Vol. 963 No. 1
42. Deputy Lisa Chambers asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the status of discussions he has had with Defence Forces representative organisations on the issue of mandatory retirement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52898/17]
My first question is to ask the Minister of State to give an update to the House on any discussions he has had with the Defence Forces representative organisations on the issue of mandatory retirement, and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Military life places unique physical and psychological demands on individuals. It is necessary that members of the Defence Forces are physically and mentally capable of meeting the challenges of all military operations and to undertake duties on deployments at home and overseas. To this end, it is vital that the age and health profile of personnel be such as to ensure that operational capability and effectiveness are not compromised in any way.
The age and fitness profile of the Permanent Defence Force was an issue of serious concern during the 1990s and was the subject of severe criticism by a series of external reports, mainly PricewaterhouseCoopers Consultants and the Efficiency Audit Group, EAG. One of the key areas identified for urgent action by this audit group was the development of a manpower policy with an emphasis on lowering the age profile of Permanent Defence Force personnel. A range of policies was introduced to ensure an appropriate age profile and levels of fitness, including fixed term contracts for enlisted personnel of certain ranks. These are kept under review.
My colleague, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, announced last week that he had secured Government approval for an increase in the compulsory retirement age from 65 to 70 for public servants recruited before 1 April 2004. The uniformed pension accrual group, including gardaí, members of the Permanent Defence Force, fire fighters and prison officers, who are currently required to retire early due to the nature of their work, will not be covered by the new arrangements. The retirement ages for these groups will be best dealt with at sectoral level where the detailed policy, operational and manpower issues relevant to those groups can be appropriately considered.
A claim to increase the mandatory retirement age for all officers has been received from the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers, RACO, under the conciliation and arbitration scheme for members of the Permanent Defence Force. The Deputy will appreciate that as discussions under the conciliation and arbitration scheme are confidential to the parties involved, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on the matter at this time.
Retirement benefits for the Defence Forces were designed to align and factor in the payment of the contributory State pension into final benefits. Mandatory retirement ages in the Defence Forces kick in well ahead of eligibility for the contributory State pension, which is currently 66, and, as the Minister of State said, will increase to 70. Before 2013, it was factored in that there was a unique situation within the military in the requirement that they require earlier than other public servants. The Minister of State will be aware that in the Conciliation Council Report, CCR, No. 421, the agreement between the parties noted that the Department of Defence acknowledged that the compulsory early retirement regime applicable to military officers sets their occupation apart from other occupations in the public service, so there is an anomaly. However, the current position is that the Public Service Pensions (Single Scheme and Other Provisions) Act 2012 does not allow for a supplementary pension for those persons who are forced to retire early. There is no bridging gap until they get the State pension and they are at a considerable disadvantage if they come in after 2013. Does the Minister of State not accept that this particular anomaly needs to be addressed?
I thank the Deputy. At the recent Representative Association of Commissioned Officers, RACO, conference, similar concerns to those the Deputy has raised were raised with me in speeches by the president and the general secretary and also in a private capacity in one of the meetings I had with members of RACO. I took their concerns on board. I spoke to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Donohoe, specifically on this issue. I am aware that members of my Department and members of the representative association, RACO, had meetings with officials from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform specifically on this issue in which they raised their concerns. The Deputy is aware that this does not immediately affect any person who retires post-2013 but the officials from the Department of Defence and RACO met with officials from the Department of Public Expenditure Reform specifically on this issue after I approached the Minister, Deputy Donohoe's Department on this matter.
The negotiations on the single pension scheme in 2012 did not reference or include from any side this accepted agreement that was in place prior to that. In fact, at no point was it outlined by the Department that the agreement would be compromised in any way and the representative associations clearly understood that the supplementary arrangement already in place would remain a key element of the integrated model. The expectation, therefore, was that this would continue and there were no discussions of any sort with the representative associations to the effect that it would not continue. Pre-2012 officer entrants had an entitlement to the State pension when they retired but since then the new entrants do not have such an entitlement. Does the Minister of State not agree that is unfair and is yet another example of the reason the Department is failing to retain officers? We have a retention issue. This is one element of that; it is certainly contributing to it.
