As we have a quorum we can commence the meeting. Apologies have been received from Deputy Anne Ferris for part of the meeting, Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn and Senator Denis O'Donovan. I thank the Minister for his attendance today to discuss with the committee the value for money review of the Reserve Defence Forces, October 2012. There will be an opening statement from the Minister, followed by a question and answer session.
VFM Review of Reserve Defence Force: Discussion with Minister for Defence and RDFRA
I will be deputising for Deputy Ó Feargháil.
You are most welcome.
I welcome the opportunity to appear before the committee to discuss the value for money, VFM, review of the Reserve Defence Forces, which I shall refer to as the RDF for the sake of brevity. I will also outline the progress to date in implementing the response to its findings and recommendations. As the committee is aware, the VFM review of the RDF formally commenced in February 2010 and was conducted during a period of significant uncertainty and change. The previous Government's national recovery plan, NRP, and the current Government's comprehensive review of expenditure, CRE were both key priorities over the course of the intervening period. These priorities drew analytical resources away from the VFM review. In advance of Government decisions relating to the CRE, any recommendations from the VFM review regarding the reserve could have been superseded by changes in the available resource envelope. In this context, the review timeframe was unavoidably extended.
The CRE and the associated reorganisation of the Permanent Defence Force, PDF, within a two brigade structure, defined for the steering committee the level of resourcing available for the reserve. This included the number of PDF personnel that would be available to support the reserve on a full-time basis. This allowed the steering committee to frame appropriate recommendations for the reserve that were financially viable and sustainable within the prevailing resource envelope, and that dovetailed with the broader reorganisation of the Defence Forces.
The VFM report was finalised by the steering committee and submitted to me in early October 2012. It was subsequently laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and published on the Department of Defence website in November 2012. The report sets out a systematic and detailed analysis of the Reserve Defence Force. The Reserve Defence Force review implementation plan previously set out an ambitious programme of reform for the reserve, which included a major reorganisation in 2005. The VFM review found that the strength and associated training targets set out in that plan were not achieved over the intervening period. This raised concerns about the capacity of the reserve. Although I have no doubt that different people will hold different views as to why the Reserve Defence Force review implementation plan did not achieve its desired objectives, there can be no doubt that it did not.
I am a firm believer in revisiting plans that have not yielded the desired results. Simply maintaining the status quo with the reserve and continuing in the hope of improvement at some point in the future was not a realistic option. The value for money review clearly set out the key issues that must be addressed and although there are many detailed findings within the review, I will outline a brief summary of the key findings and recommendations.
The cost of maintaining the reserve, including the costs of PDF support staff, ranged from €34 million in 2006 to €23.4 million in 2011, having peaked at just under €36 million in 2008. The majority of these costs - or an average 82% - were comprised of PDF support staff costs and the cost of paid training and gratuities for members of the reserve. The effective strength of the Army reserve and Naval Service reserve at end 2011 was less than half of the organisational design strength of 9,692 personnel. The number of full time PDF staff in place supporting these RDF structures was inefficient having regard to the actual strength level of the reserve. The option of recruiting to the establishment level was not realistic given the level of resourcing available for paid training and having regard to previous recruitment trends. In this context, the steering committee concluded that the existing organisational structure was inefficient and unsustainable.
In addition, the reorganisation of the PDF within a strength ceiling of 9,500 personnel required the number of full-time Army PDF support staff for the Army reserve to be capped at 48 personnel, or 24 for each of the two new brigades. There are a further nine PDF support staff for the Naval Service reserve, giving a total of 57 full-time PDF support personnel. An examination of the number of reservists that undertook both paid and unpaid training highlighted that over the period of the review only approximately 60% of reservists undertook any paid training. Research also identified that those reservists not undertaking paid training did not compensate for this with additional unpaid training. In 2011, the number of reservists that met prescribed levels of paid and unpaid training for payment of a gratuity numbered 2,010, excluding recruits, of a reported effective strength of 4,554 personnel.
There is a critical link between the uptake of training and the capacity of the reserve. In this content, the steering committee had concerns about the capacity of the organisation to fulfil its role. I particularly draw the attention of members to the numbers who undertook training. The steering committee noted that the PDF could fulfil all ongoing operational requirements and that there were no operational gaps that required the ongoing deployment of the reserve at home or overseas. In this context, it was concluded there was no requirement to amend the roles of the reserve beyond the contingent role currently provided for. However, it was recommended that there was scope to achieve greater utility from the reserve through usage in a voluntary unpaid capacity for unarmed aid to the civil authority and other specified tasks.
The steering committee considered a range of options for the reserve, including "do-nothing" or "abolish" options. It concluded that it remained prudent that the State should have additional military resources available to provide additional support to the PDF if required. This additional capacity could assist in dealing with a broad range of contingencies. However, in light of concerns regarding the capacity of the reserve, there were caveats.
The steering committee only recommended the retention of the reserve on the conditional basis that it be reformed and reorganised. It also recommended that greater utility should be derived from the reserve in a voluntary unpaid capacity. I accepted the findings and recommendations of the steering committee outlined in the report. This included a recommended strength for the reserve of approximately 4,000 personnel, based both in PDF installations and in 16 other locations throughout the country. This strength level was only sustainable, within existing resources, if gratuities were withdrawn from members of the reserve and this budget redirected to boost the availability of paid training. As Minister, I emphasise the importance of participation in paid training as opposed to simple membership of the reserve.
Detailed reorganisation proposals, including the location of the reserve units in the 16 locations outside of PDF installations, were brought forward by the chief of staff and Secretary General of my Department. I accepted these proposals and the details of the reorganisation were published at the same time as the VFM review. The reorganisation would consolidate a large number of under-strength Army reserve units that were previously organised into a three brigade structure into a smaller number of full-strength units within the new two brigade structure. The new organisational structures set a revised strength ceiling for the Reserve of 4,069 personnel, 3,869 for the Army reserve and 200 for the Naval Service reserve.
Implementation of the reorganisation commenced immediately under the auspices of a high-level implementation group chaired by the deputy chief of staff support.
There has been ongoing consultation with the representative associations as part of this implementation process. Revised organisational structures for the reserve came into effect at the end of March 2013. This reorganisation was based on a different model from what had been in place. A single force structure concept means that Army units have permanent and reserve components rather than the previous separate parallel PDF and reserve structures. This will lead to a much closer relationship and improved interoperability. The Naval Service strength ceilings have been revised to reflect effective strength levels and units have been retained in Dublin, Limerick, Waterford and Cork. The Cork unit was moved from Collins Barracks to Haulbowline. Gratuities have been withdrawn from members of the reserve and the budget for 2013 has seen this resource redirected to increase the number of paid man days. This will support the reorganisation process and facilitate any required conversion training for members of the reserve.
The military authorities are currently developing further proposals for my consideration as recommended in the VFM review. These include proposals to amend the regulatory criteria governing the classification of reservists as effective; broader regulatory proposals to further underpin the new organisation; and support relationships, which are also being developed. The military authorities have been actively engaged in developing appropriate support systems that meet the requirements of all stakeholders. As the interaction between PDF and reserve components of units progresses over the coming months, these working relationships will evolve. Activities such as joint training will consolidate the new organisational structures and improve interoperability.
The VFM review highlighted the requirement for reforms to the reserve. These are necessary in order to ensure its continued viability. I am confident that the changes being introduced will create the opportunity for improved PDF and RDF interaction and support an overall enhanced defence capability. The success of this process will be dependent on the efforts of all personnel within the Defence Forces both permanent and reserve and the Defence Forces have an excellent track record in implementing change. In reality, it will take a number of years to determine whether these reforms are having the desired effect. Progress will be monitored on an ongoing basis and I have directed that there will be a formal review of progress after a period of three years.
I thank the steering committee and working group for their work on the VFM. I also acknowledge and thank the members of the reserve for their loyalty and dedication. Finally, I thank the committee for its continued interest in the Reserve Defence Force and I look forward to hearing its views on the review and its implementation. I will do my best to respond to any questions raised.
I thank the Minister. Does anybody have a question for the Minister?
Who was on the steering committee? In my experience of Departments when they do these VFMs they make sure the steering committee is designed in such a way that they know beforehand what answer they want and they make sure that they get that answer.
The Deputy should be aware that the way this committee operates is that we ask a question and we get an answer. It is a question and answer process.
That is very different from the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine.
It is far more effective. I invite the Minister to reply to the question about the steering committee.
