Vol. 1035 No. 6
1. Deputy Sorca Clarke asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence given that the ceremonial handover of two inshore patrol vessels from New Zealand has taken place, the estimated additional crew, by rank, required to put these vessels to sea; and the duration and location of any familiarisation and training for crew before they can enter service. [13837/23]
Following the ceremonial handover of two inshore patrol vessels from New Zealand, will the Minister update the House on the estimated additional crew, by rank, required to put these vessels to sea and the duration and location of any familiarisation and training for crew before they can enter service?
I thank the Deputy for the question. My priority as Minister for Defence is to ensure the operational capability of the Defence Forces is maintained to the greatest extent possible to enable them to carry out their roles as assigned by Government.
Two inshore patrol vessels were purchased for €26 million on a government-to-government basis from New Zealand to replace the now decommissioned LÉ Orla and LÉ Ciara. The ceremonial handover of the vessels took place in Auckland last week, representing the culmination of a year-long project to regenerate and modify the vessels' operational seaworthiness standards. The work was undertaken by the New Zealand Defence Force and overseen by the Irish Naval Service and Department of Defence. Both vessels are expected to complete their acceptance testing and commence transportation to Ireland by the end of this month. With a transit time of at least a month, they are expected to arrive in Cork in May. On arrival, the vessels will undergo a comprehensive programme of works, including crew familiarisation and training, which will take place in the vicinity of Cork Harbour and the naval base at Haulbowline. It is expected that these vessels will be in a position to commence operational service in 2024.
The vessels have fully automated control and navigation systems, a powerful engine, modern communications and surveillance systems, active stabilisers and comfortable accommodation. Both ships are capable of undertaking boarding operations and surveillance. The core crew complement of each vessel will be between 20 and 24 suitably qualified and experienced personnel. The specific ranks and specialisations of these personnel will be an operational matter.
The Defence Forces have reviewed requirements and capabilities and consider that the vessels are suitable for Irish operations in the Irish Sea on the east and south-east coast.
Notwithstanding the current staffing challenges, the Naval Service continues to carry out all roles assigned by Government, including fishery protection and maritime security operations surveillance in the Irish exclusive economic zone, and their ongoing capacity to do so is carefully monitored. I am advised that the fleet is managed and maintained to ensure maximum availability to meet operational requirements.
The Minister will be most aware that this week the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence met the Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Seán Clancy, and some of the general staff. The Chief of Staff confirmed that the current enlisted membership is 7,917, again evidencing the haemorrhaging of staff that we see from the Defence Forces. That equates to 83% of the establishment figure of 9,500.
The Minister has said - it was confirmed to the committee - that the increase in established numbers under the high-level action plan for the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces is to include civilians. What percentage balance is the Minister examining between enlisted and civilian personnel specifically with regard to the Naval Service? Highly experienced and highly trained enlisted members have left the Defence Forces because of current pay and conditions. Is the Minister expecting civilians to enter into and support the Naval Service on those same conditions and rates of pay?
Deputy Clarke should acknowledge that the pay and conditions have improved significantly over the past two years, particularly for new recruits, and compare favourably with other employments and occupations. Those coming in after the leaving certificate enjoy a base rate of approximately €37,000. The basic pay has increased and there have been other improvements. There will be further improvements.
The first priority is to recruit additional personnel into the Naval Service, Army and Air Corps. That is the overarching priority. Second, I visited Haulbowline recently and I saw in one particular area of operations, fisheries, a very successful mix of civilian and Naval Service personnel in terms of certain skill sets in which civilians were able to support Naval Service personnel. There is very good synergy and it is working well. We should be open to the idea of having a good mix of civilian and military personnel, where appropriate. That makes absolute sense, particularly in a full employment environment where there is a significant degree of competition for people.
I note the Minister did not answer the question. Will enlisted members and civilians be on the same conditions and rates of pay?
The Defence Forces had a recorded turnover rate of 10.72% in 2022, the latest date for which figures are available. We have seen amendments to the sea service commitment but, at the same time, people have lost out on that payment because ships were essentially tied up in dock for reasons outside the control of Naval Service members.
It has also been reported that a plan has been presented to the Government for approval regarding the potential of an Irish Naval Service ship to deploy to North Africa to police the Libyan arms embargo in June. Due to last for seven weeks, this would be the first international deployment of the Naval Service since 2018 when it participated in the Mediterranean rescue missions. It is also reported that it is most likely to have a positive impact on recruitment, which is to be welcomed, and also the retention crisis. Can the Minister confirm if those plans have gone to the Government and been approved? If not, at what stage are they?