In short, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform did not acknowledge the flawed nature of the Defence Forces new entrants superannuation scheme. Will the Minister of State agree that the Department has potentially breached the CCR agreement No. 421? The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform states that the Minister of State, as the Minister for Defence, has the authority to recommend and provide for unique conditions of service where mandatory early retirement in advance of the payment of the State pension, contributory, is to continue. Will the Minister of State take it upon himself to address that anomaly? I accept it has been raised many times with him and similarly with me. It does not affect a huge number of people but it is vitally important that we fix the problem.
I do not have the powers to do that. That accusation has been put to me previously. This only affects people who retire early and are on permanent retirement. If an officer of member of the Defence Forces retires at 50 or 55 years of age and he or she continues to work for ten years, up to the official retirement age, they do not get the supplementary pension. It only affects a small number of officers rather than enlisted personnel. The Deputy would accept that.
The Deputy is right to say that the Defence Forces are different to other areas of the public service. As I stated, it is about both physical and psychological fitness to meet the unique demands placed on members of the Defence Forces. The Deputy mentioned that this is a retention issue. I would encourage the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers, RACO, when it is making submissions to the pay commission, to highlight this issue.
43. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the steps taken by his Department to address the pay and conditions of the Defence Forces personnel as highlighted by a group (details supplied) in a recent protest. [53034/17]
This question is to ascertain whether the Minister of State has taken any steps to address the poor terms and conditions experienced by members of the Defence Forces, as highlighted a fortnight ago by the Wives and Partners of the Defence Forces, WPDF, organisation when it organised a 24-hour vigil outside Leinster House on Wednesday, 29 November.
Rates of pay and conditions of employment in the Defence Forces have traditionally been set by reference to relative levels of pay across the various sectors of the Irish public sector. Like other areas within the public service, the pay of the Permanent Defence Force was reduced during the financial crisis. The Government appreciates the contribution made by all public servants, including members of the Permanent Defence Force, during the economic crisis and is taking measures to restore pay across all sectors. The focus of the increases are weighted in favour of those on lower pay.
The Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Acts 2009 to 2015, otherwise known as the FEMPI legislation, and the Public Service Stability Agreement 2013-2018 - the Lansdowne Road agreement - define current pay policy. Successful negotiations with the Permanent Defence Force representative associations have provided for pay increases to Permanent Defence Force personnel under the Lansdowne Road agreement. The Permanent Defence Force Other Ranks Representative Association, PDFORRA, signed up to the Lansdowne Road agreement in March 2017. The finalisation of negotiations under the agreement allowed for the commencement of the process for the implementation of pay increases and arrears, which have now been applied to the Permanent Defence Force.
An increase of 2.5% from 1 January 2016, for annualised salaries up to €24,000 and 1% for annualised salaries between €24,001 and €31,000 was paid in July 2017. An increase of €1,000 from 1 April 2017, on annualised salaries up to €65,000 per annum, was also paid in July 2017. In addition, improved payscales for general service recruits and privates who joined the Permanent Defence Force post 1 January 2013, were backdated to 1 July 2016 and paid in August 2017.
The Public Service Stability Agreement 2018-2020 contains proposals for a series of pay increases over the three years of the agreement ranging from 6.2% to 7.4% with the benefits to different income groups weighted towards those on lower pay. The agreement also provides for the restoration of the 5% reduction in allowances under FEMPI from 1 October 2020. The proposals have been presented for consideration to the Permanent Defence Force representative associations that participated in the negotiation process on the agreement. They are subject to ballot by members of the associations. The agreement will bring undoubted benefits to members of the Permanent Defence Force.
Does the Minister of State accept the pay is so low that one in five members rely on social welfare payments to cover food and living costs? Does he accept that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of Defence Forces members qualifying for the family income supplement payments and that some Defence Forces members sleep in their cars because they cannot afford to get petrol to allow them to travel to and from work? Is he aware that last week, one mother told the public and the media how she chose food for her children over medication for her depression and that in another case, a child was heard to say, "It's okay, mammy, we will get dinner when daddy gets paid"? Does the Minister of State understand that there is a need to address this problem quickly? If that does not happen there will be an even greater outflow of members from the Defence Forces, thus creating a greater crisis?
The Minister of State read out proposals. Proposals are not good enough, considering the approach that has been taken by the Government in recent years, continuously targeting those who provide vital service to the State. Most of the concerns that PDFORRA, the Defence Forces members and the WPDF group have outlined thus far have not been addressed.
