I apologise to the Minister for inadvertently delaying him. I understood we would be dealing with this business at 2 p.m. and I beg his pardon. With the permission of the House, I wish to share my time with Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell who has also expressed an interest in this matter and has also expressed strong views on it.
Adjournment Matters
Banking Sector Remuneration
Is it agreed that the Senators will share time? Agreed.
I appreciate the Minister coming into the House to address this matter of extreme public concern. Many people are perplexed by what they see as Government inaction on what is viewed as excessive pay and pension entitlements which are paid from the public purse in particular, but not solely, within the banking sector. It applies across the board within the public sector and in the political ranks. I seek clarification on the reason the Government has not addressed this concern to date, particularly when people in the banks who have been supported by the taxpayer and bailed out by the Government are being paid well in excess of the pay cap agreed. One salary is reported to be as high as €830,000, which is ridiculous, and pensions of €500,000 and €650,000 within the banking sector are being paid out of the public purse.
I implore the Minister to intervene in this regard, particularly as many workers such as the Waterford Crystal workers have lost their pension entitlements through no fault of their own. I cite two examples of where there were interventions. The Government chose last year, rightly so, to put a referendum to the people to address the issue of judges' pay, which was carried. The other example, with which I am very familiar, dates back to 1985 when the then Minister, Des O'Malley, enacted emergency legislation in the Houses to enable the Government of the day to appoint an administrator to the PMPA group of companies. I implore the Minister to address this issue in the public interest because it is causing great anxiety and distress.
The Minister will be aware of the stark examples of extremely high salaries and pensions. Where any organisation, quarter, public service, banking or insurance company is guilty of salaries and pensions outside the common good, I believe that as a Senator I have to ask the Minister to alter that and to viably do so. If I were to give one simple example it would be the 227 people who work for NAMA and the 962 who work for the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation who between them earn €140 million a year. We own NAMA and the IBRC and, as taxpayers, we pay that €140 million.
I do not believe in coming into the House and citing examples from The Irish Times, RTE or television programmes. Fintan O'Toole wrote an article last week about there being a sense of powerlessness, and I believe that is what people feel. The Minister will probably have very defined reasons for this and be able to allay many of our fears, but there is a sense of powerlessness around. The question I want to ask is where the expertise is of certain bankers who consider their banks to be commercial entities, yet the Irish people had to put €3.7 billion into them to keep them open. One has to ask why these salaries are so high. Are the people who have these salaries any good at what they do bar having downright self-belief and a bullish confidence in power gone mad? There is case for legislating against crude, offensive salaries or else perhaps we should ask the people to put their money elsewhere.
I would like to know how the Minister, in his portfolio of Finance, intends to have the runaway salaries of people who think they are marvellous at what they do controlled in the interests of the people. This is especially important when it comes to taking carers out of homes who play a hugely relevant role, who have a powerful job within our society and who should have equality of job opportunity and equality of salary scale. It has become an enormous issue in this country.
I thank Senator Whelan for raising this issue. The outrage expressed by the Senator at excessive bank and pensions is shared by the Government. The allegation in the question is incorrect. Since the Government came to power, no breaches of the salary cap have been allowed by it, unlike the previous policy where exemptions were authorised and some of the Deputies who were part of that Administration are now asking me to repair the position. It is not that existing caps are being exceeded, it is that the caps were exceeded in the previous Fianna Fáil Government and there are legal difficulties in unwinding those caps both on pay and on pensions.
The Government has introduced stringent controls on remuneration levels under the conditionality imposed arising from the round of State investment in the banks in the summer of 2011.
We went much further than the previous Administration by including all elements in the pay package. Previous Administrations put on a pay cap and then one got an allowance for a car or housing. We brought the caps in and they are absolute, with one exclusion.
Not for Ministers' special advisers.
The Senator should allow the Minister to continue.
Obviously the truth is beginning to hurt when I am being heckled by Senator Walsh.
There you are.
Please, Senator Walsh.
The exclusion is for pension contributions. No individual at any of the covered institutions is allowed to receive more than the cap. This is being honoured as proven in the case of the new CEO appointments at AIB and Permanent Trustee Savings Bank, respectively, whose packages are contained within this policy.
