Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Dec 2013

Vol. 823 No. 3

Topical Issue Debate

Road Projects

I thank the Office of the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me and my colleague, Deputy Brendan Griffin, raise this matter. The realignment of the N22 is a critical piece of regional infrastructure. The work stretches from the eastern side of Macroom town, at Coolcower, to the western side of Ballyvourney to Sliabh Riabhach, and represents approximately 40 km of realignment involving five roundabouts and 20 bridges. This is a significant piece of infrastructure that will cost €200 million plus. I thank the Minister for his assistance in progressing this project to date. I thank him particularly for dealing with the CPOs that have been issued to landowners and their entitlement to a goodwill payment. As far as I am aware, all of the landowners along the route have, by and large, co-operated fully over a long number of years. As the Minister is aware, the project was delayed for a significant period in the courts, but this was beyond the control of the landowners.

Most towns, like Macroom, have a natural hinterland which drives their economic development. Macroom is hindered by the lack of a bypass. Most of its western residents are pulled towards Killarney and most of its eastern residents are pulled towards Cork City, simply because of heavy traffic congestion in the centre of the town. A number of fatalities have occurred in the town, and in the past week an elderly citizen was knocked down because of congestion. A number of pinch points need to be addressed and will be addressed in the context of the bypass.

We need to make up for the lost years. This project was drip-fed during the so-called boom years of the Celtic tiger during the previous Administration. We have an opportunity now to hitch our wagon to other infrastructural projects locally, particularly the Dunkettle interchange, which has a high ranking with the NRA. We need to catch up and I would like the Minister to assist us in this regard by working with the NRA and directing it to fast-track this project so that both projects can be bundled together.

I thank the Office of the Ceann Comhairle for allowing us raise this issue. I also thank the Minister for attending the House to deal with the debate.

I wish to acknowledge the work of my colleague, Deputy Michael Creed, on this over many years. I have been a public representative for the past four and a half years, but Deputy Creed has been highlighting and working on this issue for many years. I commend him on his continuous work. This is an important matter and we need to see progress. I commend the Minister on his work to date, but we want to see the project kept at the top of the agenda as vital regional infrastructure. From the Kerry perspective this project is hugely important, because the road linking Kerry and Cork is substandard. If we want to attract industry into the county, we have two main arteries connecting Kerry with other parts of the country. One is via Limerick and the other is via Cork. This project concerns the Cork artery. We need to see this road improved if we are to have any hope of attracting investment into the county of Kerry.

The road is also important in the tourism context. As everyone knows, Kerry is hugely important for tourism, but bringing people to Kerry from Cork via the road is currently difficult. Many people have to travel daily from Kerry to Cork to avail of vital health services, for example at the oncology unit in Cork University Hospital. Many cancer patients have to travel to Cork daily over a period of weeks for treatment.

It is a terrible road on which to travel. From a safety point of view, I knew people who lost their lives on it during the years and it needs to be improved. Will the Minister try to ensure its prioritisation through a public private partnership? That would be a way to get the work done as soon as possible. Being realistic, it would be one way of prioritising the project. Is this something the Minister will pursue? I ask him to outline what he sees as being the future timeframe for the road project.

I thank both Deputies for giving me the opportunity to address this issue in the House.

As Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, I have responsibility for overall policy and funding for the national roads programme. The planning, design and implementation of individual road projects are matters for the National Roads Authority, NRA, under the Roads Acts 1993 to 2007, in conjunction with the local authorities concerned. Within its capital budget, the assessment and prioritisation of individual projects are matters, in the first instance, for the NRA, in accordance with section 19 of the Roads Act, but the NRA does consult me on these matters. The national financial position has meant very large reductions in roads expenditure in recent years. The NRA has a budget of just under €320 million for improvement and maintenance works on national roads this year. A total of €21.28 million has been allocated this year by the NRA for improvement works in County Kerry and €1.35 million for maintenance works. A total of €7.3 million has been allocated to Cork County Council by the NRA for improvement works and €1.7 million for maintenance works.

The reality is that on a national basis the available funds simply do not match the amount of work we want to do. The Government's published capital expenditure framework sets out the extent to which major new road construction projects are being scaled down in the period between now and 2016. For this reason, it is not possible to progress a range of worthwhile projects and the main focus has to be on the maintenance and repair of roads. This will remain the position in the coming years. As a result, no new major Exchequer funded development projects are scheduled to start construction in the short term. Three further public private partnership projects are, however, being progressed. These are the Gort to Tuam dual carriageway motorway, the New Ross bypass and the Gorey to Enniscorthy road.

The N22 project is the Ballyvourney to Macroom improvement scheme which aims to bypass Macroom town and involves the construction of 43 km of new carriageway from the end of the Ballincollig bypass to Ballyvourney. The project was the subject of a judicial review against approval of the scheme, but the legal challenge has been rejected. As a result, notices to treat have been served on affected landowners who, as Deputy Michael Creed mentioned, will be eligible for the goodwill payment as it went to An Bord Pleanála many years ago. I thank him for raising the matter with me some weeks ago. This means that once the land is bought, the project will be shovel ready. The NRA has made an allocation of €400,000 in respect of this project for 2013.