There has been a decrease in the number of people in receipt of family income supplement. The latest figure is 117, but it has decreased since the pay increases came into being.
I have heard reports of Defence Forces members having to sleep in cars. I do not dispute it but if it is the case and the Deputy has examples, I would appreciate it if he would bring those cases to my attention. I will bring them to the attention of the Defence Forces and the members of PDFORRA or RACO, whichever association to which the members belong. Help and assistance is available from both of those associations for such cases. I would appreciate it if the Deputy could pass those names to me.
I will ask those who have supplied me with the information to provide the examples. However, sometimes there is a concern that if a problem is highlighted it might lead to victimisation.
One issue the members have requested that the Minister of State might address is that the duty and sea-going allowances be fully restored to the previous rate, from €20 to €75 for a 24-hour period. Has the Minister of State committed to a review of the Defence Forces pay and conditions, in particular the allowances, to ascertain whether they are appropriate for this day and age? Has the Minister of State managed to meet the WPDF group? They are in a much better position than I am to explain exactly how the families of the Defence Forces members have to survive when their loved one is at sea or deployed overseas.
I will make sure that nobody is victimised, nor should they be victimised, if they approach either association because they have fallen on hard times. I find it unbelievable to think that people would be victimised in such a way. The Deputy spoke about the 24-hour duty allowance. I met the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Donohoe, two weeks ago to discuss this matter. The officials from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and my own officials will have further negotiations on this. The rest of the allowances are covered under the public service stability agreement to 2021. I understand that one of the biggest concerns of the associations and members of the Defence Forces is the issue of the 24-hour allowance and that is one of the reasons I approached the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Donohoe, and asked him for a meeting. I understand the frustrations of members of the Defence Forces on this specific issue.
44. Deputy Lisa Chambers asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the number of Defence Forces units in which the establishment strength in station for officers is running at less than 50% for November 2017; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52899/17]
My question is on numbers in respect of the establishment strength in station for officers where they are running at less than 50%.
The 2015 White Paper on Defence commits to maintaining the strength of the Permanent Defence Force at 9,500 personnel, comprising of 7,520 Army, 886 Air Corps and 1,094 Naval Service personnel. The strength of the Permanent Defence Force on 31 October 2017 stood at 9,219, whole-time equivalent, which is 97% of the establishment.
This comprises 7,417 member of the Army, 744 members of the Air Corps and 1,058 members of the Naval Service. The establishment strength of 9,500 provides for the full staffing of each unit within the Defence Forces organisational structures. The ratio of strength to establishment for each unit is determined by the extent to which vacancies within the establishment for each unit are filled. There are vacancies across most units and recruitment efforts are under way to address those vacancies.
In this context, personnel deployed from units or engaged in development training should not be confused with vacancies. Units are maintained in order that personnel can be deployed, not in order to remain fully manned in barracks. The Defence Forces have always drawn personnel from units for overseas service and other deployments. Personnel also engage in training on an ongoing basis. This is to be welcomed and any decisions regarding scaling back on overseas deployments, deployments at home or training will be informed by the advice of the general staff. I can confirm that I have not received any such advice.
Given the unique and demanding nature of military life, there is, understandably, a significant annual turnover of personnel in the Defence Forces. However, in recent years the levels of departures have exceeded intakes and this has limited the Defence Forces' ability to meet their establishment strength. To counteract this, ongoing targeted recruitment has taken place with the objective of returning to, and maintaining, the stated establishment figure of 9,500.
As I have previously outlined, there are particular challenges with vacancies in certain specialist posts, such as those relating to pilots, air traffic controllers and certain technicians. These specialists can prove difficult to retain where, as in the current economic circumstances, there are ongoing private sector and commercial semi-State sector job opportunities. The Public Service Pay Commission will further examine the issue of retention of specialist personnel in accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Stability Agreement 2018-2020.
The number of officers as of 31 October 2017 was 1,056 out of an establishment of 1,233. The suggestion that there are vacancies in 50% of officer posts in units is clearly at variance with these figures. The number of cadets in training has substantially increased recently, with approximately 100 cadets having been recruited in each of the years 2016 and 2017. Approximately 70 cadets will be commissioned as officers in January 2018.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
On foot of issues raised in the climate survey, I have brought forward a White Paper project to examine skills gaps across the Defence Forces. This will provide an opportunity to examine any gaps arising across the Defence Forces and to bring forward recommendations having regard to work practices, training practices and other issues arising.