The Government has also been putting downward pressure on pay levels throughout the State-owned banks. In 2012, AIB has introduced reductions in pay and benefits of 7.5% to 15% for its higher earners. These reductions and the overall restructuring of the bank mean that the number of AIB employees with a salary of over €150,000 will have more than halved by the end of this year, from where it stood at the end of 2008.
The Irish Bank Resolution Corporation or IBRC, the former Anglo Irish Bank, has reduced its overall staff remuneration costs from €206 million in 2008 to €107 million in 2012. Therefore, we are dealing forcefully with the issue. We will continue to deal with the issue but there are legal constraints which limit the course of action we can take.
In respect of IBRC, it is on the public record that I have written to the chairman, Mr. Alan Dukes, and asked that the board impose a 15% cut in their wages and salaries. He replied to say that the board did not think that was an appropriate policy for reasons of staff replacement in an institution that is going to run out eventually sometime around 2020. He also said they had issues about retaining key staff. Those are the arguments that were put forward. I do not regard that matter as finished, however. I regard it as the first exchange of correspondence that I have had with the chairman and that it will move on.
Senators will also be aware that we have retained the Mercer Group - since June, before any of this controversy emerged - to do a full review of pay and pensions across the covered institutions. They will report to me by the end of the year and we will see what action will be taken then. When I get that report I will engage with the chief executives of those institutions and with their boards to see if we can amicably work out a way that pay and pensions can be reduced, in a manner that is in accordance with law and without taking away from these institutions their authority to make commercial decisions.
Senators will also recall that on the issue of excessive pension payments funded from the public purse, my colleague, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, dealt with this comprehensively in the other House when responding to a Private Members' motion on 7 November last. He explained in great detail what actions the Government has taken to reduce the cost of public service pensions both immediately and in future. I would encourage Senators, if they have not already done so, to study that particular debate closely.
As I have said regarding the options to reduce existing pay and pension awards in the banking sector, there are limits on the Government's course of action. This is because pre-existing contractual arrangements were entered into by the previous Government. The protection for pensions in the Constitution are those clauses which protect property rights. A pension is regarded as a property right. To move unilaterally against pensions is like taking a field from a farmer - it is confiscation. That is the legal advice.
The Minister is taking 0.6% from pension funds.
That is not to say, however, that we cannot deal with this matter. We are examining ways of doing so. To give Senators the exact advice, pensions are generally taken to be deferred income and any action to reduce a pension payment needs to be comprehensively founded lest it run the risk of being considered an unjust attack by the State on the property rights of individuals affected by the proposed legislation. The Government will seek to explore any avenues and options to address this issue subject to the necessary legal constraints.
We are dealing with the pay issue. AIB has dealt with it already and has reduced pay. We have a pay review right across the institutions and I will act when I get the report. In respect of IBRC, it refused to do what I asked of it, but I do not regard that as finished business. We will discuss it again both with the chairman and the board of that institution. That is where we are going. However, I am as angry as any Member of the Oireachtas when I see what people are suffering across the community and the small incomes on which they are rearing families. We have these extraordinary legacy pensions and payments which were entered into by the Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government and in many ways have left us legally handcuffed to deal with them.
That is a fairy tale.
No. The facts are there, although I know the Senator does not like hearing them.
It is a fairy tale.
The Senator is a very good Member of this House.
This is Senator Whelan's motion.
He will only damage his reputation, however, by trying to defend the indefensible. It is always a bad idea. You owed them nothing; that is another thing the Senator should remember.
As regards Senator O'Donnell's remarks, I share her anger at what is happening. I think I have replied to the points she made in respect of banking and so on. There are also other institutions of which she has knowledge and with which she had relationships in the past. They have very high pay rates as well.
Tell us about those rates. We did not know about that.
Perhaps the Senator will attend the House to tell us how we might deal with that, when certain individuals on single salaries are getting enough to pay for the President, the Taoiseach and going half way towards paying for the Chief Justice as well.
A brief supplementary question from Senator Whelan.