I will be bringing proposals in respect of that matter to the Government shortly.
I have met the flag officer and visited Haulbowline. I met the Chief of Staff and his team in respect of recruitment and retention issues, more specifically in respect of the Naval Service because the numbers are not what they should be and need to be significantly increased.
On pay and conditions, there are different categories right across the board. It depends on who is recruited and to what position people are recruited in terms of pay for specific duties or specific roles. That has always been the case and will remain the case in the context of any civilians who are recruited to give support to and work within our services more generally.
2. Deputy Gino Kenny asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if he has any concern regarding Irish military neutrality following the decision for Irish troops to be withdrawn from the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, UNDOF, in the Golan Heights on the Israeli-Syrian border for participation in the German-led EU battle group; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13380/23]
My question is on the decision taken by the Government in January to withdraw Irish troops from the Golan Heights to participate in the European battle group. We believe this is a breach and an erosion of Irish neutrality. I would like to hear the Minister's comments on that.
Neither the decision to withdraw the Defence Forces infantry group from the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force nor the decision that the Defence Forces should participate in the next European Union battle group has any implications for Ireland's long-standing position of military neutrality. I note the Deputy did not explain how he has come to the view that it does.
At the time of the recent Government decision that the Defence Forces should join the EU battle group of 2024-25, the Government was advised that a further assessment would be undertaken of the sustainability of the Defence Forces overseas commitments. Following the conclusion of this assessment and on the basis of the military advice available to me, as well as formal engagement with the United Nations, I have decided to withdraw the infantry group personnel from UNDOF with effect from April 2024.
Notwithstanding the decision to withdraw the infantry group from UNDOF, the Defence Forces will continue to have a significant presence serving overseas in the pursuit of peace, notably with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, where over 340 Defence Forces personnel will continue to serve.
In addition, my Department will engage with the United Nations with a view to maintaining some or all of the staff posts currently occupied by Defence Forces personnel in UNDOF headquarters and will explore the possibility of providing a modest increase in our troop contribution to UNIFIL. The decision to withdraw personnel from the UNDOF mission has been taken to allow the Defence Forces to undertake a process of consolidation with regard to its overseas commitments and to prepare for future peacekeeping missions, as well as to ensure the Defence Forces have the capacity available to fulfil their commitment to the EU battle group of 2024 and 2025.
Participation in a battle group has no effect on Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality. A commitment to a battle group does not involve any commitment to common or mutual defence. Deployment of the Defence Forces contingent as part of the battle group in a peacekeeping or peace enforcement operation will continue to require a UN mandate and Government and Dáil approval, in accordance with the triple lock provisions of the Defence Acts.
I disagree on the basis that there have been soundings, even from the Minister, and from other Ministers, on Ireland's neutrality. Let us look at the evidence. Why would Ireland participate in an EU battle group in the first place? Permanent structured co-operation, PESCO, also comes into play, as does the use of Shannon Airport as a military base. Millions of American troops have gone through Shannon Airport and they participated in a number of wars that killed hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle East. The evidence points towards an erosion by stealth of our neutrality which is being undermined by this Government. This is not me being paranoid; the evidence is there. Surely our participation in battle groups and PESCO has to undermine our neutrality.
We have been involved in PESCO for years now and it has not impacted our military neutrality. Our military neutrality is defined by whether we are members of a military alliance and we are clearly not a member of a military alliance. We are not members of NATO and we do not participate in a European Union common defence pact; there is no such pact. I am at a loss to how the Deputy can suggest there is evidence that our military neutrality is being eroded. We have been part of the EU battle groups for quite some time and they are important for interoperability, for example, with other member states in Europe that could potentially, and do currently, participate with Irish troops in UN peacekeeping missions. For example, in UNIFIL we are working with Polish battalions. We are working in battle groups with fellow European member states, including other neutral states, which this battle group contains so the Deputy's argument does not hold up at all.
I disagree again. Prior to the Minister stepping down as Taoiseach before Christmas, he went to the Council of the European Union and one of the main issues there was strengthening security and defence. All the evidence points towards the development of a European army when it comes to Ireland's neutrality and its place in the world, which has deep respect across the international community. We have said many times that the evidence points to PESCO and participation in European battle groups eroding our neutrality and that is what is at stake. Soundings from the Minister and other Ministers in the Government have shown that. They have stated that the triple lock mechanism is also up for grabs. The evidence is there. Again, this is not me being paranoid. The evidence is there that our role as a neutral country is under threat.