I have had some discussions with the NRA on the matter with a view to pursuing it as a public private partnership. The intention is to go ahead with the Gort to Tuam road project which is first on the list and has already gone to tender and then to deal with the New Ross and Gorey to Enniscorthy projects. As the Macroom to Ballyvourney and Dunkettle projects are the only ones with full planning permission - at that stage the land will be purchased - it is planned to pursue them either separately or as a bundle under a public private partnership scheme.

I thank the Minister for his response, in particular his acknowledgement that linking the project with the Dunkettle project offers the best opportunity to fast-track it. With regard to the private aspect of public private partnerships, is the Minister confident that there is sufficient interest or signs that there will be at a time when tender documents can be designed for this purpose to enable the project to proceed seamlessly once the land is purchased? As I understand it, not all of the land must be purchased by the time the project may be ready for a public private partnership tender process. I welcome what the Minister stated and urge him to keep the project at the top of his list of priorities. I appreciate what he stated about the Gort to Tuam, New Ross and Enniscorthy projects, but, as I stated, this is critical regional infrastructure. That is not parochialism; rather, it is regional infrastructure in counties Cork and Kerry and which is significant in the south west. I urge the Minister to keep it at the top of his agenda.

It is certainly encouraging to hear about this project in the context of public private partnerships. Realistically, it is the best way of getting the road built as soon as possible. If it could be bundled with the Dunkettle project, that would be the way to move forward. I ask the Minister to keep this on his radar and high on his agenda because, as Deputy Michael Creed pointed out, it is a regional infrastructural project. I outlined the importance of the new road to County Kerry, but the entire region would benefit hugely. I feel sorry for people who must live in Macroom which is a lovely town but which is completely choked with traffic, as we have seen in other places. This is an absolute shame which is holding back the town. A bypass could make a huge difference to the economy of the town and, as I mentioned, the economy of County Kerry also. I ask the Minister to pursue the public private partnership option and examine whether the project could be bundled with the Dunkettle project to have it done as quickly as possible.

I know the road well because I travel to County Kerry a lot because it is a very strong tourism county and part of the Department is located in Killarney. I regularly pass over the bridge in Macroom and have no doubt that the road needs to be built. For the information of Deputies, the cost benefit ratio for the Macroom to Ballyvourney road is +3 and the road to Dunkettle, +5, which, in both cases, is very favourable. Many road projects completed in the past were at +2 or +1. Therefore, the cost benefit ratio is very positive in this regard.

Deputy Michael Creed is correct as all of the land does not have to be purchased before the project goes to tender, but obviously it will have to be purchased before it goes to construction. The only difficulty I have with public private partnerships is as they involve the public and private sectors, it is not as straightforward as the Government tendering for someone to do the job and then giving the tender to the cheapest or best bidder. It involves putting together a set of funders, usually involving banks, pension funds and the European Investment Bank. Each of these funders has its own board and credit committee and each must have its own legal contracts, legal teams and guarantees. The first public private partnership in the transport sector which made it over the line since I became Minister was the one at Newlands Cross and also for the N11 project, which were bundled together. This took two years from the time it was decided to go with them to when we were able to turn the sod. There have been delays on the road project from Gort to Tuam, but I am still confident that it will start in the first quarter of next year. However, I cannot guarantee it.

With the NRA, we are exploring pursuing both projects as public private partnerships. Whether it makes sense to bundle them is another issue. It may or may not, but we will certainly explore it. I believe it is the best chance of pursuing them. The fact that they have full planning permission, unlike so many other road projects which did not obtain permission, and the fact that the land has been purchased means that they will be way up there after the next couple of projects which must go through. I would not like to make a promise of a time commitment because it is not in my hands and involves other players.

Rural Transport Services Provision

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this very important issue. I am delighted the Minister of State is in the House. In the previous response the Minister mentioned strengthening connections in rural Ireland. Ring a Link is a three county project between south Tipperary, Carlow and Kilkenny. It fits the bill neatly for what the Minister is trying to do in reducing the number of rural transport outfits in the country. I agree there are far too many. Thanks to Fr. Gerard O'Connor, Fr. Pat Condon and others who championed the rural transport issue, we have one of the most successful schemes in the country. The Minister visited the headquarters and I am glad that he did. He knows what we have available. He also knows the initiatives we have taken, the line management, the staff, the drivers, the board members and the working group in south Tipperary, Carlow and Kilkenny. I happen to be the chairperson of the working group in south Tipperary. The Minister wants to amalgamate groups around the country, with which I agree, but we have a ready-made template for amalgamation in Carlow, Kilkenny and south Tipperary.

Ring a Link has made a bid to have north Tipperary included and it already offers services there, although not many. That is not our fault. We have state-of-the-art booking technology which can trace people to their front doors and which has the capability of communicating GPS messages to bus drivers.

There is a need for the three-county model to be retained, particularly as huge investments have been made in the bus fleet and in drivers and other staff, and because we now have a knowledge about what rural transport involves. We are entitled to a slice of the cake. An attempt was made via the McCarthy report to get rid of our model but we fought it off. However, we are obliged to make cuts of 7% and, despite the difficulties involved, we will deliver these next year. The template we have in place is a model for the remainder of the country. Removing south Tipperary from the equation and obliging it to put in place its own service would give rise to a significant cost because there would be a need to purchase new buses and booking technology, employ new drivers, etc. That would make a nonsense of what it is proposed to do nationally. Let us be honest about it. The Government is seeking amalgamations. We have not amalgamated but we want to extend the service to the entire county. We have no problem in that regard.