I thank the Minister for coming here personally to take the question so seriously. I am somewhat relieved to hear that he has not finished with the matter, that it is a work in progress and that he is continuing to address this issue. I am, however, a little disappointed to hear that his hands are tied and that there are legal constraints. What is the scope, if necessary, to change the law to address this? It is unsustainable in the current climate. I agree with the Minister that we are not just talking about bankers or singling out any one sector of society. It should apply across the board where high pensions and salaries are paid from the public purse.
Does the Minister have anything further to say by way of response?
The Senator should not discount the strength of moral pressure and the strength of what he is doing today. AIB's board took this very seriously, wrote to their retired executives who had very high pensions and asked them to make a contribution to the State. One individual has made a very big contribution and has taken a reduction in his pension. I would advocate that all others who can see the public anger, as expressed by their representatives, do likewise. Therefore, we will do that in the first instance.
The second thing I will do is to continue my conversations with IBRC to see if it will comply with the request I made, which I thought was reasonable.
Third, when I get the report into remuneration across the covered institutions, which I will have by the end of the year, I will open discussions with all parties to advance this issue. This is work in progress, however, which I cannot resolve in one fell swoop by introducing a simple piece of legislation. Nonetheless, we have already made considerable progress in reducing costs across banks and in clawing back some of the outrageous contractual arrangements which were made with these individuals by the previous Government. We will continue to do so.
We will now move on to the second Adjournment matter.
I would like to speak, if I may.
There is no provision for a supplementary statement to be made by a seconder.
Maybe the Minister would allow me to respond.
The Minister has no say in this and there is no precedent for this in the House.
May I speak?
I am sorry, Senator, but you cannot come in. I am calling Senator Walsh on the second Adjournment matter.
I want to defend against a remark made that I worked for an organisation in which-----
Hospital Staff Recruitment
I welcome my constituency colleague. In the current climate it is easy to fall into the trap of being penny wise and pound foolish. Yesterday at a meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade we had an example where the Irish Exporters Association and IBEC referred to the fact that some of our offices abroad had reduced the number of individuals promoting trade, which is necessary for growth in the economy. This is a prime example of being penny wise and pound foolish.
I call on the Minister of State to make a statement on the increase in the incidence of diabetes related foot ulcers and amputations; to clarify the status of the podiatry post at Wexford General Hospital sanctioned in April; and to state when the position will be filled. Podiatrists cost approximately €100,000, which includes salary costs and expenses. The cost of employing a podiatrist to work with diabetes patients would be offset by the saving in preventing three hospital admissions with foot ulcers. Treating a foot ulcer can cost €30,000 and cause someone to be in hospital for months. If there is a need for amputation as a consequence, it leads to the making of disability payments. A huge contingent liability is attached to not dealing with this issue.
Podiatrists are able to refer persons at risk and train nurses in GP practices to screen for foot related problems. A failure to fill the position in question is resulting in an increased incidence of foot ulcers and amputations in the area. In tackling diabetes in the community it is critical to keep persons with health complications out of hospital, healthy and mobile. I am speaking about the hospital in Wexford, but I could equally make the point about hospitals in Waterford, Kerry, Kilkenny, Mullingar, Drogheda and Cavan, as well as Beaumont Hospital and the Mater Hospital. There has been much evidence of an increase in the rate of diabetes, as the Minister of State would acknowledge. Therefore, the participation of this profession is essential if we are to curtail the consequences of diabetes.
Will the Minister of State guarantee that the post will be filled immediately? He knows the HSE specifically exempted Wexford in the latest round of the recruitment embargo in July, but the post has still not been filled. Funding for it was allocated in the HSE South 2012 podiatry business case budget and approved by the regional director of the HSE. Why, despite the allocation of funding and the granting of approval, has the post not been filled? I appeal to the Minister of State and the Minister for Health to take immediate action to fill the post in Wexford and, by extension if one accepts the argument made, elsewhere also. Failure to do so will lead to a huge additional cost to the State. This post will pay for itself in terms of preventive measures and is absolutely essential.
I thank the Senator for raising this important issue. The Department of Health's chronic disease framework policy, launched in 2008, was designed to reduce the challenges associated with chronic disease. It emphasised the need to develop shared and integrated care, thus avoiding unnecessary hospital admissions and delivering improved quality of life for those affected. The HSE clinical programme for diabetes follows this chronic disease framework. The HSE national clinical programme for diabetes which includes the care of children and adolescents with diabetes was established within the clinical strategy and programmes directorate. The purpose of the programme is to define the way diabetic clinical services should be delivered, resourced and measured to save the lives, eyes and limbs of patients with diabetes.