Successive Secretaries General of the United Nations have endorsed the development of the EU battle group concept and Ireland's participation in it. As I said, participation in EU battle groups supports the development of rapid deployment skills and capabilities within the Defence Forces and would improve interoperability with like-minded states. It ultimately assists us in participating in UN peacekeeping missions. Also, we have been part of the evolution of the EU Common Security and Defence Policy for the past 20 years and that has not impacted our military neutrality. We have been able to do that. The EU needs to do crisis management and we need to debate the triple lock, not because of neutrality but because of a simple question. The Deputy might be comfortable with Russia deciding whether Ireland participates in a peacekeeping mission but I am increasingly not satisfied-----
I never said that.
That is the reality of the triple lock.
No. The Minister is making things up.
The triple lock is about a mandate from the UN Security Council. Putin is more interested in the Wagner Group being in Africa than a UN peacekeeping force being there. That is the reality so we need to discuss this issue without throwing around slogans and all of that.
3. Deputy John Brady asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if he will provide an update on efforts to address difficulties within the Naval Service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14311/23]
What attempts or efforts are being made to deal with the major crisis that has been developing before our eyes in recent years within the Defence Forces, particularly the Naval Service in which numbers are at an all-time low? Two Naval Service ships have been mothballed because of the inaction of successive Governments.
The Government has previously acknowledged, as do I, the current staffing difficulties in the Naval Service, and the Defence Forces in general. In response to the specific challenges in the Naval Service, a comprehensive regeneration plan is being progressed and monitored by a high-level civil and military team. The aim of this plan is to address all of the issues, including human resource matters. The recent decision to place the LÉ Róisín and LÉ Niamh into operational reserve will assist in regeneration by prioritising the training and development of existing Naval Service personnel, while also stabilising operational delivery. The Naval Service has advised that this action will not affect its ability to fulfil its current maritime security and defence commitments, including commitments provided under the current service level agreement with the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA.
To counter recent recruitment trends, military management is progressing its proposed recruitment strategy for 2023 and beyond. In addition to ongoing general service and direct entry recruitment, military management is introducing a planned specific recruitment campaign for the Naval Service, and a tender competition for a specialist recruitment body to target individuals with the skills and expertise required by the Naval Service. As the Deputy will be aware, there are particular challenges in recruiting and retaining certain specialists as there are competing demands for such professionals in other sectors of our strong economy.
A number of retention initiatives have been implemented and others are under way. These include the service commitment scheme and the seagoing naval personnel tax credit. Agreement has also been secured to allow for an extension in service limits for privates and corporals and an interim arrangement for sergeants and their equivalent Naval Service ranks. There has also been significant progress on pay, with starting pay rates in the Defence Forces comparing well with other areas of the public service. My immediate focus is on stabilising the staffing situation in the Naval Service and thereafter on bringing the strength of the Naval Service and Defence Forces to the numbers required to meet the agreed level of ambition arising from the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces.
Morale within the Defence Forces, particularly the Naval Service, is at an all-time low. The strength of the Naval Service is approximately 770, although the active and effective strength is probably less than 750. Thirteen months ago, when the commission's report was published, that number stood at 867. That it is now 100 less than it was 13 months ago shows that the haemorrhaging continues, despite the publication of the commission report. Since 2017, successive Governments have attempted to recruit their way out of the retention crisis and that has been an abysmal failure to say the least. Earlier this month, a graduation class for 2022 saw 11 people pass out. The net result of the recruitment and retention crisis is complete burn-out.
The Minister has said he wants to implement the working time directive as quickly as possible. I am told that exemptions from the working time directive are being looked at in 13 areas. Can the Minister confirm that naval patrols are one of the areas being looked at for an exemption from the directive?
We are acutely aware of the situation facing the Naval Service with respect to staff numbers. A number of initiatives have been taken, including increasing the pay rates significantly compared with previous rates. Current pay rates in the first three years of service, including military service allowances, for the rank of private, three-star able seaman start at €37,147 in year 1 and rise to €38,544 in year 2 and close to €40,000 in year 3 of service. On commissioning, graduate cadets starts on a pay scale, which includes military service allowance, that ranges from €46,406 to €54,696 depending on the type of appointment. School-leaver cadets start at €41,123 while in full-time education. These rates compare favourably with the starting pay in other areas of the public service. That must be said and at some stage it must also be acknowledged. Much more needs to be done and we are doing that as well in looking at allowances and so on.