The old adage "Where Tipperary leads, Ireland follows," remains appropriate. This is a pilot project but it is ready made for adoption elsewhere. The Minister of State should forget the personality clashes between the two of us and the fact that he serves north Tipperary.

There are no personality clashes between us. We get along fine.

The process in respect of this matter should be transparent and open. The Minister of State should consider the proposals Ring a Link has submitted. On Sunday last, Ring a Link celebrated carrying 500,000 passengers since its inception. It caters for some 80,000 passengers each year - on a six-days-per-week basis - and 50% of these are individuals who avail of services in south Tipperary. As already stated, Ring a Link will cope with the 7% cut. However, why encourage further waste and create additional bureaucracy by establishing a new unit in Tipperary? I passionately believe that what is envisaged is wrong and that it will lead to a lack of services for the public. The proposed new unit will be unwieldy and will oblige us to cover old ground again. We already have a template in place. Representatives from the National Transport Authority were present at our celebration of 500,000 passengers, as was my dear friend the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan. The Minister, as ought to be the case, was very polite and nice to all concerned. The Minister of State has seen what Ring a Link is capable of delivering and he may rest assured that it can also deliver for north Tipperary. In fact, he will be delighted when we deliver the whole-county project. When Ring a Link celebrates carrying 1 million passengers in counties Tipperary, Carlow and Kilkenny, I am sure he will also be delighted.

I salute the board members and volunteers across the three counties for championing and delivering this service. When the service was launched a number of years ago, many letters were written to Ring a Link. One came from a passenger who lived in the back end of south Tipperary and who stated that being picked up at her front door and returned there after her trip was like someone opening up the gates of Mountjoy and releasing her. Ring a Link provides an excellent service. Why fix what is not broken? Ring a Link has provided a template for what should happen nationally.

As already stated and as Deputy Mattie McGrath should know, there are never any personality clashes between us. I welcome the opportunity to deal with this matter.

In line with the commitment in the programme for Government, I have been actively working with all stakeholders over the past two years to ensure a viable long-term future for the rural transport programme, RTP. My overall aim has been to embed the RTP into the wider public transport system. As the Deputy stated, the previous Administration tried, by means of the McCarthy report, to close down rural transport. Of course, I completely dismissed that report.

At present, there are rural transport groups covering 36 geographical areas nationwide. In the main, these are managed voluntary management committees, which do a fine job. Each group has identified and met demands for transport in its area which had until then been largely unaddressed, and developed services that are relied upon by the people it serves. The staff and voluntary boards have devised innovative ways of obtaining scarce resources and deploying these in creative solutions in order to provide a much-needed service. However, arising from a value for money report, a number of other matters raised with me and the issue of the viability of a number of rural transport groups, the RTP has been changed in recent months, and I have published a significant report in this regard. We must ensure that in the future we will have a more complete and cost-effective transport service offering in rural areas which will better meet the transport needs of all. To that end, it was decided to assign national responsibility for the RTP to the National Transport Authority, NTA, with effect from 1 April 2012.

The value for money report identified a number of issues in respect of the overall value for money of the programme, the level of administration costs, inconsistencies in fare levels, the cost per service across the country and the lack of data and performance measures, as well as a range of other matters. It recommended organisational restructuring in order to achieve efficiencies and a better alignment of the 35 RTP groups with local authority structures. A process to determine the optimal structure for the delivery of rural transport from an efficiency and service perspective, involving consultation with key stakeholders, culminated in the NTA's report, Strengthening the Connections in Rural Ireland, which I am sure the Deputy has read. Central to the new national administrative structure is the establishment of 18 transport co-ordination units, TCUs, in place of the existing 35 groups. This represents the most suitable and efficient model because it will provide the appropriate critical mass of population and characteristics to sustain the running costs of each unit. A selection and appraisal process is currently under way in respect of the 18 TCUs. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on that matter. The final closing date for receipt of applications was 30 November. Only existing RTP groups were eligible to apply to become TCUs, which means that much of the experience and local links and knowledge will be retained in the new structure.

The TCUs, with their local knowledge, will be well placed to detail the routes and stopping points for services. They will also be involved in two other rural initiatives, which I am sure the Deputy supports - namely, the community care scheme and the proposed local area hackney licence scheme, in respect of which I have exerted pressure. This will make them the main point of contact for all transport provision in rural areas. For the first time ever, local authorities will have a role in the planning of rural transport services. Each county will be obliged to develop an annual transport plan and this will inform the NTA in assigning the appropriate remit to each TCU. This will create opportunities to develop greater area coverage, as well as integrating rural transport services with the HSE, school and other public transport services.

For the sake of clarity and in order to allay any fears for users of existing rural transport services, I wish to emphasise that services will be maintained at current levels for the foreseeable future, particularly as the TCUs are yet to get up and running; under the new structures there will continue to be flexibility to tailor services to each local area, and door-to-door and on-demand transport services will continue; and the community and voluntary sector will continue to play a central role in the new structures, with much stronger links to local government. This new structure will also encourage greater investment by transport providers in accessible buses and services. As much as possible, longer term contracts will be granted by the NTA to private operators via tendering arrangements that will encourage and reward greater investment in the provision of services with fully accessible buses.