Diabetic foot disease is one of the most common, serious, feared and costly complications of diabetes. Patients with diabetes are between 15 and 40 times more at risk of a lower limb amputation than their non-diabetic counterparts. A total of 80% of lower limb amputations in patients with diabetes is preceded by the development of a foot ulcer. It is estimated that the annual incidence of lower limb ulceration in patients with diabetes varies from 2.2% to 7%. Treating diabetic foot disease is costly, with patients frequently requiring admission to hospital, investigations, surgery and a prolonged hospital stay.
International studies show that targeted foot care and proper screening of at-risk cases can result in a reduction in the incidence of foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. With the targets of reducing the incidence of foot ulcers, lower limb amputations and hospital costs, the national diabetes programme submitted a business case for the 2011 HSE service plan and was successful in recruiting 16 extra podiatrists throughout the country to manage diabetic foot care. As a consequence, the national diabetes programme developed a national model of diabetic foot care using current podiatrists and newly appointed diabetes podiatrists. It is hoped over time that the number of diabetes podiatrists will increase and that the model will change and adapt to accommodate the increase in podiatrist numbers.
The Government has decided the numbers employed throughout the public service must be reduced to meet fiscal and budgetary targets. The health service employment ceiling for the end of 2012 has been set at 101,960. Within the overall ceiling, the HSE can make exceptional appointments. However, the number of posts must be kept to a minimum, given the need for the health sector to make financial savings this year, in addition to the employment targets.
Given the HSE's current financial situation, it introduced a recruitment pause in July this year. Apart from critical exceptions, this pause applies to all posts, except for service plan development posts in primary care, mental health and child protection. Wexford General Hospital has received approval for one senior podiatrist post in line with the national diabetes programme. The post was originally advertised in March. However, it was not filled at that time. It has now been sanctioned for readvertising. In the interim, a sessional podiatrist has been recruited to provide services.
The cumulative impact of staff reductions in this and previous years presents a significant challenge for the health system in delivering services. However, the HSE is seeking to mitigate the impact of these reductions by using the provisions of the public service agreement to bring about greater flexibility to achieve more efficient delivery of services; to deliver greater productivity through the national clinical programmes to reduce the average length of stay; to improve day of admission surgery rates; to increase the number of patients treated as day cases; and to have some limited and targeted recruitment in priority areas as mentioned.
I am as wise now as when I started. I accept that the Minister of State who is not attached to the Department of Health has read a prepared script given to him by the Department, but the questions I asked were very specific. Will the post be filled immediately and, if not, when will it be filled? I did not receive any indication of this but heard why it had not been filled because of the recruitment embargo. We are trying to save money, but only one third of the salary is being saved because staff leave on a pension of 50% and we are losing tax on the other 50%. Because most of those who work in public services are on very high salaries, they pay tax at a rate 41%. Therefore, a saving of only 30% is achieved in letting staff go. The problem is that salaries and pensions are far too high, an issue which is not being addressed. Until we address it, problems such as this will continue to arise. We are consigning people with diabetes to developing foot ulcers, undergoing amputations and receiving disability payments. It does not make financial sense and makes no sense in promoting the well-being and health of those unfortunate enough to have diabetes. I, therefore, ask the Minister of State to take this issue to the Cabinet table to get the Cabinet to adopt a sensible approach on the policies it is implementing in this sector.
I reiterate that Wexford General Hospital was approved for one senior podiatrist post in line with the national diabetes programme. The post was originally advertised in March 2012, but it was not filled at that time. The post has now been sanctioned for readvertisement. In the interim, a sessional podiatrist has been recruited to provide these services. I do not have the exact timeframe for when a person will be appointed. I am sure people will show interest in the position when it is advertised and it will be filled on that basis.
Can the Minister of State confirm that to me in writing?
It is interesting that the Senator was not as vocal about salaries and pensions when he was on the other side of the House.
On a point of order, I was the strongest voice in the House on the issue of public service salaries and pensions during the period when we were in government. The Cathaoirleach knows that because he was here.