The Minister outlined some of the measures that have been implemented. People are voting with their feet and continuing to leave. The one area that can and should be addressed is the full implementation of the working time directive. I ask the Minister again what exemptions are being looked at. Are naval patrols one of the areas being considered for an exemption? If so, it will only see a continuation of the haemorrhaging of members of the Naval Service. We should be trying to stop that and giving people incentives to stay in the Naval Service.
In the first two months of this year alone, we have seen the cancellation of 24 naval patrols. Two ships are tied up. They are mothballed. What is the economic loss to the State? Has an assessment been carried out on our fisheries, an area worth millions of euro to the economy? What assessment has been done of drug interception? What assessment has been done of the loss of potential investment relating to the failure to secure our data cables, in a scenario where 99% of transcontinental cables pass through Irish waters? Have assessments of those three critical areas been carried out because of the failure to address the crisis?
I have made it clear I want the working time directive to be introduced. A conciliation arbitration facility is in place in which engagement and discussions with the representative organisations are taking place. That is the forum where these issues will be resolved and they need to be resolved. I will not engage in a megaphone approach to those discussions. They must be resolved in the forum in which they are currently being discussed. I have made it clear since becoming Minister for Defence that this is something I want to see happen. A military management position has been put forward which took some time to be formulated. It is available. Discussions are taking place. We want those discussions to be brought to resolution quickly and I will take decisions on this if the discussions drag on too long. I am clear that I want to see these negotiations brought to a conclusion quickly and for the organisation of working time directive to be implemented.
As regards economic analysis and assessment, there is no evidence of any economic damage in respect of the issues the Deputy identified.
Has an assessment been done?
The sea cables relate to a much broader issue that involves other colleagues.
4. Deputy Peter Fitzpatrick asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if he will outline any updates in relation to the mandatory retirement age within the Defence Forces for post-1994 privates and corporals; the steps he will take to retain the affected personnel amidst a staffing retention crisis; if there have been advancements in his discussions with the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13557/23]
Will the Minister outline any updates on the mandatory retirement age in the Defence Forces for post-1994 privates and corporals; the steps he will take to retain the affected personnel in amidst a staff-retention crisis; if there have been any advancements in his discussions with the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform highlighted during Leaders' Questions last week; and if he will make a statement on the matter?
I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. Without question, military life places unique demands on individuals and it is necessary that Defence Forces personnel are prepared to meet the challenges of all military operations. For this reason, compulsory retirement ages for ranks in the Permanent Defence Force have historically been considerably lower than in other types of employment and that is certainly the case since 1994. In their report on recruitment and retention in the Permanent Defence Force in 2019, the Public Service Pay Commission included in its recommendations the need to consider options to tackle barriers to extended participation in the Permanent Defence Force. A joint civil-military review was subsequently completed in 2021. The report of the review group made a number of recommendations for extended service limits across a number of ranks in the Defence Forces. As current pension arrangements for personnel enlisted to the Permanent Defence Force on, or after, 1 January 1994 are based on date of entry to the Defence Forces, any proposal to amend the length of service requires the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform as there are impacts on accrued pension liabilities.
In December 2021, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform agreed to allow for an extended service limit for privates and corporals who were recruited after 1 January 1994 to serve beyond the 21-year service limit that existed before that date, up to a revised service limit of 50 years of age, subject to them meeting certain criteria, including medical and fitness standards. An interim arrangement was also agreed to allow for the continuance in service of sergeants in the Permanent Defence Force who were due to retire on age grounds at the end of 2022. Sergeants recruited since 1 January 1994 who were due to retire on the basis of mandatory retirement age in 2022 and 2023 will not be required to do so until the end of 2024. The fast accrual pension terms will continue for those additional years.
The Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform has established an interdepartmental working group to consider mandatory retirement ages and service limits for public service groups that have fast accrual occupational pension arrangements. A number of meetings of this working group, of which the Department of Defence is a member, have taken place to date. The recommendations from the joint civil-military review of mandatory retirement ages of all ranks in the Permanent Defence Force are being considered as part of the work of this group.
There are clear staffing challenges-----
The Tánaiste can come back in.