The NTA has put in place formal consultation structures with the rural transport network in order to work through the many aspects of the transition to the new structure. It also invited all the RTP groups to attend an open meeting in Portlaoise on 10 October 2013 so that it might brief them on the application process for the TCUs and address their queries. The NTA will be working with all involved during the coming months to make the transition as smooth as possible. During the transition period, the NTA's priority is to ensure the uninterrupted continuation of existing RTP services. In this regard, its focus is on moving existing services into contracted services with the NTA.

I accept that change is taking place and that some people find change a cause for concern. I assure the Deputy and the many other Members of this House and the Seanad with an interest in rural transport that this is a very positive development. I come from a little village called Portroe and I would not be pushing this policy unless I believed in it. I am of the view that what is involved is absolutely right for the country.

I know where the Minister of State lives. I have not yet had a cup of tea in his house but I believe my brother has done so. I am very friendly with the Minister of State's mother. This is not personal.

The Minister of State is seeking to cut the number of groups from 36 to 18. We have a three-county structure in place and if this were followed across the board, there would only be eight or nine groups. I am not opposed to or frightened of change. The Minister indicated that local authorities will have a role. They have always had such a role. South Tipperary County Council, Carlow County Council and Kilkenny County Council have been supportive of our project. I was a member of my local council in the past. There is a working group which will be meeting on Monday next. Four or five members of South Tipperary County Council will be attendance at that meeting.

I welcome both the community car scheme and the local area hackney licence scheme and I look forward to the rolling out of both. However, what I am saying is that we already have a template in place and that the Minister of State should use it as an example for other areas in which difficulties have arisen. Ring a Link has made a bid for the local TCU, but so has north Tipperary. Why try to change the system and thereby be obliged to establish a new group in County Tipperary, purchase or lease new buses or hackneys, obtain new booking equipment and employ office staff? I acknowledge the efforts of the innovative manager of Ring a Link, Mr. Jackie Mealy, and his staff, most of whom work only on a part-time basis. Why try to reconstitute a system that already exists? I reiterate the old adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

The Minister of State wants it to be complete and cost-effective. Such a template is already in place and it also provides value for money. Many of the schemes in place in other counties are run by volunteers who are doing a great job with limited funding.

We have costed every journey made in the Ring a Link scheme. Of the 500,000 trips taken, 50%, or 250,000, were in south Tipperary. We would love, when 1 million trips have been taken, to be able to state that 500,000 of them were taken in north and south Tipperary. We are ready, willing and able to embrace change. The establishment of a three-county project caused great trauma because we were not happy to join with counties Kilkenny and Carlow. We overcame these difficulties, however, through good volunteers and managed to get the scheme up and running. Problems arose with the Department and local bus companies resisted the project, but we withstood their resistance. A template is now in place and I ask the Minister of State to run with it. In hurling parlance, I ask him to shoot into the open goal rather than wide.

I compliment the Ring a Link group on the fine job it does. I visited the organisation's office previously. I do not believe I received an invitation to attend last week's celebrations. I will check with my office as I am open to correction in that regard.

I apologise if the Minister of State was not invited.

I am aware of the organisation's success and its contribution to the area. It does a fine job and I am sure some of its work will be replicated and used elsewhere. I have no doubt there are other examples of good practice among rural transport programme groups, which will also be replicated. It has been decided, in consultation with the National Transport Authority, to establish a TCU in County Tipperary. Given that the county now has one local authority and vocational education committee and that Deputy Mattie McGrath and I will soon share a constituency, I am surprised the Deputy is concerned about a proposal to join north, mid and west County Tipperary with the south of the county to address its transport needs. This is the appropriate approach.

Ring a Link does a fine job not only in County Tipperary but also in meeting transport needs in counties Carlow and Kilkenny. Extensive services are required across all transport co-ordination unit. It is not appropriate for me to discuss where TCUs will be provide services or where their offices will be based, as these decisions are part of an ongoing process. In my view, the solution proposed for the county Deputy McGrath and I represent is the optimal one for the county. Many areas of County Tipperary are not covered by rural transport services. Some form of realignment is required across the county to ensure these areas are considered for a service. Under the model the Deputy is advocating, many areas would not have access to services.

That is not true.

I do not know how his model would work. From an integration point of view, the transport co-ordination units must work closely with the relevant local authority. I accept the Deputy's point on Ring a Link and its work with local authorities, but that approach is not evident nationwide. The services have been integrated for this reason.

We have a model in place.

We must also address community care services and the need for an on-demand and consistent hackney service in rural areas which meets requirements in areas such as insurance, about which I have concerns. A consistent structure is needed and the transport co-ordination units that are in the process of being established will develop such a structure. As the process for integrating the units is in train, it would not be appropriate for me to discuss them in detail. The proposal to have a single TCU for County Tipperary is the best option and, as a Deputy from Tipperary, I would be seriously concerned if Deputy McGrath were to oppose it.

It will set us back six years.