The manpower requirement of the Defence Forces is monitored on an ongoing basis in accordance with the operational requirements of each of the three services. Personnel are posted on the basis of operational needs across the organisation both at home and abroad.
With the support of the Chief of Staff and within the resources available, it is intended to retain the capacity of the Defence Forces to operate effectively across all roles and to undertake both the home and overseas tasks laid down by Government.
My question relates to the number of units in which the strength in station for officers is running at less than 50%. When replying to that point, the Minister of State referenced cadets and training. That is not the same as officers in station. When questions are put to the Minister of State and his Department about the strength of the Permanent Defence Force, his response always makes reference to the establishment and the strength of the Defence Forces. On the previous occasion on which I put that question to him, like today, he confirmed that the Defence Forces are at 97% of their establishment strength. Does the Minister of State acknowledge that the Defence Forces establishment only factors in trained personnel and does not account for personnel in training? They are not the same. Is it not the case that this figure of 97% misrepresents the actual number of trained personnel while also failing to factor in the complete numbers deployed on operational duty?
I know that the Minister of State was presented with certain figures on officer numbers and on strength in station at the RACO conference. That is the basis of my question to him today. Some of the figures with which I was presented showed that many units are operating with less than 50% of their establishment officer strength. The ordnance unit, that is the bomb disposal unit, has an establishment figure of 21 officers but has eight in station. One battalion has only five officers out of an establishment figure of 25 in station. In another, there are seven out of 25 and in one case there is only one fifth of the establishment strength. Why does the Minister of State fail to factor in the number of lieutenants and captains who are unavailable because they are on permanent postings to overseas units into Defence Forces establishment figures? Clearly, there are units operating with less than 50% of their establishment officer strength in station.
First, I recognise that we do have challenges at officer level, specifically at the ranks of lieutenant and captain. There were, however, increases in the cadet classes in 2016 and 2017 and I am committed to continuing to have large intakes of cadets because it is the only way in which we can address the challenges we have at officer level. I do not want to stop officers going overseas or availing of further education. It is very important that they upskill themselves in that way. There are a number of areas in which we are trying to address challenges through the Public Sector Pay Commission next year. Civil staff, the military and the representative associations will be looking at specialist pay. That was highlighted in the report of the Public Service Pay Commission in May 2017. It highlighted that there were challenges in the Defence Forces. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Donohoe, has stated that specialist pay negotiations with the Public Service Pay Commission will include certain areas in the health sector and the Defence Forces. They are two priority areas for the Minister and for the commission.
The reason we asked the question about strength in station is so that we can ascertain the level of officer numbers. This is the management level of the Defence Forces. I know for a fact that the Minister of State was presented with figures at the RACO conference which showed that a number of units including ordnance bomb disposal, transport and engineering are currently operating at below 50% of their establishment strength in station. They do not have the requisite number of officers. The engineering corps is operating at 50%, the ordnance unit at 38%, and the transport corps is operating at 20% strength in station. When the Minister of State is asked the question about the level of officers in each station and references those who are in training or overseas, it does not give us an accurate picture of what is happening. I am not for a second saying that we should restrict the numbers of those going overseas, in training or undertaking further education. We need to allow that in order to maintain standards. However, we also need openness and transparency when it comes to painting the picture of what is happening operationally. When the Minister tells me that we are at 97%, we know that is not the case. That figure includes those in training and those not available to carry out duties. That matters. The figures need to accurately reflect the numbers in station and available for duty. The figures provided by the Minister of State's Department are inaccurate.
The figures I gave are accurate. I got them from my Department. The current officer strength level is 86%. I absolutely recognise that we have challenges in specific areas. I have stated this on numerous occasions. I am trying to come up with proposals and ideas on how to surmount those challenges. One of the things I have asked for is direct entry and re-entry. A number of officers, specifically those who were in engineering posts, pilots and those who were serving with the European Defence Agency, EDA, want to come back into the organisation. I do not disagree with the Deputy and I will not say that we do not have challenges. I do not believe, however, that the figures she has highlighted are the real figures. I would be the first to state that there are challenges at junior officer level. That is one of the reasons we have increased the number of cadets coming in.