I ask the Senator to resume his seat.
If had been so strongly vocal at that time, maybe he should have resigned from Fianna Fáil on a point of principle.
The Minister of State is in government now and he has not addressed it.
The Senator raised the issue. Compared with what his crowd did in the past ten years, we have introduced-----
The Government has not addressed it. The Minister of State should examine the matter again.
If the Senator had been as strong then as he is now, perhaps we would be in a different position.
Our colleague, the Minister, Deputy Howlin, was not able to answer a single question when he was here last week.
When the Senator's party was in government, it brought this country to its knees and landed us with the current economic climate.
If we had taken the advice offered by the Minister of State's party when it was in opposition, the fiscal difficulties would be even greater.
We are trying to fix it. The Minister for Finance was in this House yesterday. Perhaps Senator Walsh should table more of these Adjournment debates. I feel sorry for him because he seems to be suffering as a result of what has happened in recent years.
The Minister of State does not need to feel sorry for me. I feel sorry for the people because the Government is not delivering on the promises it made before last year's general election.
I have set out the position as detailed by the Minister for Health. As a Wexford man, I will follow up on the matter with the Minister to make sure this position is filled as soon as possible.
Can the Minister of State ask him why it was not filled previously?
Heritage Centres Funding
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Aire Stáit, an Teachta McGinley. Chuaigh duine óna oifig i dteagmháil liom le rá go raibh aiféala air nach féidir leis bheith i láthair tráthnóna chun na ceiste seo a phlé. Glacaim leis go bhfuil an tAire Stáit gnóthach. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe. I have just mentioned that an official from the office of the Minister of State, Deputy McGinley, contacted me to apologise for his inability to come to the House for this debate. He wanted to be here, but he is otherwise engaged. I welcome that assurance. The Minister of State, Deputy McGinley, is a welcome visitor to this House for Adjournment debates.
Many people visit Pearse's Cottage in Ros Muc, which is an OPW site, each year. Pádraig Pearse used to go there when he was taking a break from his work in Dublin. I welcomed the announcement by the Minister of State, Deputy McGinley, a number of months ago that a heritage centre will be developed on the Pearse's Cottage site in Connemara in time for the 2016 celebrations. It is badly needed in commemoration of a man who played a huge part in Irish history. Much of the planning of Éirí Amach na Cásca by the signatories of the 1916 Proclamation took place in Ros Muc.
Pádraig Pearse was also known for his educational endeavours, particularly as a pioneer of Irish language education but also as a philosopher, a thinker and a literary giant in the Irish language. It is only right and fitting that he should be commemorated in a centre like that planned for Ros Muc. I know the Minister of State, Deputy McGinley, agrees with me that Pearse's Cottage is an essential part of the tourism infrastructure of south Connemara. As part of our efforts to attract tourists to the area and keep them there for as long as possible, we need to give them more of an insight into the heritage and culture of the area.
I would like to know where we are at with the project. Who are the players involved in the development of the project? I understand that the OPW, Fáilte Ireland and Údarás na Gaeltachta will be involved in the development. I hope the Minister of State will clarify that in his answer. If this is to be ready by 2016, a budget needs to put in place for it now. Is this being done? What will be the cost of the project? From which fund will these moneys come? Which Department or organisation will provide the money to fund the centre? What is the timescale for the tendering and construction processes and for the ultimate fulfilling of the project? Who will be responsible for the project management?
I am hoping for good news. I am aware that the Minister of State, Deputy McGinley, is anxious to ensure the project is completed on time. It is something on which we are all agreed. Tá mé ag súil go mór leis an bhfreagra. Tá súil agam go mbeidh sé dearfach go leor.
I thank the Senator for raising this issue. The Minister of State, Deputy McGinley, has apologised for his inability to be here today due to other commitments. I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on behalf of the Minister of State about the development of Teach an Phiarsaigh in Ros Muc. I express my gratitude and that of the Minister of State to the Members of the House for the interest they have shown in this matter. I hope we will have a constructive debate on the various efforts that are being made to develop an interpretative centre at Teach an Phiarsaigh in Ros Muc. As all Senators are aware, Pádraig Pearse spent many summers in Ros Muc. Visitors to the existing Teach an Phiarsaigh are given an insight into the extraordinary life of Pearse as a revolutionary. They also gain an insight into other aspects of Pearse's life as an educator, as a writer and especially as a passionate Irish language activist.