As the Deputy will know if he has had an opportunity to read the value for money review, which was published last October, the members of the steering committee are detailed on page three. Mr. Liam Whelan, independent chairperson replaced Ms Mary Butler as independent chairperson in August 2012. It included Mr. Robert Mooney, principal officer, Department of Defence, and Col. Michael Meehan, director strategic planning office, Defence Forces, who replaced Col. Colm Campbell, director strategic planning office, in April 2012. Ms Aileen Nolan, principal officer, Department of Defence, replaced Ms Ann Price, principal officer, in May 2012. Lt Col. Liam O'Carroll, acting director Reserve Defence Force, replaced Col. George Kerton, director Reserve Defence Force, in October 2010, who replaced Lt. Col. Tony Daly, acting director Reserve Defence Force. Ms Stephanie O'Donnell, principal officer, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, replaced Mr Dermot Quigley, principal officer, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, in August 2012. Mr. Fiachra Kennedy, assistant principal officer, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, replaced Mr. Eoin Dormer, assistant principal officer, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, in May 2012. Ms Valerie Byrne, assistant principal officer, Department of Defence, secretary to the steering committee, replaced Mr. Ciaran Desmond, assistant principal officer, Department of Defence, in May 2012, who replaced Mr. Tadgh O'Doherty, assistant principal officer, Department of Defence.
Had the Deputy gone to the trouble of reading the report he could not have missed the names of the individuals in it. Before he makes allegations about a report he clearly has not even read I would suggest to him that he does not make comments to suggest that the members of the committee were chosen to reach some particular conclusion, which is the insinuation. I find it quite astonishing that in a meeting dealing with this issue the Deputy should even have to ask who the members of the steering committee were. He clearly has not read the report.
The Minister is absolutely correct. I did not get an opportunity to read the report because as I explained when I came in-----
It has only been published since last October.
Does the Minister read all the reports published by every Department all the time?
I read all the reports relevant to my brief.
Can we please get back to questions?
As the Minister might be aware, this is not my brief.
I would appreciate if the Deputy could please deal with questions on the matter of concern this morning.
I thank the Minister for reading out the list of names. It seems extraordinary to me that this VFM is basically the Department and the Army looking at the Department and the Army. Steering committees, as I know from experience as a Minister, tend to be totally dominated by the system and get the answer the system wants.
Was the wider good to society in general of the training and discipline involved in being in the reserve defence force taken into account or was a purely utilitarian military view taken of it? Many of us who had the privilege of being in what was then the FCA benefited greatly on a personal level and society benefited from the training we got as members of that reserve. To judge by what the Minister has said here this morning that does not seem to be part of the review.
There are figures on the summary costs. The training cost for the PDF cadre in 2011 was €16 million. If the Reserve Defence Force were to be abolished this morning, how much of the €23 million spent in 2011 could have been saved in reality or would it be a fact that those Permanent Defence Force members would continue to be Permanent Defence Force members and that the Civil Service personnel would continue to be Civil Service personnel and their wages paid, and would the costs of the director of reserve personnel at the Defence Forces headquarters also have to be paid? If the Minister were to abolish the Reserve Defence Force what would be the net savings?
I find the Deputy's questions really interesting.
I should have welcomed the members of the reserve who are in the Gallery to hear our exchanges and the extent to which issues are addressed seriously in this Parliament. It is a very good thing that they are here this morning. I gather the committee is meeting them this afternoon. I very much welcome that because I particularly value the work done by members of the reserve who engage in training days and have volunteered to be part of the reserve. Being part of the reserve is a clear signal of people's patriotism and commitment to the community and willingness to contribute to it.
My particular concern about the reserve is that those who are active in it and have participated in training days have had in recent years minimal opportunity to utilise that training in practical terms. They are entitled to an organisation and structure which creates a greater possibility of them doing so and which provides for greater connectivity between the reserve and the PDF. Sadly, that was lacking during the period of years in which Deputy Ó Cuív was in government where there was a headline figure of membership that was never achieved. A large amount of public money was, if I may say so, wasted on paying gratuities to individuals who were not participating in training days. There was a fiction maintained as to the numbers within the reserve who were generally available as trained members to provide assistance to the PDF should it be required. What we have done in this context is in the public interest, which is important.
It is astonishing that a Deputy who spent many years in government while the economy was destroyed could come in to this meeting which has been arranged for some time, representing the Fianna Fáil Party, and address questions on which he pretends to have a serious view to me on a report published in October 2012 that he has not read. That is quite extraordinary.
Could we get back to the questions?
The Minister is correct.
I am sorry if Deputy Ó Cuív does not like my response. He cast aspersions on the steering committee.
If I may, on a point of order-----
We have had enough of this Government.
Could we-----
He cast aspersions on the motives of the review group-----
Sorry, Minister-----
-----and it is not acceptable.
I did not.
If we could focus on the questions and answers and leave it at that, I would much appreciate it.
Deputy Ó Cuív has not read the report. It is appalling.
Please.
Sorry,-----
No. We spend our time coming in here. Some of us actually read the report.
I will not take lectures from the Minister.
If we could focus on the questions and answers, it would make it more beneficial.
I will not take lectures from the Minister.
Fair enough.
Or insults and cheap jibes.
If we could focus-----
It is a pity Deputy Ó Cuív did not read the report.
That is all the Minister is good for. It is a sure sign of weakness.
No. It is a pity Deputy Ó Cuív did not read the report.
It is a sure sign of weakness.
Comments through the Chair, please, if members do not mind.
It is a sure sign of weakness.
I will have to suspend the meeting if they do not. We need to have questions and answers. That is what I would ask of the Minister and the Deputy.
I have one final question.
I will finish this.
Could the Minister answer me-----
If Deputy Ó Cuív does not mind, through the Chair, he has asked a number of questions already. I invite the Minister to answer those questions as succinctly and precisely as he can and then we will give Deputy Ó Cuív another opportunity for his final question. Is that acceptable?
May I ask one final question?
Of course.
Was-----
No - when we get the answers to the questions Deputy Ó Cuív asked already.
Deputy Ó Cuív raised questions as to the remit of the steering committee. Page 2 of the report, under the heading of review, scope and terms of reference-----
I have read that.
-----details the terms of reference of the committee. Those terms of reference clearly require that the review be undertaken in the context of maximising the use of public resources and ensuring that, in looking to the future as to whether we should have a reserve defence force and what its functions should be, all relevant issues be examined. The terms of reference provided for the outline defence policy and strategy and the associated development plan for the RDF. That was in the public interest in the context of looking at the role of the RDF in current defence policy and strategy. It was something of public interest and important, and something to ensure that the training, for example, that the RDF gets is truly of relevance, is in the public interest and is not based on an outdated strategy that has no application in 2013, 2014, 2015.
Second, the committee was asked to identify the inputs, that is, the level and trend of costs and staffing resources associated with the RDF, including PDF and Department of Defence staffing resources. That is relevant because, as Deputy Ó Cuív will be aware, we are spending a substantially greater sum in this State by way of public expenditure.
On a point of order, did I raise any question about the terms of reference?
Yes.
I did not.
Deputy Ó Cuív asked was the public interest considered in the-----
In the wider public interest.
Yes, in the wider public interest. Dealing with the wider public interest, what was identified in the context of the report was that a substantial sum of money was being spent on the reserve by way of the payment of gratuities to members who do not participate in training, and that clearly was a feature for the entire period that Deputy Ó Cuív was in office. We wanted to ensure in the public interest that those members of the reserve who were in receipt of public moneys participated in training and had the capacity to provide assistance to the PDF should it be required if an issue arose. Clearly, that was in the public interest.
The committee next had to identify the level and trend of training activity and the outputs associated with the RDF. In the context of outputs, an issue I mentioned earlier, we have, for example, the Civil Defence which, when there is an emergency of different descriptions, and usually climate related, on a volunteer basis provides substantial assistance, and does so at no cost to the State. The State has been for some time in the midst of a fiscal difficulty of which the Deputy will be familiar and one of the issues was what contribution the RDF can make, and in circumstances where, if its members are asked to undertake duties for which they have undertaken training, it results in a cost to the Exchequer. There are circumstances in which the Civil Defence is currently utilised in which the RDF could be utilised, either jointly or separately from the Civil Defence. There was clearly an issue - the report addresses it - as to circumstances in which, in a volunteer capacity, the RDF could be engaged as support for the PDF or in assistance to the civil power. It is clearly in the public interest that such matters be clarified and addressed and, if I could say so, it is in the interests of members of the RDF.