45. Deputy Brendan Ryan asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the timeframe for Defence Forces pay restoration; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [53155/17]
For too long, members of the Defence Forces have been treated like second-class citizens in the context of our public service workers. The Defence Forces have always been our last line in service provision. If the weather is too bad for commuting, the Army will be called in. In times past, the Army even cleared rubbish off our streets when industrial action led to environmental damage. The Defence Forces have never been treated on par with the rest of the public sector. That must change.
As I stated in an earlier reply, the rates of pay and conditions of employment in the Defence Forces have traditionally been set by reference to relative levels of pay across the various parts of the public sector. Arising from the serious financial crisis the country faced, the pay of members of the Permanent Defence Force was reduced in a similar way to that of staff in other areas of the public service. The reductions in pay were on a graduated scale with higher percentages being deducted from those on higher earnings.
Under current and proposed public service pay agreements, pay is being restored to public servants, including members of the Permanent Defence Force. Successful negotiations with the Permanent Defence Force representative associations have provided for pay increases under the Lansdowne Road agreement, the most recent of which were paid to members of PDFORRA in July, together with arrears dating back to 1 January 2016.
The Government is prioritising legislation to provide for further pay increases to all public servants, including members of the Defence Forces, under the Public Service Stability Agreement 2018-2020. Under the provisions of the Public Service Pay and Pensions Bill 2017, it is anticipated that between 2018 and 2020 the pay of members of the Defence Forces and other public servants earning less than €70,000 will be restored to pre-FEMPI levels.
The timetable for the restoration of pay as set out in the agreement is as follows: from 1 January 2018 annualised salaries will increase by 1%; from 1 October 2018 annualised salaries will increase by 1%; from 1 January 2019 annualised salaries up to €30,000 will increase by 1%; from 1 September 2019 annualised salaries will increase by 1.75%; from 1 January 2020 annualised salaries up to €32,000 will increase by 0.5%; and from 1 October 2020 annualised salaries will increase by 2%. The agreement also provides for the restoration of the 5% reduction in allowances under FEMPI from 1 October 2020. The proposals have been presented for consideration to the Permanent Defence Forces representative associations and acceptance will be subject to ballot by their members.
I thank the Minister of State. Those provisions are not good enough and a special arrangement for the Defence Forces is needed. The Minister is aware of the 24-hour demonstration by wives and partners of Defence Forces members that took place on 30 November outside Leinster House. Those spouses highlighted that members of the Defence Forces are still the poorest-paid public servants and some struggle to meet food and living costs, with many depending on family income supplement, as has previously been raised in the House. The lowest-rank of Defence Forces officer is paid a little under €300 per week. How can anyone sustain themselves on such a wage, let alone a family, when housing costs alone are taken into consideration, not to mention utilities and basic life needs? Some members of the Defence Forces who have 15 years' service are struggling to make ends meet. The Defence Forces representative bodies, including Permanent Defence Force Other Ranks Representative Association, PDFORRA, are currently unable to access the industrial relations mechanisms of the State. It is up to the Minister of State to put in place a mechanism and timetable to ensure members of the Defence Forces are paid a professional wage that will afford them a standard of living equivalent to that of other public servants and which will reflect the great work they do on behalf of the State.
The Deputy was in government with me from 2011 to 2016 and saw at first hand the challenges faced by the country and the decisions that had to be taken. Now that we are in better economic times, there is an opportunity to give back to all public servants what was taken from them during the recession. That is why the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Donohoe, has set out a clear timetable for pay restoration for anyone earning less than €70,000. As the Deputy is aware, all public servants who signed up to the Lansdowne Road Agreement received an increase. The Representative Association of Commissioned Officers, RACO, signed up very early to that agreement and PDFORRA signed up earlier this year and received back payments thereunder. As the Deputy is aware, further pay increases will be paid under the Lansdowne Road agreement. The Public Service Pay and Pensions Bill 2017, which addresses FEMPI measures, passed through the Dáil last week and is currently making its way through the Senate. As I stated, it will be a matter for both associations to ballot on that and I encourage them to return a positive outcome in that regard. There has also been provision for a €5,000 increase for all members of the Defence Forces who joined since 2013.