I understand there have been various discussions in recent years on the possibility of developing a visitor centre at the site of Teach an Phiarsaigh. Following discussions between the various stakeholders, including the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, the Office of Public Works and Údarás na Gaeltachta, it was agreed that a modern heritage visitor centre should be developed in close proximity to the existing cottage. A group consisting of representatives of the Office of Public Works and Údarás na Gaeltachta has been established to take the initiative forward. The purpose of this collaboration is to source funding for the development, oversee the construction and make the necessary arrangements for the management of the centre upon its completion. I understand the group has brought the project to the pre-planning stage, which includes the completion of specifications for the proposed building and its subsequent fittings.
The project encompasses various facilities, including a newly built visitor centre, an interpretative trail and the historic cottage itself. It is intended that the centre will be a cultural focal point in Connemara for national and international tourists and will greatly improve tourist facilities in the region. The centre will give tourists an insight into the importance of the Irish language for the nation, based on Pearse's vision. It will also focus on the cultural importance of the Gaeltacht and the surrounding landscape of Connemara as a source of our heritage.
The current location of Teach an Phiarsaigh in the Connemara Gaeltacht, which is one of the strongest Gaeltacht areas in terms of spoken Irish, gives the tourist an opportunity to experience our native language and our heritage, which are as central to our identity today as they were during Pearse's time. The diversity of Pádraig Pearse's life creates many opportunities for those involved with the project to develop the centre based on various themes, including the theme of Pádraig Pearse as a creative and political writer, a revolutionary and an Irish language activist. In addition, wider themes relating to the Irish language, the culture of the Gaeltacht and the history of Ros Muc and Connemara will be covered at the centre. This development will undoubtedly create valuable opportunities for the Ros Muc community and the region as a whole. It has the potential to generate significantly increased tourism for the region, especially in terms of cultural tourism.
I understand that considerable progress has been made to date with the development of the centre. An application to fund the project is with Fáilte Ireland. I understand it will go before the board of that organisation in the coming weeks. If the project successfully obtains funding under Fáilte Ireland's capital funding programme, the process of obtaining matching funding will commence immediately. Subject to funding being made available for the project, a compulsory purchase order and a planning submission would be required. This process could take up to 18 months. Construction work would take a further 15 months.
Teach an Phiarsaigh is recognised by Fáilte Ireland as one of the main elements of the Connemara destination plan, the wild Atlantic way and the Connemara driving route. It is an important element of the organisation's strategy for developing the tourism sector and increasing tourist numbers in Connemara. It dovetails with the commitment in the programme for Government to develop ways of commemorating the 1916 Rising. The cost of the project has been estimated at €4 million. Equally, it is estimated that the centre could generate income of up to €4 million per annum, based on a projected 60,000 visitors.
In addition, it is estimated that foreign visitors could spend between €1.4 million and €2.3 million annually in Ireland as a result of the development. I congratulate the various stakeholders on the progress made to date in bringing this project this far and wish them well in their efforts to put funding in place to make the centre a reality.
I thank the Minister of State for that positive news. It is important if we are to meet the 2016 deadline that these matters be kept in train. I note that the planning and construction processes could take 18 and 15 months, respectively. We all know that even in the context of building a house these processes can get dragged out.
Perhaps the Minister of State will clarify that the OPW will manage the development of the project. Perhaps also, if he cannot answer the following question, he will clarify with the Minister of State, Deputy McGinley, whether if the application to Fáilte Ireland is not successful, the Government will remain committed to the construction of the centre by 2016 and will it put other funding sources in place in this regard.
As I stated, an application to the fund the project is with Fáilte Ireland. I understand it will go before the board of that organisation in the coming weeks. I have no doubt that the Minister of State, Deputy McGinley, the OPW and other interested agencies, will be anxiously awaiting the decision by Fáilte Ireland. It is hoped the outcome will be positive given the importance of this project to the region in terms of its history. I hope that Fáilte Ireland will also take into account the importance of this project in the context of the upcoming 1916 centenary.