Since becoming Minister, I have spoken to many members of the RDF. One of their frustrations, which I understand and with which I identify, is that they participate in training but they feel they are not utilised and there are opportunities when they could have been utilised. In a time of austerity when the State must be careful with how it spends public money, where there is Civil Defence personnel trained to engage in something that it could do with equal efficiency to the RDF, even where the RDF has the training, the Civil Defence is engaged in practical terms because it does not result in expense to the State. That is unfair to members of the RDF, all of whom are volunteers who receive little money for participating individually in the RDF, who have a commitment and who would welcome the opportunity to make a contribution. It is in their interest and the public interest they be afforded the opportunity to do so.
The review committee next had to examine the extent to which the plan's objectives have been achieved. These plans, which were in place during the lifetime of the previous Government and which we inherited when we came into office, were clearly dysfunctional and not working. It was in the public interest and in the interest of members of the RDF that such be addressed.
Could I interrupt the Minister for a moment? He will not mind if I intervene. I am anxious that we get more questions from members here. The members could read that and we can refer them to it because it is in the report.
I was anxious, because Deputy Ó Cuív seemed to think I did not want to give him a full reply, that I gave him the fullest reply possible.
There is one other issue Deputy Ó Cuív raised which I can deal with briefly, that is, costing issues. On the figures I gave, in 2011 some €23 million was spent on the RDF and the changes will reduce the expenditure to €11 million. In the context of the PDF, there was a cadre of members of the PDF whose sole duty was to service an RDF of 9,500 that was never achieved.
That should have been reorganised years ago. The Minister is dead right there. I have no problem with that. My party accepts that.
Through the Chair.
What we have effected is a reduction in the supports necessary for the RDF, to the number overall of 57 from approximately 350. The benefit of that at a time of limited resources is that the members of the PDF who were providing those supports are now freed up to do other duties within the PDF.
It is in the interests of the Defence Forces and the public that they are assigned to do duties of value and which are identifiable, and which contribute to the work of the Permanent Defence Force.
With regard to the final point made by the Minister, those involved in the day-to-day running of the Army should have dealt with it ages ago. It is very simple and it does not take a huge report to do it. As somebody who did guard duty in Kippure, with members of the Permanent Defence Force, as well as in Carrickmines and Roundwood, I agree with the Minister that change is needed, but all of the so-called value for money independent reviews are internal. Was Fianna Fáil in government in Cyprus, Greece, Spain and Portugal?
The Minister will have some fun with that, and I would rather ask him a question on the report.
If a Deputy asks questions and then leaves the room he clearly does not want to hear responses so I will not waste the time of the other members in responding.
I ask the Minister to allow Deputy Mac Lochlainn ask his questions.
I am looking forward to listening to Deputy Mac Lochlainn, who I know has a genuine interest in the issue.
I apologise for being late and for missing the Minister's presentation but I have read it. The level of reservists who did not participate in training could not be sustained and had to be addressed. There is no question about this. A member of the Reserve Defence Force, as a support to the Permanent Defence Force, should train on a regular basis, as should members of Civil Defence and others who support the front line. There is no question about this issue.
I have no doubt the Minister will agree with what I am about to say. The civic pride and sense of patriotism which civilians have in being able to participate in the Reserve Defence Force is not just about the training, ceremony and marching on St. Patrick's day. It is about being involved in the community and teaching young men and women a sense of place and identity. It is a powerful experience for anybody who has been through it. I have met a significant number of reservists who had concerns prior to the publication of the value for money report and what followed.
I have submitted parliamentary questions and engaged with the Minister's colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe, on this matter. If one reads the parliamentary questions it is clear the budgetary allocation for the Reserve Defence Force year on year had been reduced over a number of years. It is not acceptable somebody in the Reserve Defence Force was not participating in training on a regular basis, but rather than removing people who are not participating in training we could have had enhancements. The Minister has set a ceiling of 4,000. Later this afternoon the Reserve Defence Force Representative Association will present its response to the committee. Will the Minister read the transcript of what the witnesses have to say and see whether any issues they raise could be addressed retrospectively? It is important when we deal with the legitimate systematic issues raised by the report that we also see the immense value of citizens having an opportunity to be part of this.
Two fantastic young women reservists in Carndonagh in Donegal told me that up to 100 young people in the local school expressed an interest in being part of the Reserve Defence Force. The difficulty is that the base there will be centralised in central Donegal and they will not have the same support from cadres. Will the Minister reflect on whether we can encourage a new generation of young people to be part of this and understand that with this responsibility comes regular training, because one is a real support to the Permanent Defence Force?
I apologise for taking so long to ask my question, but the Minister takes a fair long time to respond to questions so I am sure he will return the favour. The Minister should address the issues which need to be addressed, but a number of young people throughout the State would like to be a part of the Reserve Defence Force. It will be grand to have a new, leaner and fitter Reserve Defence Force but will the Minister consider the ceiling and review it regularly and throw out the net to see what interest exists and how as many young people as possible can be allowed to be involved and part of this? It is a very proud tradition and I would not like people to have a sense we are winding it down. This is the impression given by the budget allocation. There is pride among the people who have served. Moving forward we can make it leaner, fitter and fresher but we need to keep the net open for people to get involved.
I would disagree with absolutely nothing Deputy Mac Lochlainn has said. The commitment to volunteerism and engagement, and the interest of members of the Reserve Defence Force, is very commendable and should be encouraged. I very much encourage young people, within the limited numbers for which we can provide at present, to engage with the Reserve Defence Force. With regard to those who are members and, if I can put it this way, who have an emotional attachment to the Reserve Defence Force but who have long since passed engaging in training and are not training, it is important that we have a turnover of people with young people coming in. I do not want it to be suggested that I am encouraging any particular individual not to engage, but what the Deputy stated is right. It is important we encourage young people to join the Reserve Defence Force.
We must be conscious that we have a numbers issue. Reserve Defence Force numbers are approximately 50% of the numbers in the Army and Naval Service in the Permanent Defence Force, so there is a connection with regard to where the number should be. People should be encouraged, but we must operate in the financial parameters which exist at present, and there are no mechanisms for increasing public expenditure.
As the Minister for Defence I have had to do battle to ensure we have the resources we need. Resources were assigned to the Permanent Defence Force prior to my coming to office, and when I examined where we were going for the next two or three years I saw that the numbers in the Permanent Defence Force could have fallen below 8,000 because of the original deals done with the troika and what was being assigned to the Department of Defence. At an early stage I moved to get a Government decision to ensure we maintained numbers at 9,500 and did not drop below a figure which would render it impossible for the Permanent Defence Force to perform its civil function and continue to engage in UN peacekeeping operations, which is a very important element of what we do internationally.
I will keep this under review. I hope that as a result of the changes effected the vast majority of the Reserve Defence Force will take up training days. We will keep an eye on how things are going. I have no doubt that in 12 to 18 months the committee will discuss how implementation has worked and whether any further change is necessary.
Of course I will read the transcript of the Reserve Defence Force representatives who will present to the committee today. I make a habit of reading anything to do with my brief. It is very important that if the Reserve Defence Force representatives present to the committee when I am not present that I consider what they say.
I know this has been a difficult time for members of the Reserve Defence Force. Change is difficult and I thank them for their co-operation in the change that has been effected.
The Permanent Defence Force and the Reserve Defence Force have been engaged in implementing this change together and I hope we will have a more effective RDF, with public resources being used in a manner that clearly is in the public interest.
Just one more question.
I thank the Minister for his response and will make a final brief point. I suggest the joint committee might schedule a review of this issue in a year's time. Members will have received the presentation from the association, the Minister will have had a chance to consider it and perhaps in a year's time, members could reconvene with the representative association to ascertain what is the position and whether there is scope to revisit some of the issues. Is this fair enough?
We might even revisit some of the training camps, as we did last Thursday in the Glen of Imaal.
That also would be good.
Members might join in some of the training as well.
I should declare an interest to the Minister, as I have done a lot of that in the past.
Yes, I knew that.
Change is always challenging and difficult and having read the report, I commend those who commissioned it and worked on it. It was very interesting and the commitment by the Minister to implement the recommendations must be welcomed because for too long in this country, value-for-money reports have been commissioned but the findings have not been implemented. I also welcome the commitment to have a look at it in 18 months' time. The Minister's opening statement indicates he has ordered a review in three years' time but his commitment today to consider it in 18 months' time is welcome. This brings me to a brief question, which is how quickly does the Minister plan to implement those recommendations in the report which he has accepted? Does he plan to move in the next few weeks to get it up and running?
