Vol. 857 No. 5
1. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence if he will revise the 21 year rule to enable members of the Defence Forces who are willing and able to continue in service to do so; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43462/14]
In this question, which is of great importance to serving members of the Defence Forces, I seek to identify what action the Minister is in a position to take at this point with regard to the 21 year contract for serving members of the Defence Forces. It is tabled in the context of clarification provided to the House by the Minister's predecessor prior to his rather hasty departure from the Department in which he indicated that a special sub-committee to investigate the 21 year rule had been established as part of the conciliation process.
As I have previously outlined in the House, a claim from the Permanent Defence Force Other Ranks Representative Association, PDFORRA, in respect of this matter is being dealt with under the conciliation and arbitration scheme for members of the Permanent Defence Force. As discussions under the scheme are confidential to the parties involved, it would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail at this time, other than to emphasise that in dealing with this issue the manpower and operational needs of the Defence Forces must be the primary consideration.
As military life places unique physical and psychological demands on individuals, it is necessary that members of the Defence Forces be physically and mentally prepared to meet the challenges of all military operations and undertake their duties on deployment overseas. It is vital that the age and health profile of personnel be such as to ensure that operational capability and effectiveness are not compromised. As such, to maintain the age profile of the Permanent Defence Force to carry out the operational tasks required by Government, it is necessary to have a constant input of new recruits into the Permanent Defence Force. The maximum age for personnel who have enlisted in the Permanent Defence Force post-1 January 1994 provides the mechanism through which a satisfactory age profile can be achieved.
I understand the concerns this issue raises for the personnel due to be discharged in terms of their personal circumstances and the impact on their families. I assure the Deputy that in examining this issue all pertinent facts have been considered. However, while significant progress was made in discussions between PDFORRA and civil and military management, it was not possible to reach full agreement. As a result, the issue is being referred to third party adjudication for a ruling. It is expected that the adjudication hearing will take place in the next few weeks following the exchange of submissions between the parties.
In the meantime, work is continuing on measures to support those exiting the Permanent Defence Force. A number of military courses are already accredited with various third level institutions and a comprehensive training course to aid transition to civilian life for the personnel in question is being piloted.
I thank the Minister for his response. We must first consider the profile of those who are being discharged under the 21 year rule. They are largely young men and women aged in their late 30s and early 40s who are carrying heavy mortgages and have considerable family responsibilities arising from the overall costs of day-to-day life. These individuals are to be discharged into an economy in which full employment remains some way off. The Minister has invested considerable time, political capital and energy in trying to address the crisis in the beef sector, which is appropriate. I put it to him, however, that this issue is at least as important to the Defence Forces as the critical circumstances in the beef sector are to farmers. For this reason, I ask him to invest the same level of effort and political capital and energy in efforts to resolve this matter.
It is important to make a distinction between policy decisions and a process that was agreed and is under way in the Defence Forces to try to bring this issue to a conclusion by finding an acceptable and reasonable compromise.
That is what we have been trying to do through arbitration and we have now moved to a third-party process. Instead of making a political decision on the basis of lobbying or in an effort to be popular, we are seeking a solution that is in the best interests of the Defence Forces and the people who serve in them by ensuring they are of an age and health profile to do the very difficult work they need to do. We have had many examples of the demands of that work, particularly overseas, in recent months. The primary concern here must be to ensure we have the right age profile in the Defence Forces so that people are prepared for and able to cope with the tough life of a soldier.
It is important, of course, to look after people who have been in the Defence Forces and take into account their personal circumstances. It is also important that we provide an avenue into the forces for new recruits. We must have a constant feed of fresh blood in the form of young and fit men and women. In order to facilitate that, we have to take people out of the system.
I ask the Minister and Members to be mindful of the clock when making their contributions.
I appreciate what the Minister is saying and we are not at odds on this issue. My point is that people should be able to continue to serve where they are capable of doing so, have the necessary level of mental and physical fitness and in the context of the huge investment the Defence Forces have made in their training. Changes have already been made in that commandants can now serve until they are 58 years of age and lieutenants until age 54. Members of the Garda Síochána and prison officers, who have fairly onerous responsibilities, can now serve until the age of 60. When one does a comparison between the exit age this 21-year rule imposes on Defence Forces personnel, one sees it is very much out of kilter with that which applies to the permanent defence forces in other countries. We should by all means use the mechanisms to which the Minister referred to address this issue but, ultimately, he has a critical role to play in resolving it.