It is time for the Defence Forces to be recognised in the industrial relations sphere in order that its members be protected from the working poverty that many currently experience. If the Garda Representative Association can be negotiated with, why can the same not be done with the Defence Forces representative associations? The Minister of State rightly said that there were difficult times in the past but as the economy improves we cannot let what happened before happen again. Sectors of society, including parts of the public sector, cannot be left behind. The Government cannot continue to preside over a body of personnel of whom up to 20% are in receipt of family income supplement. That is immoral. The Minister of State needs to get his hands around the issue and prioritise decent wages and conditions for the men and women of the Defence Forces.
The leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Howlin, last month called for a special review of the Defence Forces. The Minister of State referred to the general, across-the-board review but there is a need for a special review of the Defence Forces and I again call for that to be done. It is urgently required and there would be no opposition in the House to it but, rather, there would be agreement from all sides in view of the situation in respect of pay in the Defence Forces. All Members would support it and there would be no opposition from other public servants. I ask the Minister of State to acknowledge that he might consider or push for that.
The Deputy stated that 20% of members of the Permanent Defence Forces are in receipt of family income supplement. I ask him to check his figures. Fewer than 117 members of the Defence Forces out of a total personnel of a little over 9,200 are in receipt of family income supplement. To state that 20% are in receipt of family income supplement is untrue. That myth has been peddled in recent times. The correct figures are available from the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection for anybody to check.
If any members are in receipt of family income supplement, too many are in receipt of it.
Plenty of public servants receive family income supplement and that depends on their family circumstances, which is why the payment is available. I have put in place a full review of the conciliation and arbitration scheme as both PDFORRA and RACO have sought for many years and will soon be announcing a chairperson in that regard. I heard Deputy Howlin's proposal last week regarding taking out members of the Defence Forces. It would be great to do that but how long would it last? One would then want every other public sector worker to be taken out. All Members saw what happened prior to 2011. We must act in an appropriate manner with public finances.
46. Deputy Lisa Chambers asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the way in which he plans to arrest the ongoing decline in membership of the Reserve Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52897/17]
How does the Minister of State propose to arrest the ongoing decline in the membership of the Reserve Defence Forces and will he make a statement in that regard, given that the membership is constantly decreasing and there is no reasonable prospect of any increases in the near future?
The White Paper on Defence confirms that the primary role of the Reserve is to augment the Permanent Defence Force in times of crisis. In non-crisis situations, the main focus is on training to prepare for that role. The Government has also assigned a formal role to the Reserve in respect of contributing to State ceremonial events. The Government appreciates the service of the members of the Reserve and the White Paper on Defence is clear that there is a continued requirement to retain and develop the Reserve Defence Forces.
As of 31 October 2017, there were 1,733 effective personnel in the Army Reserve and 123 effective personnel in the Naval Service Reserve. I am aware that there is a shortfall between those figures and those of the establishment. The most recent recruitment campaign for the Army Reserve and Naval Service began in July 2017 and attracted 1,221 applications. A total of 128 personnel have been inducted to the Reserve Defence Force in 2017, which is an increase of some 60% compared to the 80 personnel inducted in 2016. The recruitment process has been streamlined so as to make it more efficient.
Given the competing recruitment demands at present, whereby Permanent Defence Force recruitment is and should remain a priority, recruitment to the Reserve is continuing but it should be noted that the same personnel and resources are utilised for both Permanent and Reserve Defence Force recruitment and the recruitment of up to 800 Permanent Defence Force personnel this year obviously impacted on resource allocation.
Two of the current phases of the White Paper actions to be implemented specifically relate to the RDF. One addresses the issue of improving the strength of the Reserve by attracting recruits from all backgrounds, while the other involves conducting a skills survey with a view to establishing a specialist Reserve. Both are well advanced. In the medium term, over the ten year lifespan of the White Paper other projects relating to the development of the Reserve will be examined and developed by the organisation.
I assure the Deputy that I remain committed to the ongoing development of the RDF within the framework set out in the White Paper on Defence and having regard to resource availability.