Defence Forces Personnel
I am glad the Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe, is here to reply to my matter which relates to the Department of Defence. This matter relates to the apparent unfair treatment of approximately ten members of the Air Corps based at Gormanston Camp. In 2001, the Air Corps was based in Gormanston and Baldonnel. However, following a restructuring process the section of the Air Corps based in Gormanston, County Meath moved to Baldonnel. Members of the Air Corps at that time were given the option of remaining at Gormanston Camp and in this regard were given a solemn commitment by the Government and their senior officers that they could remain at Gormanston Camp as long as they camp remained open. Approximately 28 to 30 of the Air Corps personnel at that time availed of that option. However, a result of retirements and so on that number has reduced to approximately ten.
I have been approached by many of the wives and families of the staff involved, who have huge concerns around this matter. Having visited some of the individuals concerned at the camp, some of whom I know personally, I am aware they are engaged in important camp administrative tasks. I acknowledge the current restructuring of the Defence Forces. However, in late August this year senior personnel from the Air Corps arrived at Gormanston Camp and announced that the remaining members of the corps there were to be relocated to Baldonnel. I understand that request to relocate to Baldonnel was subsequently nullified and then reinstated with a three month notice period given. As I understand it, the individuals concerned were told they would have to relocate to Baldonnel by 1 December next.
It is important to remember that upon being given the option to remain at Gormanston Camp the individuals concerned entered into many commitments, financial and personal, in the east Meath and south Louth areas, where many of them live. They have bought homes in these areas and have huge ties to there. They will find relocation to Baldonnel very difficult. It may be the case - I have not discussed this matter with any of the people who approached me - that they could take legal action in respect of this matter. I have copies of the documents provided to them at the time of their being given the option to remain in Gormanston Camp, from which it appears clear that these individuals should be able to remain at Gormanston Camp as long as it remains open. I believe the people concerned are being unfairly treated and will be faced with significant fuel bills if required to travel to and from Baldonnel. I do not believe this move should go ahead.
I ask the Minister to consider the letters given to these upstanding members of the Defence Forces over ten years ago, to examine the situation they are now in and to call on the Defence Forces to allow these people continue to carry out key tasks in operating the Gormanston Camp.
I am taking this matter on behalf of the Minister for Defence, Deputy Shatter, who is unable to be here today owing to long-standing commitments.
I welcome the opportunity today to deal with this issue. As the Senator is no doubt aware, following the Government's comprehensive review of expenditure, the Minister for Defence secured the agreement of the Government to maintain the strength of the Defence Forces at the level of 9,500. While this represents a very significant commitment on the part of the Government, at this strength it was not possible to maintain the organisational structure of the Defence Forces, which had been designed to support a serving strength of 11,500.
As a result, the Minister for Defence asked the Secretary General of the Department of Defence and the Chief of Staff to conduct a detailed review of the organisation and structure of the Defence Forces and to bring forward proposals on an appropriate organisation for a Defence Force of 9,500 serving personnel, which could continue to deliver the services required by Government. The Minister for Defence accepted the proposals submitted jointly by the Secretary General and the Chief of Staff, which recommended a reorganisation of Defence Forces' units based on a two brigade structure.
The implementation of the major reorganisation of the Defence Forces in order to maintain operational capability is now progressing in full consultation with serving personnel and their representative associations. It is important to stress that all options to avoid the need for personnel to relocate are being explored as part of this process. Personnel are being offered the opportunity for reassignment within their current locations, where this is feasible, together with opportunities for retraining and reskilling. In addition, a review system has been put in place, which allows personnel who are unhappy with a proposed relocation to seek a review of a decision. Given the scale of the reorganisation, it will be necessary for some staff to move to new locations.
The Government remains aware that the reorganisation under way is a difficult process for many serving members of the Defence Forces and their families, who are being required to make decisions under the reorganisation that they would not otherwise have to make or in different times would have had to consider. Unfortunately, this is the consequence and reality of the reforms necessarily taking place across the public service.