It is important to bear in mind the historical context here. The individuals concerned started off on a five-year contract and a great deal of flexibility has been shown in accommodating and extending their careers within the Defence Forces. I expect that some flexibility will also be shown in this instance. I want to see an arbitration process and an independent third party adjudicating to make decisions which take everything into account rather than the pure political considerations. I accept that some of the families concerned are facing very real difficulties. However, my primary responsibility is to ensuring the overall coherence and effectiveness of the Defence Forces in terms of policy around age and health profiles and the fitness of personnel, individually and collectively, for the difficult work they must do. Of course, if some of the individuals concerned have a skillset which adds to that and should be accommodated through flexibilities, then I expect the third-party arbitrator will point to that. We must await the outcome of that process rather than making a political decision.
2. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Defence if he will meet family members of a person (details supplied) who was killed in a training accident on 12 October 2009 to listen to their concerns; and if he will ensure that the necessary changes are made to the court of inquiry report into their son's death. [43407/14]
The family of Cadet David Jevens was devastated by his death in October 2009 and has been working since then to remove any suggestion that he had any responsibility for what happened. David's family members appreciate the assistance they have received from the Army Chief of Staff and the Secretary General of the Department of Defence. My colleague, Deputy Ó Fearghaíl, is familiar with all of this as he also has been working on this case. Will the Minister agree to meet members of the family to resolve this matter finally?
I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. As Minister for Defence, I take the opportunity to express my sympathy for the family of Cadet David Jevens following the very tragic and difficult accident in which he lost his life. I realise it has taken a very severe toll on David's parents. We want to do everything we can to assist the family in getting through a very difficult and dark time. I will, of course, meet members of his family if that is their wish. My predecessor met them and there have been ongoing meetings at Secretary General and Chief of Staff level to try to address the results of the three inquiries that have taken place into the circumstances of this tragic accident, all of which reaffirmed the fact that David had no responsibility or fault in this matter. That is the factual position as shown in those three inquiries. We are making the appropriate statements and adjustments where necessary to assure the family that this is the factual position and is recorded as such. It is also my understanding that there is a level of agreement between the family, the Secretary General and the Chief of Staff on the issue. However, if it would be helpful and reassuring, I will be happy to meet members of David's family.
They will be very appreciative of the Minister's offer and I only urge that he meet with them as soon as possible. My understanding is the same as the Minister, namely, that the issue is very close to being resolved. Nevertheless, the family would very much like a meeting with the Minister. We can never give these parents back their son, but we can move to take away any suggestion that he had any responsibility whatsoever for the accident which caused his death. I hope the Minister will organise a meeting as soon as possible.
I am happy to do so.
3. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Defence if he will re-examine the effectiveness of the Irish Defence Forces in overseas missions and, to that end, limit involvement to fully fledged UN missions, avoiding those that have been running for decades without creating peace and ending participation in EU and NATO-controlled missions. [43328/14]
The issue I am raising was raised by my colleague, Deputy Mick Wallace, on the last occasion on which the Minister for Defence took Question Time. It relates to the effectiveness of our overseas missions. Currently, we operate under a number of different banners and on a fairly ad hoc basis. Does the Minister intend to stand back and review the effectiveness of our overseas missions? Would it not be better to restrict ourselves to fully-fledged UN missions rather than the system of ad hoc engagements we have been pursuing?
Participation in overseas peacekeeping missions is a key element of Ireland's foreign policy and has been an important dimension in meeting our international obligations as a member of the UN and the EU. Irish foreign policy is directed at supporting co-operative arrangements for collective security through the development of international organisations, especially the United Nations, and supporting effective international action in areas such as disarmament, peacekeeping, development and human rights. This approach continues to define Irish priorities within the UN system and Ireland remains willing to play a full role in contributing to the security of Europe and the world.
The Defence Forces are currently primarily deployed on overseas missions in support of international peace and security under UN mandates. However, with the increased use of more robust chapter VII missions, the UN has turned to regional organisations such as the EU, the African Union and NATO to manage operations on its behalf and under its authority. This is one of the most significant changes in UN efforts at maintaining international peace and security. In effect, the EU and NATO, together with other similar such organisations, are now major players in UN peacekeeping.