The first stage of implementation is complete and from memory, it is envisaged the rest of it will be completed by September next. In the context of two important issues, I will focus on training days. In 2012, there was only funding for 30,000 training days whereas in 2013, funding for 41,500 training days has been made available. Consequently, the financial focus has gone from the payment of the gratuity to the payment for training days, which is particularly important. In a final comment in the absence of Deputy Ó Cuív on the format for the value-for-money review and the personnel engaged thereon, I note it was the format that always is and always has been used. It has been used by past governments for value-for-money reviews and anyone who has read the report would see there was a clear focus on public interest, on the interaction between the PDF and the RDF and on how the RDF can be made more relevant in today's world. This was the focus in the totality of the report in the context of the different options that were considered and the ultimate recommendations made. It was a very well-written report that sets out clearly the reasoning behind the decisions recommended. I thank Senator Conway for his comments. We moved to implement it as rapidly as possible and I hope that when one looks back on this in a few years' time, the changes will be seen to have been of benefit to the RDF and to its members, as well as being in the public interest.
I have one or two questions on this subject. Was a study undertaken on the reason so few of the 4,554 personnel actually got involved in training? What was the reason they did not actually train? In addition, while I stand to be corrected, was payment of the gratuity in the past dependent on taking part in paid training as well? In other words, was it the case that one did not actually get the gratuity unless one attended paid training for a week, two weeks or whatever it was? Was there a change in this regard?
I will take the last issue first. In the past, that was the case but they became separated. As I understand it, it became possible to get the gratuity without participating in training. If I am wrong in this regard, I am sure I will be corrected. However, my understanding is there was such a connectivity at one point. However, I am talking about this historically, as I was not around at the time. My Secretary General is telling me that I may be wrong in this regard and I do not wish to mislead the committee. However, the issue really concerned looking at the numbers in the RDF and the numbers who actually were engaged in paid training. This was the clear issue when it came to it, as well as how those resources were being used. The Chairman should remind me of his first question.
I asked the reason so few of the effective----
I am not clear on the answer to that question and do not wish to guess it. I am sure there was a range of different reasons some people were unable to engage in training in any particular year. I am sure that for some people, there were very good reasons for this. Consequently, I do not wish to second-guess that. Nevertheless, in the context of the review, what is made clear is the importance of the engagement in training in order that members of the RDF are able to undertake any duties should they arise.
There always was a non-effective strength as well within the RDF. What was that non-effective strength before the reorganisation? Does the Minister have such figures to hand? Will this non-effective element still exist somewhere or will virtually all of the force be effective?
Allow me to check some figures. In 2011, there were 4,554 members, of whom 2,010, as I mentioned, actually participated in training. When one speaks in terms of being effective or non-effective, while one might relate this simply to those who were participating in training, it is or can be something quite different to that in practical terms. Consequently, the objective is to ensure the RDF as a body is fit for purpose and can engage. One important aspect on which I touched in my opening statement but which members have not touched on in any question thus far is that for quite a number of the RDF's members, training will take place within existing PDF barracks. This is an important increase in the connectivity between the PDF and the RDF, rather than there simply being a PDF cadre and the RDF being what effectively was a separate entity.
I welcome that and believe the single force concept is the option to take because the RDF must be far more professional. This leads to the question of members of the RDF eventually serving overseas, which has been spoken about for a long time. In a situation in which both groups were being trained together and the RDF was to reach the same level of competence and professionalism as the PDF, is there any intention or has thought been given to the possibility of members of the RDF serving overseas in the Lebanon or elsewhere? In particular, I refer to those who have specialist skills that may be needed.
Ultimately, there is a substantial difference between the training members of the PDF receive and the training received by members of the RDF. In dealing with overseas duties, it is important that members of the Defence Forces are trained to the maximum possible extent and at present, it is certainly not envisaged that members of the RDF would go overseas. In the context of overseas duties, there are limited opportunities for members of the PDF to engage in overseas duties. I will not go through the litany of numbers but as the joint committee is aware, approximately 450 members of the PDF are serving in various different locations at present, with the largest contingent of course being in the Lebanon. In the context of the joint operations in Lebanon between ourselves and the Finns, the PDF contingent numbers will reduce next November and there will be an issue to identify other United Nations missions to which we may constructively contribute in order that members of the PDF can realise their objectives and ambitions of being able to use in a beneficial way the substantial training they receive. Consequently, it is not envisaged at present that members of the RDF would be engaged in overseas missions. There would be an issue as to the level of training required and even with participating in the training days that now are prescribed, there would be a concern as to their safety, as well as their capacity to engage in such missions. This does not mean that at some stage in the future, in different circumstances, this may not prove possible but I do not wish to hold out the possibility of something now that is not likely to be fulfilled or to give people unreal expectations based on the level of training available.
I thank the Minister. I have one or two more questions if he does not mind. I have a special interest in this area. Could he give an indication of the level of recruitment he envisages for the Reserve Defence Force in the near future?
On the basis of the numbers that we have set at just over 4,000, we will get a clearer view when the reorganisation has been completed. I do not wish to pre-empt our giving consideration to the matter at that point.
The Minister referred to conversion training in his statement. Could he outline what that means?
That is in the context of skills and people being moved from one technical area to another or being reassigned to another RDF unit. Training is available in that context.
The role and use of the RDF has been mentioned by a number of speakers, including the Minister. In the past one of the criticisms has been that it was not used for anything - that it trained but never did anything. Are there plans for how it might be effectively used in any role?
One of the important things to emphasise is the importance that is being attached to the trained reserve being in a single force structure. The implementation plan will achieve that. It may well arise out of that, that there will be circumstances in which members of the RDF will in the future be utilised when in the past they have not been. I deliberately touched on that both in my speech and in some of the responses to Deputy Ó Cuív before his rather hasty departure.
There are areas of activity in which the Civil Defence engages on occasions when there are emergencies. In circumstances where the appropriate training has been provided to members of the reserve and an emergency arises if assistance is required, in circumstances where there is not a cost to the State from members of the reserve providing assistance, that will open up opportunities. Those are issues for further reflection as we implement the process. I would be very interested in hearing the views of members of the reserve on the issue.
I mentioned earlier some issues raised by members of the reserve. Deputy Stanton will be familiar with the situation from his time in the reserve. There is a feeling that despite the training they are not adequately utilised. In examining the situation I would be very happy to hear the reflections of members of the reserve. They are contributing further to the process of change. They might well identify practical circumstances in which they believe the reserve should be engaged. In the past, comments of that nature were made. By the change we have effected and by focusing finance on training days, from a Government perspective the financial burden of the reserve being engaged in issues on which they have not been requested to engage in the past is lifted from the Government. I am sorry to put it in that basic way but it is clear that this did impact on the fact that the reserve was not used in the past. It might not have been articulated by my predecessors but it is the truth. Now the circumstances have changed and I would be interested, following the meeting with members of the reserve this afternoon, if this is an issue on which they reflect, to see what they have to say.
As a committee we visited the emergency preparation room in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. We were highly impressed with what we saw. As the Minister outlined, there is an opportunity for the reserve to get involved there. If members have no other comments or questions I will thank the Minister for his attendance today. The exchange has been enlightening and helpful to everyone. I also acknowledge the members of the Reserve Defence Force Representative Association, RDFRA, who are present in the Gallery. I thank them for their attendance. We look forward to meeting them this afternoon. The joint committee will now suspend until 2 p.m. when we will hear from the Reserve Defence Force. I remind Dáil Members that the select committee will meet at 11.15 a.m. to consider Committee Stage of the Defence Forces (Second World War Amnesty and Immunity) Bill 2012.
Sitting suspended at 10.35 a.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.
I welcome the representatives of the RDFRA. I draw the witnesses’ attention to the rules of privilege. You are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence you are about to give to the committee. However, if you are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and you continue to do so, you are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of any evidence you give. You are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and you are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, you should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members should also be aware that under the salient rulings of the Chair, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official, by name, or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
I invite Mr. Martin Cooney to begin.
Mr. Martin Cooney
I thank the Chairman and members of the joint committee for the invitation to give a presentation to them. I am joined by my colleagues Mr. Patrick Mulley, vice president of the Reserve Defence Force Representative Association, RDFRA, Mr. Gerard Kiely, president of RDFRA, Mr. Rob Gilbey, a member of the Army Reserve, Mr. Eoin Colgan, a member of the Naval Service Reserve, and Mr. Shane Morris, a member of the Naval Service Reserve.