A key element of the reorganisation and its implementation is to ensure that there are no serving personnel without appointment in the new organisation. In this regard it is understood that a number of personnel in Gormanston Camp, who are on long term detachment from their parent units, which are based in Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel, continue to serve without appointment. Having regard to the fact that there are to be no personnel serving without appointment it is the case that their detachment at Gormanston is therefore due to end with effect from 30 November 2012 and that said personnel will be required to relocate to their parent units at Baldonnel or to reassign to Army units where there are vacancies.
However, in keeping with the principle underlying the reorganisation that all options to avoid the need for personnel to relocate be explored as part of this process, I can advise that all the personnel concerned were advised of their options and given the opportunity to submit applications seeking reassignment to the Army. While no Army vacancies were available in Gormanston Camp, there were vacancies available in other areas. I understand this option was declined by all the personnel concerned. The Defence Forces, like every other State organisation, is not immune to the current fiscal realities. While the requirements of the reorganisation may come as a disappointment to some of the personnel involved it is crucial to note that there are no job losses involved for the personnel concerned as part of this process. It is imperative everyone fully understands and accepts that there is no painless way to fundamentally reorganise the Defence Forces.
At the same time we must maintain essential military capabilities. It has become necessary to mandatorily move personnel in units which have been disestablished or who cannot be accommodated in their current location.
Without prejudice to the outcome of any request for review of relocation by any of the personnel concerned, as I noted, having rejected the opportunity to apply for Army assignments that were available in locations more convenient to their current location, it will therefore remain the case that the personnel concerned will be required to reassign to their parent units based in Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel, when their detachment to Gormanston comes to an end at the end of November 2012.
A couple of points arise and there are some major contradictions in the Minister of State's comments. He indicated that vacancies would be given within current locations where feasible but says there are no vacancies in Gormanston. He mentioned the possibility of a review of the decision but that was not brought to my attention by the wives and family members who approached me. I do not believe they are aware of that. What are the details of the review procedure outlined in the speech and will the Minister of State make them available to the members of the Irish Air Corps? Will the decision to move them be postponed while they avail of the review procedure?
The Minister of State indicated his sorrow about what is happening, mentioning that it is terrible, but he does not indicate that these people have a contractual arrangement with the Defence Forces, which has been torn up by the Government. The Government and the Defence Forces are putting themselves in legal jeopardy. It is a matter for the men and their families and I will not comment on it on their behalf. Nevertheless, it seems that the Government is exposed to certain risk. The Minister of State indicates that the Defence Forces are not immune to the cutbacks but they are not immune to the law either. The law should be upheld and this process should be postponed. At the very least, the people involved should be given the opportunity to apply for a review of the decision.
The personnel involved are performing important security and administrative tasks in the camp. It is further evidence that the Government wants to downgrade Gormanston that it wants to move these personnel. We know that by moving them to Baldonnel, it will not pay many of them to travel to work. It is very unfortunate and the State is not showing loyalty to these men who have given the State such loyal service for many years.
It would have been great to retain Defence Forces numbers at 11,500 but the Senator is very much aware of the current economic climate. We made a commitment to hold Defence Forces numbers at 9,500, and I am not sure if the Senator is aware of the recruitment that has taken place in the past few months. He failed to mention it.
Communication lines were open with the military personnel involved in the reorganisation, and everybody was well informed about the decision and had time to think about the relocation. I spoke to many personnel over the past number of months or weeks who have had to relocate and took that decision. We applaud the service given to the military but this decision will not be postponed. The military has provided every opportunity for consultation and the lines of communication have been open in the past few months. Everybody is aware of the reasons we are making these decisions.
I regret that some families and personnel are upset but that is the nature of the beast. We cannot wave a magic wand and fix the economic problems we inherited from the last Government. That is the unfortunate position.
Here we go again. The Government cannot tear up a banker's contract but it can tear up the contracts of loyal Irish Air Corps service men. They serve the country and have done only good for it.
The Minister of State to continue, without interruption.
It is unfortunate that Senators on the Fianna Fáil side of this House have failed to listen in the past few months. Perhaps if they had been as proactive between 2008 and 2010, before they left government, they could have fixed the country's problems.
The Opposition of the time went against everything we did but the Government is now claiming credit for it.
I assure Senators that the decision will not be postponed.
The Seanad adjourned at 2.45 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 20 November 2012.