Defence Forces Personnel

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this matter for discussion as it is extremely important for serving members of the Permanent Defence Force. I refer to the upper service limits that have applied since 1 January 1994 and pertain to enlisted personnel of the Permanent Defence Force. I understand the Permanent Defence Force Other Ranks Representative Association, PDFORRA, at its recent conference, called for and initiated a claim for a review of these limits.

With effect from January, the Department of Defence unilaterally introduced new terms and conditions in respect of those enlisted in the Permanent Defence Force. The new measures were intended to address the high age profile and non-activity levels of serving personnel identified in reviews of the Permanent Defence Force in the early 1990s. The main provisions of the new measures were as follows: new entrants were engaged for a five-year period, with a small number - I understand it was between 10% and 15% - being given an opportunity to extend service beyond this term; it was planned that maximum service limits of 12 and 21 years would apply to corporals and sergeants, respectively, with senior non-commissioned officers permitted to remain in service until 50 years of age; new entrants would have higher health and fitness standards and those who wished to remain in service for up to 21 years would be required to meet grade 1 standard, with grade 2 standard necessary thereafter. In accordance with the Gleeson commission recommendation, new entrants would not receive pre-discharge leave, extension of service leave or gratuity payments. PDFORRA opposed the shorter contracts and campaigned vigorously against them in an effort to have the careers on offer to its members extended to up to 31 years. The higher fitness and medical standards were accepted by PDFORRA, as were the changes to pre-discharge leave, extension of service leave and extension of service gratuity payments.

Negotiations took place on several occasions regarding the contracts for the period after 1 January 1994. Following a ballot of the relevant members, an agreement was reached in 2006, the main provisions of which were as follows: privates and corporals could serve for up to 21 years and sergeants until the age of 50, with senior NCOs able to serve until the age of 65 years; and to reach the service limits, privates, corporals, sergeants and senior non-commissioned officers must have fulfilled the eligibility criteria - in other words, they must have undertaken specific courses, obtained a record of good conduct, obtained recommendations and achieved high fitness and medical standards.

I have recited the terms of the agreement to provide a background. The agreement has been a great success and has resulted in an increase in the effectiveness of personnel to high levels. A recent report confirms that the Permanent Defence Force has the lowest level of sick leave in the public service. In 2012, PDFORRA decided to seek a review of the service limit of 21 years for the ranks of private and corporal. It did so for a number of reasons. The new higher fitness and medical standards have, as I stated, been a complete success and effectiveness levels are very high. PDFORRA expected the Department to put in place measures to support and prepare personnel for discharge from the Permanent Defence Force after 21 years' service. This would involve assistance with the preparation of curricula vitae, interview and job search skills, training, etc. I understand no such support measures were provided. Given the increase in the number of people who are unemployed, it is much more difficult to secure employment.

The Croke Park agreement provides for the standardisation of terms and conditions. Service periods for other categories of public service member have not been limited to 21 years, as is the case for members of the Permanent Defence Force, even where they are able to perform their duties to a high standard. I ask that the Minister undertake a review of this restriction to provide upper service limits for privates and corporals of 50 years of age, as applies to those of sergeant rank, subject to a requirement that they continue to meet the eligibility criteria, including high fitness and medical standards.

The Minister should introduce a number of measures to help those who have entered the Permanent Defence Force since 1 January 1994. These include assistance with CV preparation, interview skills, training and job search, the payment of a service gratuity to those who have been compulsorily discharged and the payment of outstanding claims for a small additional pension gratuity. I understand that during the negotiations on the Haddington Road agreement, PDFORRA sought the introduction of an upward service limit of 50 years of age for privates and corporals as a cost-saving measure for the Government in the defence sector. I am sure the Minister would be pleased to hear any proposals for cost savings.

The additional pension costs arising from the discharge and subsequent replacement of 100 privates and corporals who entered the Permanent Defence Force after 1 January 1994 will be of the order of €1.3 million per annum. If 100 privates and corporals are compulsorily discharged in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017, respectively, the cumulative additional pension costs will be in the order of €7.8 million. This is a no-brainer, as it were. At the PDFORRA annual delegate conference in 2013, the Minister confirmed that further discussion would take place on the issue. From a management perspective, the manpower and operational needs of the Defence Forces must be a primary consideration. Surely increasing the upper age limit for service, as requested, would not detract from the primary consideration outlined by the Minister. On the contrary, I suggest it would tie in neatly with his views on the matter.

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. I will begin by explaining the background to the upper service limits which apply to personnel who enlisted in the Permanent Defence Force after 1 January 1994. In 1990 the Gleeson commission commented on the unsatisfactory age and fitness profile of the Permanent Defence Force. Thereafter, an in-depth study of the Defence Forces by Price Waterhouse Consultants in 1994, which had been engaged by the efficiency audit group, expressed severe criticism of the age profile of the Defence Forces. Following this review, the efficiency audit group report was accepted by the Government in 1995. The findings of the report reflected the serious concerns the military authorities had held for a number of years about the age profile of the Defence Forces. The present terms of enlistment for general service recruits arose as a result of the issues raised in the report.

One of the key areas identified for urgent action by the efficiency audit group was the development of a manpower policy with an emphasis on lowering the age profile of Permanent Defence Force personnel. In an effort to alleviate the situation, the Government had already decided in 1993, in consultation with the representative association, to enlist personnel on a five-year contract basis.