The objective of our presentation today is to seek to change the mindset in respect of how the Reserve Defence Force, RDF, is utilised and to request that the joint committee commission an independent review and report on the RDF with a view to identifying the real value for money associated with a reserve force and how this can be utilised in the Irish defence capability framework.
I think it beneficial to give the committee a little information about the RDF. The RDF is the reserve component of Ireland’s Defence Forces. Its roles are the same as those assigned to the Permanent Defence Force. However, the RDF’s most important contribution is to support the Permanent Defence Force in its contingency defence roles and other crisis situations. Therefore, in peacetime, the main function of the RDF is to train and prepare for these contingency roles.
The RDF comprises the First Line Reserve, the Army Reserve and the Naval Service Reserve. The First Line Reserve comprises former members of the Permanent Defence Force who have a contractual obligation and commitment to the First Line Reserve. For the purposes of today’s presentation, we are concerned only with the Army Reserve and the Naval Service Reserve. These are made up of volunteers who undertake military activities in their spare time. These volunteers come from all walks of life within Ireland and they freely volunteer most of their reserve service. They do so in addition to work, study or family commitments and offer a wealth of civilian qualifications and experience that could be used by the State.
The current establishment of the RDF is 4,069 volunteers, comprising 3,869 personnel in the Army Reserve and 200 personnel in the Naval Service Reserve. However, the figure is slightly higher now as a result of numerous personnel serving without appointments resulting from the recent reorganisation of the RDF. The Reserve Defence Force Representative Association, RDFRA, is the representative body that represents the interests of members of the RDF within certain defined parameters.
The Minister for Defence has already addressed the committee this morning regarding the value for money, VFM, review of the RDF. The RDFRA believes there are major issues with the VFM review and objects to its conclusions and the consequences that have come about as a result. It is not our intention to address the VFM review in any detail today. It is too late to do so given that the Minister has already made his decisions based on its findings and the reorganisation of the RDF is already well under way. However, we would like to make some general comments on the VFM review before moving on. It is our opinion that the VFM review is flawed on a number of levels. It failed to make any qualitative evaluation of the input of the Permanent Defence Force into the RDF. It sets up biased comparisons in its case studies. It misinterprets evidence and includes no substantial analysis to support many of its claims. In addition, it completely ignores the operational capability, experience and outputs of the Naval Service Reserve.
It is unfortunate that there was no member of the RDFRA or the RDF on the steering committee and it appears that the VFM review has been prepared with a certain bias in its approach and findings. We find it disappointing that a true opportunity has been missed to conduct a critical review of the RDF with a view to identifying how this valuable resource can be effectively used for the benefit of the State.
The outcome of the VFM review and the latest reorganisation of the RDF run contrary to international trends, existing studies and reports on international comparators and previous studies on the RDF.
In the late 1990s, the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces commissioned a report entitled A Special Study on the Restructuring of the RDF, which was published in 1999. The report identified a multitude of strengths, positives and value for money within the RDF. It noted that the RDF adds value to the State, the Defence Forces and to individual reservists and society in general. In particular, some of the key positives identified by the report are as follows: the system of the military reserve is considered to be a cost-effective method of organising and maintaining a military capability; it offers youth a valuable outlet for natural curiosity and, in turn, infuses personnel with a sense of pride, discipline, confidence and organisation; it allows wealth generating resources to be permanently employed in the economy, while also retaining a potential to deploy those same resources as contingency might dictate; and the reserve offers the Permanent Defence Force access to skills and experiences which could not be maintained on a permanent basis in the Permanent Defence Force. We submit that these attributes remain the same today and that, with the right training and administrative infrastructure, the RDF represents value for money.
One of the largest contributions the RDF can make to the State and the Defence Forces is the ability to access a range of civilian qualifications and experience that the Defence Forces is either deficient in or simply does not have. There can be many reasons the Defence Forces may not have certain skills and this can include funding restrictions, the time and cost associated with certain qualifications, the fact that certain skills are only required on an occasional basis and the loss of skills and experience due to personnel leaving. The RDF, however, comprises personnel with varied and different backgrounds who have civilian skills and experience which the Defence Forces can call upon should the need arise. Further, the RDF offers the Defence Forces and the State the opportunity to procure certain skills, qualifications and experience at a much reduced cost than if external civilian agencies are engaged to provide the same services.
The benefit and the cost effectiveness of the RDF can be best illustrated using examples. There has recently been a deficiency in the numbers of medical doctors in the Defence Forces. This has significant implications not only for the well-being and health of members of the Defence Forces, but also for training and operational outputs. In such instances, the Defence Forces must engage the services of civilian doctors to carry out these duties when none of its personnel is available. I have been advised that the cost of a normal medical examination of a recruit is €90 with the consequence that if a civilian doctor sees eight Defence Forces personnel in a day, the resulting cost is €720. The cost for a five day week is, therefore, €3,600. In contrast, if the Defence Forces mobilised a doctor in the RDF to conduct the same medicals for a week, the cost to the Defence Forces would be one week's pay for that individual. If the doctor holds the rank of captain, then his or her weekly pay would be approximately €1,116 for a seven day week. The value for money is immediately obvious. Likewise, the value increases with the more personnel the reserve doctor examines.
One could also easily imagine a situation where the Defence Forces might require the services of a solicitor with expertise in a specialist area. If the average hourly rate for such a solicitor was €250 and he or she spent 40 hours advising the Defence Forces, that is, five days by eight hours, then the bill for this advice would be €10,000 plus VAT. However, if a member of the RDF, who is a solicitor with the same skills, was mobilised for a week to provide this advice, at the rank of captain, he or she would cost the Defence Forces €940 for a seven day week. These examples assume that the reservist holds the rank of captain, as generally personnel with certain qualifications will obtain enter the Defence Forces at a certain rank through the direct entry system. However, this is not always the case in the RDF, as personnel must engage through the enlisted ranks and work their way up before they are put on a potential officers course. There could, therefore, be examples of reservists with such qualifications holding a lower rank. Two solicitors held the rank of corporal before they went on to complete their potential officers course and were commissioned as officers in the reserve. At the rank of corporal, their mobilisation would have cost €568.97 per week at the time. They currently hold the rank of second lieutenant and, therefore, mobilisation at this rank would cost €577.40. Whatever way one looks at it, it represents a significant saving and value for money.
Similar examples can be provided for other professionals and qualifications such as mechanics, cooks, electricians, nurses, architects and so on. It should also be borne in mind that the reservists do not only bring their own skills and experience to the fore, but they often have access to their employer organisation and colleagues for support. These benefits do not represent a direct cost to the Defence Forces and provide an additional benefit in engaging a reservist to carry out the task. Ireland has so far missed the opportunity to exploit the pool of human talent within the RDF. Many nations have identified the significant value of reservists with that value going far beyond cost benefits. Australia allows qualified airline pilots to fly their military logistic transport planes as reservists. The UK deploys entire sub-units of reservists on training missions overseas. It is currently putting together expeditionary units of field hospitals solely comprised of reservists.
Among all international comparators identified in the VFM review, reservists play a role in the domestic aid to civil authority operations, whether it was humanitarian relief in Canada, security at the 2012 Olympics, disaster relief following the Canterbury earthquakes or providing camp maintenance in Australia. All international comparators have developed systems to enable reservists to serve. Ireland's lack of employment protection legislation differentiates us from our international comparators, as it is a key enabler for the mobilisation of reservists. The lack of such protection deters people from joining or from staying in the reserve and this will require attention in the future.
Given the nature of, and time limit on, this presentation, we have only attempted to give an overview of the benefits of the RDF. The reserve offers many benefits in addition to its civilian skills, including in regard to society in general. Reservists offer significant societal benefits, as they can act as a conduit between communities and the State. As the geographical footprint of the Permanent Defence Force becomes smaller due to the consolidation of permanent installations, the RDF provides an opportunity to offer community-based defence installations at a minimal cost. Response in support of aid to the civil authority is an important area where localism, volunteering and the Defence Forces can be substantiated by visible, positive reservist actions.