Peacekeeping also adds to Ireland's national security by containing conflicts and reducing the threat of conflicts spreading. UN peacekeeping missions, such as UNIFIL, have made a real difference in countries such as Lebanon. The UNIFIL operation has supported political transitions and helped the region to close a chapter of conflict and open a path to normal development, even if major peace-building challenges remain.
The point I am making is not that we should stop participating in overseas missions but rather that we should take a step back and consider where and how we engage in such missions. The Minister referred to "effective peacekeeping" and that is precisely what I am talking about. Our current policy has been described as a type of scattergun approach which sends Irish soldiers as unarmed observers to a multitude of locations.
These are often sent in small numbers. In the context of the limited resources available to the Defence Forces and the limited impact small numbers can have, we should stand back from that. It is a worrying trend that we are getting involved with forces under EU and NATO banners. For example, the mission in Chad is more about furthering French economic interests than a serious attempt at peacekeeping. The question seeks to examine missions such as the Congo, where 5 million people have died due to conflict since 1996. This has been ignored by European states and others. A fully-fledged UN mission, with Irish troops participating, could have an effective role rather than the current scattergun approach.
I understand the point the Deputy is making and we must prioritise. The Defence Forces has limited capacity in terms of peacekeeping abroad and we do not want to spread ourselves too thinly. It is important to distinguish between peacekeeping missions or other peace support missions the UN or NATO co-ordinate and the role of the UN in that. The way the UN undertakes missions in different parts of the world has changed. The UN asks collective organisations like NATO to lead missions on behalf of the UN. Ireland is not involved in any peacekeeping missions that do not have the blessing, support or mandate of the UN. We work with international partners in order to effectively do a job in partnership with, or for, the UN. The Partnership for Peace is a good example of how people work together. The missions we are on have UN support and normally Ireland goes at the request of UN in order to do that. This week, we made a decision to send Defence Forces personnel to Sierra Leone in west Africa to support efforts to combat Ebola. If we were waiting for a UN resolution, we would have real difficulties but we are doing a job in response to a call from the UN for assistance. That is how these things work.
We are not asking the Minister to slavishly follow any international organisation but to stand back, as Minister for Defence, and look at the effectiveness of our troops abroad. The reality is that countries like the Congo have been exploited and abused by western powers and colonialism for decades. No one is interested in them but French interests are being advanced in Chad and that gets support. There are UN missions we are involved in but we should not just accept them because they are UN missions. We must look at areas where conflicts have been running for decades, like the Middle East, which is going on since 1948 and there has been Irish involvement since 1958 in the Golan Heights. There comes a time when the presence of UN peacekeepers becomes a facilitating mechanism for the continuation of conflict and does not deliver peace. That is why we must stand back and look at all of our missions to see how our troops can be more effectively deployed for the best reasons.
We do not accede to every request. We have a strong reputation within the UN for a country that has Defence Forces with the level of experience, expertise and skill set to do difficult post-conflict and peacekeeping operations. We do that in partnership with a number of other countries that have a reputation for doing the same. Any decision to send Defence Forces personnel abroad is not taken lightly.
We have not been in the Golan Heights since 1958. The current United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, UNDOF, mission in Golan Heights has only had Irish involvement for little over a year. We were asked by the UN to fulfil a particular role in that UNDOF mission and we have done so. We did so in difficult circumstances and Irish people should be proud of that. We have avoided any tragedy, injury or loss of life in that mission. My job is to make recommendations to the House and Government in terms of where we prioritise resources in different parts of the world. I take the Deputy's point on the Congo and agree it is a part of Africa that has been abandoned in many ways to tragic effect. However, Ireland cannot solve every problem and we must prioritise where we send our troops. We evaluate in a detailed way before we do that.
4. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence his views on recent claims about the standard of living of members of the Defence Forces that were made at this year's PDFORRA conference; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43463/14]
It is unusual that the annual conference of PDFORRA would make the news headlines for two consecutive days, as it did this year. It did so because of issues concerning the standard of living of members of the Defence Forces. The question directly challenges the Minister to establish what he proposes to do about the very difficult standard of living many members of the Defence Forces must contend with.
I was made aware of number of issues for the first time at the recent PDFORRA annual conference. I presume the Deputy is referring to the claim that five members of the Permanent Defence Force were sleeping in cars because they could not afford the cost of commuting to their place of work and claims that approximately 20% of PDFORRA’s membership are availing of family income supplement.