The numbers in our Defence Forces are under 8,000 which is an all-time low. I have raised this matter with the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach in recent weeks. It is due to compulsory retirement and is an absolute disgrace. In the past few months, 51 recruits were in Gormanston Camp training to become soldiers but only 12 passed out. A number of them had to be transferred from Cork to make up the 51 and still only 12 passed out. In Dublin, two barracks had to be amalgamated to try to get recruits to pass out. Gormanston training camp cannot even be opened at the moment due to a lack of personnel.
I will give some details of a 50-year-old chef who has a mortgage and three children. He is medically fit to carry on his work. He has been overseas seven times. He has high qualifications. Every time I raise the issue with the Army, I am told the Minister this or the Minister that. These people want to stay in the Army. I cannot understand it. As an ex-soldier, I know the experience and training people get in the Army is perfect. It is a way of telling us that the Government no longer wants young men at 50 years of age.
That policy emerged in the 1990s for different reasons and in a different context. The issue the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform is concerned about is fast accrual pensions. I have had discussions with the Minister. An interdepartmental group is working on this matter because it applies across the board, not only to military personnel but potentially to all uniform services in the public service. That is the issue. I have asked for some interim measure and some have already been taken in respect of privates, corporals, sergeants and so forth. I am sympathetic to the idea of extending the time limits for retirement as lifespan has increased dramatically, especially in the past 20 years. Views that might have applied 30 years ago do not apply today as regards people's fitness levels and so on at an older age. Therefore it does not make sense that people retire at 50. We have to work through the implications of extending retirement ages in the military. I support that initiative and I am pursuing it.
I know the Minister supports it but the bottom line is that action is needed now. We cannot get recruits. We cannot get soldiers. The current strength of 8,000 members is too low. I mentioned Gormanston training camp. We cannot even get personnel to train soldiers. We have qualified soldiers who it cost the Army a lot of money to train.
They cannot even pass on their experience because they have been let go. In the case of a young man of 50 years of age, who is medically fit, it makes no sense. While I appreciate that an extension of two or three years has been granted to sergeants, the number of people leaving is an absolute disgrace. I was in the Army for three years. The Army is fantastic for young people to join because of the discipline you get. You keep yourself nice and clean, you look after yourself and you get respect for everybody. At the moment, we are just taking them in and when they get to a certain age, we think they are no addition. I have raised this numerous times with the Tánaiste. I would love to go back to this 50-year-old chef, who, along with his family, is involved with everything. He wants to stay, but what can I tell him? It is going on far too long. Perhaps I am wrong, but is it just a matter of a stroke of a pen? The money could not be a problem if it is just a stroke of a pen.
No, it is not a stroke of a pen. As I said, it is an issue I am pursuing with the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, but it has wider implications. It would not just apply to the Defence Forces. We must extend the age limits. That will involve discussions with others who will have issues regarding how that is done. It is not a stroke of a pen. It has wider implications. That said, I accept the Deputy's basic point. I do not see any reason someone who is 50 years of age, such as the person he referenced, should not continue in terms of physical fitness levels and the work they are doing. The issue in public expenditure terms is how to deal with, accommodate and manage fast accrual pensions. There should be a proper system in place to sustain it into the future - not just a short-term measure, but something sustainable. That is the work the interdepartmental group is considering at the moment.
5. Deputy Carol Nolan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the efforts being made to implement the working time directive for members of the Defence Forces; if he will address concerns from serving personnel that the military management and his Department are seeking significant exemptions to the implementation of the Directive; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14429/23]
I wish to ask the Tánaiste, in his role as Minister for Defence, to set out what efforts are being made to implement the working time directive. What is being done to address the serious and legitimate concerns of serving personnel regarding the implementation of the directive? They are concerned that military management and the Department of Defence are seeking significant exemptions from the directive. What is happening in that area? What actions is the Tánaiste taking?
As the Deputy is aware, the Defence Forces are currently excluded from the provisions of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, which transposed the EU working time directive into Irish law. I assure the Deputy that the Government remains fully committed to ensuring the provisions of the working time directive are applied, where appropriate, to the Defence Forces. This is in line with the Government commitment to removing the blanket exemption in the 1997 Act for both the Defence Forces and An Garda Síochána. Responsibility for preparing the legislative framework required to bring the Defence Forces within the scope of the Act lies with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. My officials are continuing to engage actively with that Department on this matter.