A fundamental tenet of what we are saying is that Ireland has not taken advantage of its RDF. There is significant potential among the thousands of citizens who volunteer themselves and give up their time on a regular and ongoing basis. Now is the time to regulate this resource and exploit its potential. Given Ireland's economic outlook and the fact that the State is looking for ways to reduce costs and increase output, the RDF offers a viable, low budget option to augment the Permanent Defence Force and to provide the State with the skills and experience which are often sorely lacking. This potential has not been used to date despite the willingness, enthusiasm and ability of the RDF. There is a risk that, as a result of the VFM review and the current reorganisation of the reserve, it will cease to exist as an organisation in three years' time. If this arises, the qualifications, skills, experience, history and tradition of the RDF will be lost and it will prove disproportionately costly to reinstate when it is gone. Like any natural resource, it is too late to seek to preserve it when it has wasted.
The VFM review and the latest reorganisation of the RDF missed a golden opportunity to exploit the skills, qualifications and experience of the RDF. We request that the joint committee considers our presentation and seeks to commission an independent review and report on the RDF with a view to identifying the real value associated with a reserve force and how this can be utilised in an Irish defence capability framework. This is what has happened with our international comparators and the results have been resoundingly in favour of retaining, increasing and maximising the use of the reserve forces. We would like to be part of this process and we have our own suggestions on how the future of the RDF might look. We are eager to engage with the committee in this regard although it will require a dedicated presentation and session of its own. We thank the committee members for their time and we are happy to take questions on the issues raised in this presentation.
We would be interested in engaging with the association if it has other suggestions at a not-too-far-away date.
I am supportive in general of what Mr. Cooney has said and the presentation that has been made.
I have raised these matters on a number of occasions with the Minister in the House. One understands the extent of the pressure on the Minister in terms of the economic difficulties in trying to balance the budget for the Permanent Defence Forces and for the Reserves. The point about volunteerism is well made. As a nation we are looking to volunteers to a far greater extent than ever before. He set out in his presentation in considerable detail the effective contribution that the reservists can make as volunteers. That has got to be taken on board.
The Minister refutes the assertion that the force will cease to be in three or four years' time. I am worried about the Minister's assertion. The committee could play a useful role. In line with what the Chairman has said, if it were possible for the committee to establish a review of how the Reserve Defence Force currently operates, how it might operate effectively into the future, how we might exploit the benefits to the Exchequer, the communities and the individuals involved, as set out in the presentation, we would be well disposed to that and it is a review we should undertake.
In the course of his paper, Mr. Martin Cooney pointed out that one of the weakness - assuming the reservists do not cease to exist - assuming the committee undertakes a review is the need to consider the issue of legislation, given that people cannot take time off work as in other jurisdictions. Perhaps he would speak to us a little more on that issue and whether he envisages something akin to maternity or paternity leave being available as a matter of right where they become actively involved in the reservists.
There is a desire on the part of the public at large to see the thousands of young people who are unemployed up and down the length and breadth of the country gainfully used in communities. One immediately accepts that it is not the role of the Defence Forces nor is it the role of the reservists to become involved in managing or training the large numbers of people who are available. Nonetheless, given the skillset of many of those unemployed across the country what is Mr. Cooney's reaction to the participation of a greater number of those young people in the reservists, be it at naval, Army, or general military level?
Who wants to take those questions?
Mr. Martin Cooney
I might address them in the first instance and invite some of my colleagues to come in. I thank the Deputy for his kind words. We would disagree with the Minister in relation to the survival of the Reserve. The framework that has been put in place as part of the reorganisation completely disregards the fact that we have lives outside of the Defence Forces and that the KPIs and the conditions of service that are put upon us are particularly onerous. They will be very difficult for reservists to meet to be effective. Essentially the value for money review has stated that it will come back and look at this in three years' time. It has been established in such a way that it will be so difficult for us to meet those KPIs that at the end of three years they will turn around and say, "they could not do it." Is it going to be a case that we could not do it because the Government did not help us, it did not put in the support and it did not engage with us in the first place in respect of getting our input before imposing those restrictions on us?
On the issue of the protection of employment, to a large extent we rely on the goodwill of employers. If one's statutory entitlement to annual leave is 20 days and one is expected to do 14 days full-time training, one has essentially lost half of one's annual leave. Now reservists have given up either half of their annual leave or try to take unpaid leave. That puts one at a significant disadvantage in respect of where one is with one's family life and if one is self-employed one cannot take that time off. It is submitted that could be addressed quite easily with legislation or through employment legislation such as the Employment Equality Act, the Unfair Dismissals Act, the Organisation of Working Time Act. These could be amended to include provisions for reservists and provisions preventing discrimination against reservists and protection of reservists. I invite Mr. Robert Gilbey who has looked at the international comparators to give the committee some information on what has happened on the comparators in the value for money review.
Mr. Robert Gilbey
I thank Mr. Cooney. As the Reserve Defence Force comes into the single force concept, the only way we can deliver on that within that structure, is if the availability and the quality of the Reserve Defence Force is guaranteed. In order for such a guarantee to take place and any significant change in mindset we need to address the balance of support between the Government, the country and its reserves. In order to guess the societal benefit of the reserves one has to pull that through the employers. We are accountable to our employers. If there was a need to mobilise reserves at short notice it would be very much a case of trying to provide the legislative enablers for that to that to happen. In the international comparators examined in the value for money review the key commonality between New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom is that all of them have employment protection legislation and some of them use incentives in order to make use of the reserves. All of them have employer liaison councils so that there is a dialogue between defence and industry. Given the report in 1999 of the special study into the Reserve, a liaison council between employers and defence was recommended although it was not established. Prior to that, the United Kingdom, which already has a significant source of support for reservists, is seeking to change its legislative measures in order that it can mobilise its reserves domestically with greater ease. At present it must have a ministerial sign-off in order to call out the Reserves but it is seeking to make that a much more local issue.
The key point is that without employment legislation it will be difficult to operationally use the Reserve Defence Force.
Mr. Martin Cooney
I should like to address Deputy Ó Fearghaíl's second point in regard to personnel and the large numbers of unemployed persons. We would be delighted to take in large numbers of personnel into the Reserve Defence Forces to train them and to expand the size of the Reserve Defence Forces. In recent years we have been choked as a result of the restrictions on recruiting and promotion. We have been choked of new lifeblood with an aging force. It is a matter of great disappointment to us that we have not been able to offer the many young people who are unemployed and without direction something to do in the meantime. Studies show that in times of recession and economic hardship, recruitment into such organisations is higher than at other times. I call on Mr. Eoin Colgan from the Naval Service Reserve as it has an integrated approach with the Naval Service and has a large number of operational outputs. That the Reserve is starved of a source of new recruits is having a huge impact on its ability.
Mr. Eoin Colgan
On an operational basis, the Naval Service Reserve has been putting members on Naval Service vessels for years as an integral part of the crews on board. In fact, during the boom there were times when naval vessels could not have put to sea except that Naval Service Reserve provided enough personnel to make up a safe number of crew. In addition, in the past we have provided safety boats for regattas and other maritime events.
To address the point on using the unemployed, what mainly comes to mind is the new direction for the Naval Service Reserve in which the Flag Officer Commanding the Naval Service, Commodore Mark Mellett, has pointed us. That has us interacting with the University of Limerick and the industrial output. Essentially, we have been directed to get involved with the underwater robotics section of the University of Limerick with a view to the development of new technologies that will aid the push to use the maritime resources. It is an integral part of the renewable resource push for the maritime section. We are to get involved with them and help develop their technologies.
On another aspect that we are dealing with, we have talked with Mr. Seán Cullen of the Geological Survey of Ireland. They are tasked, among other matters, with carrying out the detailed surveying of the seabed. One of the matters we have discussed with them is that they have a great deal of equipment, such as sonar scanning equipment and boats, but not necessarily the personnel whereas we have the personnel. We had an establishment of 400 and it was reduced to 200 by the VFM. For an island nation, we could fit the entire naval reserve into this one room here. Looking at the Geological Survey of Ireland, we could train our Naval Service Reserve personnel to use its equipment in partnership with it. At weekends and for week-long training periods we could use that equipment to carry out these detailed seabed surveys in coastal waters, in estuaries such as the Shannon Estuary, in Cork Harbour and in Dublin Harbour to the benefit of the State. Also, these reserve personnel would then be trained to carry out such activities and giving them experience and, effectively, a trade. That is where we are aiming. It is a potential use of the NSR for the training of the unemployed, as was alluded to.
Mr. Martin Cooney
I might invite Mr. Patrick Mulley, given his civilian position, to address the issue of the unemployed.