The Reserve has been in decline for some time. While it had 2,280 effective members at the end of 2015, this decreased to 2,049 at the end of 2016 and to 1,975 at the end of March 2017, and figures given to me last month show that the current total strength of the Reserve Defence Force, RDF, is now 1,856. There is therefore a downward trajectory all the time. Recruitment is the lifeblood of the Reserve, and without a steady flow of new recruits the organisation is doomed to erode away to nothing. Many reservists believe the decline in numbers is due not to a lack of interest on the part of people looking to join but due to the lack of importance with which the Reserve is viewed by elements within the Defence Forces and the Department of Defence. It is now clear to me, to many in the Reserve Defence Force and, I assume, the Minister of State that the single force concept does not benefit the Reserve. Will the Minister of State make a commitment that the Reserve Defence Force will be given a defined role, which is essential for both its future development and the morale of the organisation; that reservists will be allowed to play a meaningful and worthwhile role in support of the Permanent Defence Force, PDF; and that members of the RDF will become an integral part of the decision-making process surrounding their activities in order that they be involved? Until we address these key issues, the strength figures will go down and down again and we will back here in six weeks' time discussing the same issue.
I am determined to ensure that the Reserve Defence Force does not go into decline, but my number one priority must be recruitment to the PDF and getting its strength back up to 9,500 personnel. As I stated in my reply, the Reserve and the Naval Service Reserve began their recruitment campaign in July 2017 and attracted 1,221 applications, and 128 personnel have been inducted so far in 2017. I have asked for the reasons for the shortfall between the figures I have outlined and whether ensuring the medical and fitness tests take place on weekends has an effect. Most of these people are in full-time employment and are given the opportunity to sit their medical and fitness tests on weekends. A huge number of these people do not turn up on the date fixed for them. They have been given every opportunity. I have asked the Chief of Staff and the general staff to ensure applicants are given every opportunity to sit their fitness test and so on on weekends. I met representatives of the Reserve Defence Forces Representative Association, RDFRA, a number of weeks ago. One of the areas we discussed was recruitment, and I have put both civil and military-----
I call on Deputy Chambers to ask her final question. We must have some order. There is slippage in the time allocated. If Members-----
I accept that the Minister of State is committed to the Reserve Defence Force but the figures are going down all the time. While we are standing here saying how committed we are, there needs to be action to address the fall in the numbers. I believe the Reserve Defence Force is being strangled when it comes to recruitment and the recruitment process. I have outlined to the Minister of State on a number of occasions the difficulties inherent in the medical and fitness tests and the timing of same. Garda clearance, specifically getting it back on time, is also a major issue, as is the lack of communication to people looking to join the Reserve Defence Force. There are issues here, and devolving the matter to the Reserve Defence Force itself might help address some of them. We need to examine the possibility of RDF members going overseas. This was mooted a number of years ago and needs to be put back on the table. We need legislation to ensure that members of the Reserve do not face any employment barriers, a review of legislation, Defence Forces regulations governing the RDF, regular recruitment campaigns for the RDF and new retention initiatives. I appreciate the PDF is a priority in the Minister of State's Department, but we can do both at the same time. We have that capability. It is not rocket science. Renewed efforts must be made. The Reserve Defence Force is meant to have a strength of more than 4,000 but we are now at 1,800, so these are dire straits. If we continue the way we are going, we will have no RDF left - the organisation will not exist.
One of the areas the Deputy referred to was recruitment. I had a long conversation with the RDFRA about this and I have asked my Department, the Defence Forces and RDFRA to discuss what RDFRA wants out of the recruitment process, the way in which it wants it run and, if it has any ideas in this regard, to bring them to both the relevant civil and military bodies and ensure RDFRA knows the ways and means by which it wants to bring them to fruition. I am very open to that. I have stated on numerous occasions that if there are people who have specialisations in RDFRA, they should be given the opportunity to go overseas. This came under the single force concept as well. However, it is difficult for people to get time off work and so on. These people are normally in permanent full-time employment and for them to get five or six months off work can be quite difficult at times. I hope the decisions we made this year on the streamlining of security checks will make a difference for 2018. It is totally unacceptable that someone wishing to join the Reserve Defence Force is left hanging for five, six, seven, eight or nine months before he or she is notified of the decision as to whether he or she is being taken on, and I have stated this on numerous occasions. This is one of the reasons I have streamlined-----
We will move on to other questions.