I emphasise that it is not the case that civil-military management are seeking significant exemptions to the implementation of the directive. The removal of the blanket exemption in the 1997 Act for the Defence Forces is a complex matter, given the nature of some military activities. A significant amount of work undertaken by military management has determined that a high percentage of the normal everyday work of the Defence Forces is already in compliance with the directive. However, recent European case law has been clear that certain activities, due to their specific nature, must be considered outside the scope of the directive. The provisions of this ruling have duly informed the proposed management position, which has as its guiding principle the fundamental requirement to ensure appropriate rights and protections with regard to health and safety are afforded to serving members, while also ensuring the Defence Forces can continue to fulfil their essential State functions. Dialogue with the representative associations on the proposed management position is continuing through a subcommittee of the conciliation and arbitration scheme. A number of issues raised by the associations are actively being examined by both civilian and military management, respectively. At this stage, therefore, it would not be opportune for me to comment further while this engagement continues. A final management position on the implementation of the directive is expected to be submitted shortly for my consideration and approval, once this dialogue is concluded. Thereafter, my Department will be engaging formally with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, which will take forward the appropriate legislative framework.
I assure the Deputy that the health and safety of personnel in the Defence Forces remains a priority for me and the Chief of Staff. We remain fully committed to ensuring the provisions of the working time directive are applied, as appropriate, throughout the Defence Forces, in line with the recommendations of the Commission on the Defence Forces.
I thank the Tánaiste for his reply. I note he said earlier to another Deputy that there was engagement on this very issue. He also said he would take decisions if it dragged on, which unfortunately it has. Serving personnel are becoming very frustrated, demoralised and concerned about the significant exemptions being sought by military management and the Department of Defence, as I alluded to earlier. From my engagement with serving and former personnel, there is close to a complete breakdown of trust between serving members and the Department on this issue. As I am sure the Tánaiste is aware, RACO recently cautioned him that while it was right to admit there were no quick fixes for the current problems, for years the Department of Defence has ignored irrefutable evidence of a decline which has become ingrained in the organisation and has avoided implementing the working time directive. That is a serious charge. I am sure RACO does not lay it lightly at the door of the Department. Of course, the Defence Forces are unique and the need for exemptions is reasonable in some instances, but not all. It is reasonable that they have clear assurances. The Tánaiste said he would take action if it dragged on. What actions or decisions is he going to take? Will he put in a timeframe? We need a timeframe.
To be fair to all concerned, it must be acknowledged that there have been improvements in pay, conditions and various allowances over the last two and a half years. That progress will continue. Unrelenting negativity being articulated all the time by the Defence Forces is not optimal either. There can be room for improvement, but there comes a time when we must affirm and promote the positive dimension of a career in the Defence Forces, as Deputy Fitzpatrick referenced.
I spoke to my officials yesterday about the working time directive. We had a meeting about it internally. Discussions are under way within the subcommittee of the conciliation and arbitration scheme. Within a reasonable timeframe, those discussions will be concluded and a position will be put to me, which I will bring to the Government. I am determined to implement the working time directive in respect of the Defence Forces, which I will do. Department officials are committed to this. The assertions made are not accurate or correct. They are very committed to doing this. Historically, the position was that it never applied. I am committed and we will apply it. By definition, given the work of the Defence Forces more generally, it is not as straightforward as other workplaces, but we can bring it in. We should allow the discussions to take place and follow through on them.
I met serving and retired Defence Forces members who articulated the concerns I have outlined this morning. I do not believe it is a case of "negativity being articulated". The fact of the matter is there are outstanding issues which have gone on for too long. There is demoralisation, a sense of feeling demoralised and a strong sense of frustration. These matters must be addressed in order to promote our Defence Forces more, as they should be. To make it more positive, these issues must be addressed because they are affecting retention of military personnel. It is demoralising for them. We must admit that there is a problem. I am here to represent those people who have told me there are problems in the constituency and to try to get resolutions. The Minister said to another Deputy that he would take action if the process dragged on. I wish to have clarity regarding the Minister's comment that he would take decisions or action. Did he mean he will implement a timeframe to try to bring this to a resolution so we can increase morale in the Defence Forces and get this resolved?
Yes, I do. We have a timeframe within the Department. It is being discussed at the moment in the scheme.
I ask the Tánaiste to bring heads of a Bill within six months.
We cannot discuss it across the floor of the House, if the representative organisations are in the discussion. I am making a legitimate point that we should facilitate and allow that to happen, but I will not allow it to drag on interminably. I will take action in respect of bringing a proposal to the Government. It then has to be legislated for and the legislating Department is the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. That is the point I was making. There are also broader issues related to recruitment and retention with which we will have to deal.