Mr. Patrick Mulley
We approached the Minister two years ago when the internships came up. We were looking at our own RDF members who were unemployed at that stage. Their number has grown considerably since.
On one of the problems that we encountered, I want to adjust what the Minister stated this morning on recruitment. The RDF and the NSR never experienced a problem with recruitment. We were restricted. There is an embargo in place since 2008. In 2007, the then Minister allowed us 700 recruits and the military allowed us 172. It is not because of the recruitment issue that we find ourselves in the situation we are in today.
However, one of the aspects that we looked at in some detail in the RDFRA two years ago was the Tús programme and the internship programme, both of which were coming on stream at the time. We would still contend that those who have a number of years service in the RDF would be ideal candidates for an internship programme with the Defence Forces. My last inquiry to the Department found that it was looking at this quite actively. We stated it is a source where members could be utilised. If the youth of the country could be taken up on those type of schemes, we would welcome that. It would further enhance our training. It would give us another leg-up on the training. If we are to have the same capability as the PDF, we would envisage that if this programme works well we should arrive at a situation in three years' time where the local sergeant major, when he is looking to undertake a duty, could telephone an RDF member to ask if he or she is available for, say, a Wednesday. He or she could be brought in for the duty in the same way that, say, Pennys stores would use their part-time staff.
There is no point in looking at this in a regimented fashion. We need to think outside the box and to have flexibility in the system. As my colleague stated earlier, we need the Defence Forces to embrace the difference that is the RDF. We have embraced the difference that is the PDF since we began. There are differences, but these differences can be exploited to the benefit of the State, the PDF and, certainly, the people of the country.
Has anybody else got a question?
I am filling in for Deputy Mac Lochlainn who has another engagement. He asked me to raise two questions.
What is the impact of the cuts over the past number of years? The budget has been reduced, from €13 million in 2006 to €4 million last year. The witnesses might quantify how that has been implemented across the RDF.
The other question relates to the value-for-money report itself. There is one part of it that suggests that of the 4,544 members, only 2,010 availed of required training to avail of gratuities. Deputy Mac Lochlainn wants to know would the RDFRA agree with those figures contained in the value-for-money report and whether there is any particular reason such a high number of personnel did not avail of that scheme? The Deputy also asked me to ask the RDF the effect of the cuts in the numbers of dedicated support staff from the PDF.
Mr. Martin Cooney
I might direct the first question to Mr. Mulley.
Mr. Patrick Mulley
On the budget figures about which the Minister was also asked this morning, in 2008 the budget was running at approximately €23 million for the PDF side of it. On one of the other points, the payments to RDF members are being reduced to €2.5 million.
On the availability to train, we need to correct what the Minister stated this morning. Nobody, under normal circumstances, is paid a gratuity unless he or she has completed a set criteria of training. That criteria of training to qualify for the gratuity is that they must have recorded 48 voluntary hours in the year, they must have undertaken their annual range practice and they must also complete one week's full-time training. A gratuity was never paid to those who did not train. That is something that needs to be corrected.
On the numbers or members who are available for training, when the big cuts came in 2008, we enjoyed 66,000 man days, that is, the allocation given to the RDF. That number of man days was halved and was reduced to 33,000. The arithmetic is simple. If one has 66,000 one year, one cannot bring the same number of members to camp the following year. We experienced the same through the 1980s, when the number of man days was reduced. At the time there were approximately 1,500 in the FCA and we could not bring those members to camp. It is not fair to say, if one cuts the number of man days from 66,000 to 33,000, that one will have the same number of members attending training. One cannot have it like that because it is not available for them to take up.
On the budget that was allocated, the CRE, which was referred to this morning in the Minister's statement, reported back in December 2011. It was claimed, in the CRE report, that the McCarthy recommendations had been met, which was to reduce the numbers in the RDF by two thirds. It can be seen that we did not have part in reducing the numbers. They were forced upon us. It was also claimed in the CRE report that the budget of the RDF had been reduced by €5.8 million. We had no part in that, yet it was something that was imposed on us. That is the impact we are looking at here. There has been attrition in the numbers. In the past five years we have lost 16% of our numbers year on year, every year.
The Chairman raised a question on the number of members who were non-effective. Surprisingly, the non-effective members run at 9% per annum.
If a number runs at the same percentage year on year it is a policy. Whether it was declared as such or not, there was a policy to impose an attrition of numbers on us. We have no problem with this, but we were suffering death by 1,000 cuts. It is unfair that reference was made in the value for money review to people not turning up for training when no training was available. There is no point in stating one can train and then halving the number of training days and reducing numbers. If numbers are reduced, which they were, how can we train? There is no point in stating 4,000 people can turn up when 4,000 people do not remain. The numbers have stood up and the numbers of people who turn up for training have stood up under all of these cuts. The reorganisation is with regard to membership of 4,000. We welcome that it was raised to 4,000 from what was termed the effective strength, which is those turning up to paid training in camp. This morning the Department indicated 41,500 man days would be allocated to us this year. We have no problem with this and we welcome it. This would replace the finance we received as a gratuity. These are the parameters within which we are working. We are taking it on the chin and it is very unfair to say we do not have the numbers turning up when numbers have been reduced by the Department and the military.
So it is not a case of personnel not being willing to train, it is that the capacity is just not there to train the numbers the witnesses would like to train.
Mr. Patrick Mulley
The figures speak for themselves. They are not my figures. They are the figures we have received from the Department.
Mr. Martin Cooney
I wish to address the Deputy on a number of the points he raised. The value for money review identified the effective strength of the reserve at 95% in 2006 and 87% in 2011. The reserve is a volunteer organisation involving people who give up their own time. The vast majority of the work is unpaid and people receive no compensation for it. The report found 87% of a volunteer organisation is effective.
The gratuity is an example of an inflexible system placing restrictions on reservists. The review states in 2011 only 61% availed of paid man days. As my colleague stated, to get the gratuity one had to complete eight field days, eight training nights, an annual personal weapons test and at least one week full-time training. An individual in my unit had 17 field days, two weeks of full-time training, an annual personal weapons test and seven parade nights. He was one night short and did not get his gratuity. This shows inflexibility. When one totals up the hours they are far in excess of the minimum he was required to do. He had done 17 Sundays but because he was one night short he did not get his gratuity. He does not come within the figures. This is a flawed analysis of how we work.
I was based in Mullingar and my unit and my offices were closed in February 2012. No alternative location was provided for my platoon to train until September. I had personnel who had to satisfy certain training criteria to obtain their gratuity but the State had implemented a position whereby we could not attain it. In a civilian capacity I could consider judicial review because there is a case of legitimate expectation and the Government has put in place a system whereby we cannot obtain it. In employment terms it would be constructive dismissal. These are my comments on the findings of the value for money review.
This is how it was in the past. What will the requirements be now with regard to seven or 14 days training? I know the gratuity is gone, but will people still have to turn up for these training sessions?
Mr. Martin Cooney
Yes. The system has been put in place and in the first year there is a reduced requirement because reorganisation had to take place. The start date was 1 April for the new units. In the first year personnel will be required to do 32 hours of unpaid training, one week of full-time training and four hours of experiential training, which is further unpaid training. I do not know what is the difference between this experiential training and the other 32 hours of unpaid training. It seems one can be called in at any time for any reason. In the second year the requirement will be to do 48 hours with eight hours experiential training. The third year requirement will be to do 48 hours with 12 hours experiential training. If one is told to come in on a Monday and Tuesday to complete 12 hours experiential training and one physically cannot do so because of work, a sick child or a lack of annual leave, one cannot meet one's requirement. If the system is inflexible and cannot be used in consultation with the reservist he or she cannot meet the requirements.
The biggest cost attached to the reserve was the Permanent Defence Force administering it. The loss of the Permanent Defence Force to the reserve will be huge. Those personnel had significant experience of us and understood how we worked. They understood the restrictions on us on a daily basis. We will now be put in a Permanent Defence Force unit of full-time professional soldiers, many of whom have never had experience of the reserve. They do not understand the restrictions on us, and they are being asked to do this in addition to their other duties. We are being imposed upon them and they will not get anything extra for it. They do not know us or our capabilities. After the value for money review I am surprised I can breathe unassisted but this is what they see. It is a loss for everyone.
What will be the role of the Naval Service Reserve after the reorganisation?
