not want me to comment on a specific instance he has raised. If he wants to set out the difficulties he says occurred, I will ensure he receives a reply.
There are very specific procedures to be complied with in promotions in the Defence Forces. Should the procedures not be complied with, or should a difficulty issue arise, a complaint can properly be made both within the Defence Forces and to the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces. Since I was appointed Minister, there have been occasions on which issues surrounding promotions have given rise to cause for complaint to the ombudsman. These issues have been addressed and new procedures put in place to ensure that where there have been procedural failings, they will not be repeated.
Question No. 5 lapsed.
The format for other questions is that there are six minutes per question. The Minister is allowed two minutes for his initial reply. Thereafter, there are to be one minute contributions and the total should be no more than six minutes. Since the first response is to involve a grouping of three questions, I understand the Minister is allowed six minutes in which to make his initial reply, adhering to Standing Orders.