I welcome the Minister and his officials. In regard to subhead G — appropriations-in-aid, contributions to spouses' and children's pensions schemes by officers, NCOs and privates, is it mandatory on all serving members of the Defence Forces to subscribe to those schemes? For those who have not subscribed to those schemes, is there any provision to enable them to opt in? Will the Minister agree that contributions to the spouses' and children's pensions schemes should be mandatory?
In regard to recoveries of overpayments, how did these overpayments occur? Given that it is included here as one of the four main headings, I take it there are significant overpayments which have to be recovered from time to time. It is difficult to see how overpayments can occur in respect of Army service and Army pensioners. I assume that payment continues after death or whatever but I would like more clarification on that issue.
I am also interested in payments received in respect of transferred service. What is the extent of transferred service? I take it that before joining the armed forces these people had service with some other State agency and that there was a pension entitlement to transfer. Obviously that figure would be down somewhat at present because of the embargo. Are there significant transfers to the pension? If somebody transfers from an existing pension, is it a pro rata situation? In other words, if I transfer from a pension scheme in which I have five or ten years entitlement, do I automatically get that entitlement in the transferred pension or is the sum that I contribute considered before my entitlement would be assessed?
Significantly, it appears that the number of spouses of deceased veterans of the War of Independence has decreased in the past year, from 475 down to 392. It is remarkable that so many are still alive. I do not know the reason for that but considering how long it is since the War of Independence, it is a compliment to something that these spouses have survived for so long. Unfortunately, however, a considerable number passed away in the past year. It is interesting to note that the number of Defence Forces pensioners at present exceeds the number of serving members of the Defence Forces, although not by a great deal. There are 10,243 in receipt of pensions. This includes spouses and children of deceased members, as well as the spouses of deceased veterans of the War of Independence. This trend continues to develop.
On the pension issue, I am aware of a case where a serving member of the Army succeeded in getting promoted to the rank of sergeant, subject to a medical examination. That examination was to take place on the Thursday following the day the moratorium was announced. I further understand, although I do not have the full details with me, that the person was close to pension age. Does the Minister intend to cater for situations where somebody misses out on promotion because of the embargo and retires? In other words, would somebody like this be retrospectively granted the promotion, which had been awarded subject to the medical examination, and would this subsequently apply to that person's pension?
The fund for compensation payments has hardly been touched this year. Is there a specific reason for that? The fund provides compensation for death or personal injury of members of the Defence Forces while serving overseas with the United Nations or with certain other forces. What other forces does the Minister mean? I am not clear about that. In general terms, it is something to rejoice about that there has been no death in the Defence Forces this year wherever they are serving, particularly in Chad. I have become a little alarmed by some of the news reports I have read about service in Chad. I welcome the fact that there has not been recourse to this fund in the current year because it means people are not being killed or seriously injured when serving overseas with the United Nations or otherwise.
What savings will there be as a result of the number of people who have retired in the current year? The McCarthy report recommended that the force be reduced to 10,000 with a target of saving 6.85% on the pay bill. That has been more than achieved. A total of 500 people have left the Defence Forces, which means that approximately 9% of the pay bill is now being saved. The Minister has not yet had the opportunity to answer the question asked by Deputy Deenihan about the levels where the retirements occurred, that is, at commissioned officer, NCO or private level. Where have the retirements taken place and is this trend on retirements continuing? Last week I put down a parliamentary question to the Minister regarding the number he envisages being in the Defence Forces on 31 December. Can he give an indication of what that will be? Obviously, he will also clarify the issue of the 50 posts in response to Deputy Deenihan's question.
As the Minister said, pension schemes are demand led. This money is required and must be provided. With larger numbers of people retiring their gratuity payments must be met in the current year but the savings will be seen in the new year. However, I am somewhat concerned about the number of people retiring. Deputy Deenihan made the point that in many cases people in the public service are retiring due to the fear that gratuity payments might be taxed after the budget. Obviously, the Minister cannot respond on that point today. He pointed out in the House last week that it is in the nature of defence forces to have a high rate of people leaving in any case, but we are all concerned about the Defence Forces remaining a credible organisation in the future. Is the Minister satisfied that the 50 posts he secured will be sufficient to retain that credibility?
The other issue is that there must be some continuing trend with regard to retirements. They are either continuing at the same level, abating somewhat or increasing. It is important that this be taken on board. I am not suggesting that the Minister will have to return to the committee for a Supplementary Estimate to cover additional retirements which happen after this Estimate is passed by the House, as it undoubtedly will be, but there is certainly a question mark overhanging the Defence Forces regarding the credibility of the organisation.