Mr. Eoin Gilbey
As I outlined previously, the Flag Officer is aiming for a more technologically advanced Naval Service Reserve. Last week 16 members of the Limerick unit, including me, volunteered for an oil pollution exercise in the Shannon Estuary which involved unmanned aerial vehicles and unmanned autonomous underwater vehicles operating off the LE Orla and the Irish Lights ship Granuaile. It led on from our involvement in UL and was an introduction to the operation of remotely-operated vehicles. As I stated earlier, this would be for port control reasons, scanning the seabed and hydrological surveys. We will also continue the role we have had for the past 15 years of supplementing Naval Service vessels, sending younger members out to sea and various other maritime activities such as regattas. The Waterford unit conducts many searches on behalf of the Garda Síochána. Mr. Morris will outline what he does on the ships.
Mr. Shane Morris
Going to sea with the Naval Service is suitable only for the junior ranks, namely, ordinary seaman, able seaman and leading seaman of the Naval Service Reserve. We hope more senior members will have roles in years to come. In my experience reserve seamen have the same role as Naval Service seamen. We see ourselves as doing the job in parity with the Permanent Defence Force, but it is not recognised as such. We hope it will be recognised. On one of the patrols I was on up to 15% of the crew was reserve. It reflects what we do at sea with the Naval Service and I hope it will continue and that role will be recognised further.
The Civil Defence costs less than the reserve but the numbers are on a par. Why is this?
Mr. Martin Cooney
A Civil Defence instructor receives €19.95 for two hours.
As of 31 August 2012 I did 136 voluntary hours outside of paid training, and I had another two months left in the year. I would have been significantly better off in the Civil Defence if I had been getting my €20 for my two hours. In respect of budgets, we would not agree with that, and I ask Mr. Patrick Mulley to deal with that.
Mr. Patrick Mulley
I shall hand over to Mr. Eoin Colgan who is more au fait with budgetary matters.
Mr. Eoin Colgan
In answering this question, I am drawing on my experience of having worked as an engineer and major emergency management officer for Galway City Council for three and a half years and having worked in the local authority system for five years. There is a full-time Civil Defence officer in every county which costs a significant amount of money every year plus the cost of their equipment and whatever.
As we are discussing the Civil Defence, I wish to draw the following to the attention of the committee. First, the Civil Defence has grown a lot in recent years since 9/11 in terms of budget, which was €5 million before the IMF came to town. The Civil Defence and the Irish Coast Guard, which has 1,000 members, carry out very good functions in response to major emergencies, local requests and other instances as an aid to the civil authority. The RDF can also respond to floods, gorse fires and weather incidents. In addition, the RDF can raise its response to a superior level because it is an armed service. We can be armed, if required.
Second, the Civil Defence, Coast Guard and such voluntary organisations do not have the same contractual obligations as the RDF. If a national crisis or major emergency lasts for more than a week or two, Civil Defence and Coast Guard members will get some sort of subsistence pay, but that will not be enough to pay their mortgages or feed their children and eventually they will have to go home. The RDF is contractually obliged and its members have enlisted. If the Minister sees fit to mobilise us full-time, then we are mobilised full time at the service of the State and subject to military law. We cannot go home and must remain at the scene. That is a personal risk we take as reservists and it could prove quite costly to us. That is the advantage of the RDF over organisations like the Civil Defence and Coast Guard. The RDF is on the hook, more or less, can be mobilised full-time and is at the full disposal of the State.
I note from the review that the RDF cannot perform armed duties in aid to the civil power. Will the witnesses please comment? Is there a restriction on performing armed duties in aid to the civil power? They appear to have been discontinued.
Mr. Patrick Mulley
We are now prohibited by law to respond as an aid to the civil power but legislation is being examined to allow us to respond as an aid to the civil authority. When the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act 1976 was enacted, we were allowed to mobilise and were mobilised throughout the 1970s at the Border and other places. The amendment in 2007 was a retrograde step and unnecessary as there is no cognitive difference between an RDF person and a PDF person.
In regard to the training and the type of training, let us examine the historical side of it. In 1972, in the region of 274 people were performing full-time security duties and that lasted over two and half years. As we said in the 1999 report, we have not changed, our cognitive abilities have not changed and our volunteerism has not changed. We could provide services to the State through the PDF and augment them at a vastly reduced rate. With regard to the Chairman's question, there is no reasonable explanation for the impediment.
Did Mr. Mulley say that the matter is being examined?
Mr. Patrick Mulley
The military people have informed us that they are examining changes in the legislation that could allow us respond as an aid to the civil authority. The excuse that they gave us during the bad weather scenarios in recent years was that there was a cost factor involved in calling us out. We refute that claim.
Did Mr. Mulley say that the RDF cannot be called out under law at the moment?
Mr. Patrick Mulley
We can. The Minister can activate us any time he wishes.
Have security duties been discontinued?
Mr. Patrick Mulley
Security duties were discontinued and we were not given a reason. We take it that it was the advent of the security duty allowance for the Permanent Defence Force.
According to the value for money report it had something to do with a 24-hour commitment.
Mr. Patrick Mulley
We still provide security duties when we are on camp. Security duties on camp and security duties not on camp are the same thing. This is a grey area as far as the military is concerned. We have absolute authority to provide security duty when on camp because they would one is on training so one can do them. When it comes to a regimental duty, as we might call it, in a barracks, we are not allowed to do those.
The delegation has made interesting points on specialists such as doctors, electricians and so on who may have skills that would be of use to the military when it does not have them itself. That is something we should pursue and look at and there is certainly an interest in that.
Mr. Patrick Mulley
We have a broad range of skills across the board, not just in the professions. We have all of the trades skills. We had quite a number of RDF members in the ESB and Eircom who travelled to the UK to repair its infrastructure following the last big storm there.
Can Mr. Mulley comment on the single force structure proposed in the VFM report? Is that going to be an advantage or a disadvantage? Is it something he welcomes?
Mr. Patrick Mulley
I welcome it and view it as a great move forward. That is assuming we get the culture shift we require, in that Mr. Martin Cooney outlined that we are being parachuted in on top of regular units who never had anything to do with us, and as I said earlier, we embrace the difference and view it as a positive whereas those units do not embrace the difference and view it as a deficit. That is one of the huge things we have to overcome, and maybe in time it will work out because it certainly worked out in the 1970s and we had no problem with it.
Mr. Martin Cooney
No comprehensive review of the Reserve Defence Force has ever been completed to identify the range of civilian skills. One of the reasons for us coming to this meeting and requesting such a review take place is that it is something that would be fundamental to help identify the skill sets, qualifications and experience. By doing that, we identify the assets. We do a stock take of what we have, we identify what we have, and then we decide how we can use it. That is one of the key steps we would say would have to happen in such a review.
We can recommend to the Minister to have a look at it. It would be a simple enough operation to do.
Mr. Ger Kiely
The Minister said this morning that he would have a look at it in around 12 months time. We would urge the committee perhaps to have a look at it sooner in light of the fact that we can bring the skill sets to the Minister at any time. He said this morning he would have a look at it in 12 months. We would prefer if he would look at it before the end of the year, perhaps with the committee's backing.
The committee can reflect on that and discuss it and see what we decide.
Mr. Ger Kiely
Deputy Ó Fearghaíl asked about helping communities and the youth, and the Reserve Defence Force would be delighted to do so. Unfortunately, we are constrained by the military authorities. If the mindset changed, there would be no problem with the Reserve Defence Force helping out.
Deputy Ó Fearghaíl correctly pointed out that part of the problem over the years has been to identify the ongoing operational requirements of the force. That is still a difficulty. The witnesses said they have some ideas and suggestions, and we invite them to send them to us. We could have a look at those again and perhaps have another discussion on them. The ongoing operational requirements were mentioned in the value for money report as being an issue. From my experience over the years, one keeps training but there is nothing to do, and then after a while people begin to get disillusioned.
Mr. Ger Kiely
The Naval Service reserve in Waterford constantly helps the civil authorities by conducting shore searches and searches for bodies.
Officially.
Mr. Ger Kiely
Officially, along with the Civil Defence.
There are areas on which the witnesses can come back to us.
Mr. Ger Kiely
There are huge areas.
If they could come back to us on those specific areas, because it is not mentioned here, that would be quite welcome.
Mr. Ger Kiely
All voluntary, may I add.
I thank the witnesses for their attendance and their interesting contributions on this important matter. I can assure them that the debate will be ongoing.
The joint committee went into private session at 3 p.m. and adjourned at 3.10 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 1 May 2013.