It is important to bear in mind that due to the robust nature of many military operations and their attendant physical training regimes, personnel are exposed to a unique range of challenging environments at home and overseas. Working in the Defence Forces is a demanding career and physical fitness is a basic requirement of military life. Military life places unique physical and psychological demands on individuals and personnel are exposed to a unique range of challenging environments. Personnel need to be physically and mentally prepared to meet the challenges of all military operations and to be in a position to undertake their duties on deployment overseas. In these circumstances it is vital that the age and health profile of personnel be such as to ensure that operational capability and effectiveness are not compromised. As such, in order to maintain the age profile of the Defence Forces to carry out the operational tasks required by Government, it is necessary to have a constant input of recruits into the Defence Forces. The maximum age for enlisted personnel provides the mechanism through which a satisfactory age profile can be achieved.

In 1997, agreement was reached with the Permanent Defence Force Other Ranks Representative Association on a new manpower policy for the Defence Forces. This policy, applying to personnel enlisted after 1 January 1994, provided that service for private soldiers would initially be on a five-year contract basis with a reserve commitment of seven years. This was followed by the option to extend service to a maximum of 12 years, subject to meeting standards of medical and physical fitness and conduct. Longer periods of service were envisaged for non-commissioned officers.

In 2004, the representative association for enlisted personnel submitted a claim under the conciliation and arbitration scheme for a further review of the terms of service applying to personnel enlisting in the Permanent Defence Force after 1 January 1994. A set of criteria was agreed with the representative association to provide longer careers for these personnel, while continuing to address the Government's objective of having an appropriate age profile to meet the challenges of a modern Defence Forces.

The criteria required is that any person re-engaging after 12 years service must be able to continue to operate at his or her current level, both at home and overseas, on an ongoing basis. Re-engagement is subject to the individual soldier meeting specified criteria in regard to physical fitness, medical category, successful completion of military courses of instruction, service overseas and conduct ratings.

The maximum service period for these personnel is as follows - enlisted personnel, up to and including the rank of corporal and equivalent Naval Service rank, may not serve beyond 21 years; enlisted personnel, in the rank of sergeant and equivalent Naval Service rank, may be permitted to continue in service up to the age of 50 years; and enlisted personnel in all higher ranks may serve to the age of 56 years.

This new policy represented a substantial improvement for personnel who would otherwise have had to leave after 12 years service, while continuing to address the issue of age profile and fitness levels in the Defence Forces.

With the approach of 2015, the first effects of the agreement, whereby privates and corporals may not serve beyond 21 years, will be felt by Permanent Defence Force members in those ranks. A claim has been received from the representative association for a further review of this matter. In accordance with normal procedures, the association's claim is being dealt with under the conciliation and arbitration scheme for members of the Permanent Defence Force. The Deputy will appreciate that as deliberations under the scheme are confidential to the parties involved, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on the matter at this time other than to emphasise that in dealing with this issue the manpower and operational needs of the Defence Forces must be the primary consideration.

I and the representative association accept the point that extending the age limit for service depends upon personnel satisfying the health and fitness criteria. That is a sine qua non. Those are exacting standards and everybody accepts that.

In this era of cost-effectiveness and value for money, I will illustrate to the Minister of State how important is the proposal I have made in the following example. A number of privates and corporals who will be compulsorily discharged after 21 years are technicians who have undergone a four-year technician scheme. Typically, such individuals may have completed ten years' service before becoming fully trained in their trade or occupation. I estimate that the four-year training period costs €200,000 and the State may get only a further 11 years' service from them as fully-trained technicians before they are discharged. By extending the period, the State would get another nine or ten years' service from them. It would increase the level of efficiency.

There are a number of issues I want to raise. What will be the cost to the Exchequer in additional pension and gratuity following the compulsory discharge of 1994 entrants after 21 years? I have given the Minister of State an idea of it. What would be the additional cost to the Exchequer to train and replace the general service personnel being compulsorily discharged after 21 years? Those are issues. The Minister of State will not have the answers to them today and I do not expect them, but I raise them in the context of the conciliation and arbitration procedure. Those are matters the Minister's side should be raising. I am making the case for the Minister as well as the personnel concerned. I have close contacts with the Army. I am one of the few who gave up a senior position because I have such a strong belief and association with the personnel in the Army, especially given how important the barracks was to Mullingar.

What will be the additional cost to the Exchequer to train and replace the technician-class personnel being compulsorily discharged after 21 years? What arrangement is being put in place to deliver on the commitments given in 1994 to train and upskill those personnel being compulsorily discharged? If the personnel being compulsorily discharged after 21 years are legally entitled to redundancy payments, what is the position there? Assuming the personnel who are being compulsorily discharged after 21 years continue to meet health, fitness and efficiency standards laid down for their ranks, why let them go? Does the Minister of State believe that those being compulsorily discharged after 21 years will end up being unemployed and will incur an additional cost to the Exchequer through jobseeker's benefit or whatever?

It is rarely I come in with such a strong case. This case is so strong that the Department should be going before the conciliation and arbitration body hoping that the adjudicator makes the right decision. It would be good for the Army and the Department of Defence and for the personnel involved. It would save money. From sitting around the Cabinet table along with the Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe, for a while, I am aware that such was the key, while still ensuring that we have the necessary personnel with the appropriate standards to meet the demanding obligations that the Minister of State correctly outlined in the reply.

I thank Deputy Penrose for his further questioning. He raised some points and I will ask the Department to come back to him on them.

I understand from where he is coming on the cost-effectiveness issue. I have spoken to the association as well, specifically on this issue. Deputy Penrose feels strongly on the issue, as he does on all facets of the Defence Forces.

I understand from the Department and from the Minister, Deputy Shatter's office, there are talks at an advanced stage. It would be unfair of us to discuss those advanced deliberations here.

I assure Deputy Penrose that, in accordance with the procedures of the association and the Department, the matter is being dealt with under the conciliation and arbitration scheme. I would hope that we can find some common ground here that will meet the needs of both Deputy Penrose and the association.

In fairness, the Minister, Deputy Shatter, has listened to the concerns of the associations since his appointment, as I have done. They might not have always agreed on them, but the Minister is committed to the Defence Forces. This is a case to which he will give due consideration.

School Curriculum

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Sherlock, for being here.

While I put down the idea of developing a leaving certificate course in ICT and computer skills, it is really to generate a broader debate about what we are doing in the schools in terms of providing students with the skill sets they need for the modern economy and for functioning in a society that is becoming ever more technologically dependent.

No doubt the Government is making considerable progress in terms of job creation opportunities. The economy is beginning to recover, our competitiveness is improving but we cannot get complacent about the education system. As the economy continues to attract increasing numbers of technology companies in which regard there has been considerable success, and as we all become more technology dependent in our everyday lives, it is important that we keep a close eye on the skills we are developing in the schools where there is a captive audience of young people in buildings ready to learn and in need of such skills. Put simply, we need to look at how we are teaching ICT in the schools. I will give five examples of expert views in this regard.

The first example is the report entitled A review of Information Communication Technology (ICT) skills demand in Ireland, carried out by the Joint Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. That review states: "In 2011, the former Joint Committee on Jobs, Social Protection and Education identified ... ICT skills demand in Ireland as an important priority issue that required further investigation." The review also states: "In December 2011, Fastrack to Information Technology (FIT) briefed the Committee on a report entitled '20,000 into employment by 2020' and the founders of the pioneering movement, CoderDojo, came before the Committee and outlined proposals to enhance how ICT is taught at primary and secondary level including computer programming languages, coding and mobile and web development."

The second example is a report in the Irish Examiner that highlighted an ICT skills audit by the non-profit training promotion agency FIT in which it was estimated that there are 4,500 vacancies in Ireland's ICT sector and that these are not being filled because of "the severely limited supply of suitably skilled applicants." The third example is the Government's Expert Group on Future Skills Needs, which found that particular shortages included software developers with experience of web programming, cloud computing, mobile data, games data analytics, customer relations, project management, user support, network security and troubleshooting. The fourth example is a comment from Eamonn Sinnott, the general manager of Intel Ireland, who said that the education system needs to evolve to ensure that we are at the heart of innovation. The fifth example is a statement made by CoderDojo's James Whelton in an interview in the Sunday Business Post:

So much of what passes for computer education for kids at the moment is just laughable. ... With all due respect to courses offered like the ECDL [European Computer Driving Licence], it's really just clerical-grade stuff. It has very little to do with computers at all. There is very little in our schools to stimulate real interest and understanding in computer technology.

Those are comments from people at the very forefront of creating jobs and a vibrant economy. As a Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills and the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Sherlock will be acutely aware of the need to align the skills being taught to our students in schools with the skills required in the economy that we are trying to create.

I have asked parliamentary questions of the Department of Education and Skills on this issue since my election to the Dáil in 2011 and the feedback I have got from it is that all is rosy. As the Member of this House who most recently attended secondary school, I can tell the Minister of State that all is not well. Programmes such as the ECDL have a part to play - of that there is no doubt, as it teaches people basic skills. People often ask what is the most important modern language for business, and one might respond that it is French, German or even Chinese. These are all very important, but the most important modern business language in many areas now is programming language. Many parents are flocking to CoderDojo to equip their children with skills. We have a real opportunity to bring our schools in line with the needs of our economy and the wishes of parents and young people. I very much look forward to the Minister of State's response.

I thank Deputy Harris for raising this issue. He spoke about certain reports and interventions made by people whom he named within the community. I do not believe there is a view within the Department that all is rosy. As Minister with a particular responsibility for science, technology, engineering and mathematics, STEM, education, I can tell the Deputy that the three Ministers within the Department - Deputies Quinn and Cannon and myself - are very much of the view that the pipeline of skills that are so vital for this economy and society must start through a system of policy interventions. I want to tell the Deputy about some of those interventions. On Monday of this week the public consultation phase of the development of a new digital strategy for schools was launched. The potential for using technology in the classroom is huge and we are utterly aware of that potential, but we have to examine what is the actual benefit we expect from using technology in schools, how we measure progress and how we can further embed ICT seamlessly across all curricula.

The forthcoming reform of the junior cycle will allow for the optional introduction of school-developed short courses of 100 hours' duration. This will provide further opportunities for schools to progress the provision of courses in ICT.

To address the intervention made by James Whelton to which the Deputy referred, a short course on programming and coding, and also in digital media and literacy, will be available to schools for their junior cycle programme from September 2014. The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA, is currently consulting on the content of these short courses. We must remember that it is important that the content is relevant. We are inviting submissions on that up to 20 December of this year.

The focus in schools is on using ICT as a tool in learning. This is supported also by a professional development programme for teachers and by investment in ICT infrastructure. Such infrastructure is vital. By the end of 2014 all second-level schools will be connected to a 100 Mbps broadband service at a cost of €40 million. That will feed very much into this agenda as well.

The NCCA has developed a key skills framework at senior cycle in which each skill is broken down into essential elements and learning outcomes. Several of the elements encourage the effective use of ICT for managing and presenting information.

As only 59 seconds remain in this time slot and what I wish to say is not covered in my reply, I want to tell the Deputy about the STEM education advisory group, which comprises academics, industry partners and experts in the field of education, including, for example, a representative from the NCCA. That advisory group was set up by myself and it is chaired independently. It is an independent review group that will examine all aspects of STEM education in Ireland and industrial needs. It is easy for constituent groups to make statements about how this affects their realm, but until we map out the entirety of STEM education provision in the country there is no point in formulating a national policy. Individual initiatives are taking place that are worthy. NCCA-related initiatives sponsored by the Department of Education and Skills are taking place, but if we are to truly understand the dynamic at play here, it is vital that we ensure we can map the entirety of the activity. That is the reason we brought in people from companies such as Intel who form part of the membership of the STEM education advisory group, and it is through their interventions that we will be able to map out that activity and inform the policy provisions that need to be made thereafter.

We cannot be complacent about this agenda. We are very cognisant of the FIT report and of future skills needs, around which there is no complacency. That is the reason the Department has programmes such as Momentum, which seeks to bridge those gaps. There is a short-term view but, as Minister, I have a tendency towards the long-term view. That is why I had an internal meeting this morning on the area of STEM education provision at primary level. It is at primary level that we have to create the most impact in terms of CPD, the knowledge of teachers and ensuring that all of the stakeholders involved, including industry, are cognisant of the need to ensure there is a throughput and a seamless continuum between primary and post-primary and on to tertiary level. I believe strongly that it is at primary level that we embed a conceptual understanding of STEM education, and that involves ICT provision.

Of all the responses to Topical Issues that I have received in this House, that is the most comprehensive and encouraging. I thank the Minister of State very much for his commitment to this area and I welcome the launch of the consultation phase on the new digital strategy for schools. The approach he is taking in bringing partners and stakeholders to the table is the correct one. We cannot continue to have our education system operate in isolation from the needs of our economy. We all know it is as though children are born with an iPhone in their hands these days. We know they can teach themselves how to use a computer, but we need to excite them and steer them towards an understanding that this hobby, gift or ability - previous generations did not have the opportunity to utilise technology - can be turned into a career, can help them set up a business or allow them to go on to third level and study something in that field. Instead of having 4,500 vacancies in the ICT sector, we will have a situation in which people are competing to fill those vacancies.

This is quite exciting. We are not going back to creating an economy built on building and selling houses to each other. We must build an economy based on using the skills and ingenuity of the Irish people. Young people have a natural skill set they have grown up with. They do not have a fear of engaging with technology and we need to harness it at the earliest possible age. Secondary school is perhaps too late to begin this, it should be done when they are four, five or six years of age in primary school. I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive response and I look forward to seeing the strategies progress. I look forward to an Irish economy returning to full employment and being built on the technological skills of our young graduates.

I agree with the points made by Deputy Simon Harris. We must ask whether we should teach ICT as a specific course or assist teachers in improving teaching and learning across the curriculum through the use of ICT. There is a distinction to be made. It is a cliché but children are digital natives. There is a gap in some areas of the education system in terms of the dynamic through which kids learn in the classroom and how they embrace technology outside the classroom. My focus is on content knowledge around science, technology, engineering and mathematics, STEM. We must use ICT as a mechanism to deliver a greater conceptual understanding of STEM. That is the challenge for our times. Mr. James Whelton is someone who influences people and is a thought leader in respect of coding and teaching teachers to code. We will implement this in the junior cycle and we will see where we go from there. There is a mathematics pilot project in the west of Ireland, championed by the Minister of State, Deputy Ciarán Cannon. Through embracing courses and pilot projects, we will see how to translate them across the system to create a long-term beneficial impact.

Curriculum changes in 2003 in the science curriculum have had a major impact on outcomes in 2013 in respect of the Programme for International Student Assessment, PISA, results. It is too early to map Project Maths onto 2013 PISA results but the next set of PISA results will map the effect of Project Maths and will have a positive effect. I agree with the sentiments expressed by the Deputy in respect of Project Maths and that is why we have taken a partnership approach. The Deputy mentioned at the outset that industry players are informing us of the skills shortage in respect of their needs. We are trying to meet it and there is a challenge in the short term but we are also thinking in the long term. This is about sustainable jobs in the ICT sector in the medium to long term.

Sitting suspended at 2.15 p.m. and resumed at 3.15 p.m.
Top
Share