There is no reason any member of the PDF should be sleeping in their car. I am advised that military management wrote to the general secretary of PDFORRA requesting information to facilitate the chain of command addressing any legitimate concerns of PDFORRA. I understand that a response has been received from PDFORRA and that individual issues raised within it are now being appropriately addressed through the normal operational chain of command. We have a lot of residential infrastructure within barracks and people should be accommodated if they need to be.
PDFORRA also asserted that approximately 20% of its membership is availing of family income supplement, qualifying for it because their take home pay had fallen owing to various public service agreements and statutory deductions. As the circumstances surrounding an application for family income supplement are a private matter between the applicant and the Department of Social Protection, the Department of Defence is not aware of the number of PDF members that may be in receipt of this financial assistance, or their individual circumstances.
We all accept the Defence Forces have been leaders in change management as far as the Irish public service is concerned. To a certain extent, it has become victim of its own success. The issue of people sleeping in the car is the direct consequence of the radical changes made by the Minister's predecessor in terms of the closure of barracks and creating situations where people were forced to make daily round trips of up to 300 km to their place of work.
The issue of family income supplement is more fundamental. We have been talking about the valuable role our Defence Forces play in observation and peacekeeping internationally and of the pride the Minister, all Members and the Irish people have. Is it not appalling to think that people we deploy internationally to carry out these responsible tasks must depend, in the case of 20% of them, on the Department of Social Protection to meet their day-to-day living costs?
I cannot confirm the 20% figure because I do not know that it is factually true. I have no reason to disbelieve PDFORRA and I will be meeting the organisation shortly to discuss a range of issues. I presume this will be one of them. There are many sectors of Irish society, particularly across the public sector that have seen and experienced financial pressures over the past five years. Members are aware of that. It is important that we are realistic about the context of the financial pressure many Irish families find themselves under and the context of wage agreements, the latest of which is the Haddington Road agreement. It is my job to review pay structures and the way we pay members of the Defence Forces. I will do that within the Government.
A review is ongoing in that regard. It is important to recognise where we have come from over the past five years, as well as the extent of financial pressure that the public sector has been facing. That is the context in which these issues have been raised. Hopefully we can look to a more positive future in terms of income levels across the public and private sectors.
What the Minister said about the pressures on Irish families and income pressures on people in the public service generally is correct. However, it appears that a particular problem arises in the Defence Forces. I have no difficulty accepting the 20% figure given by PDFORRA because it reflects my experience in my constituency, where a large number of Defence Forces personnel live. I am also aware of anecdotal evidence that the pressure on the Defence Forces' credit union is enormous, as people struggle to meet their day-to-day living costs.
The Minister referred to pay negotiations. I have proposed to the House that members of the Defence Forces should be allowed at least associate membership of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in order that they have an input into pay negotiations. Is the Minister prepared to concede that?
No, I am not prepared to concede that. The Defence Forces are different from other organisations and public sector roles. When one signs up for the Defence Forces, one is signing up to a life defending the State and this is accompanied by certain rights and responsibilities. I am not willing to concede that at the moment, but certainly there are channels within the Defence Forces through which people can raise issues. Arbitration is also available in the Defence Forces. The Government's decision in September 2012 and the review of allowances and premium payments conducted by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform recognise there is a structural weakness in the way members of the Defence Forces are paid, and a decision was made to conduct a full review of overall pay structures and pay systems in the Defence Forces in the medium term. It is my intention that such a review will take place subsequent to the review of the security duty allowance and technical pay which is under way. That is proof we are investigating the matter with a view to making improvements but we must also recognise that the Defence Forces are somewhat different from other organisations in the public sector.
5. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Defence his views regarding reports of over 20% of enlisted personnel experiencing poverty; if he will take urgent action to address this problem; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43329/14]
This is essentially the same issue as that raised by Deputy Ó Fearghaíl. I note the Minister acknowledged there is a problem with pay in the Defence Forces but his defence is that he did not know about it or is now looking at it. The facts speak for themselves. The level of pay in the Defence Forces does not meet a threshold of decency in a large number of cases and has to be supplemented by the social welfare system. He is correct that the situation has been aggravated by the austerity cutbacks on public sector workers over the past several years but the roots of it lie in the fact that traditionally members of the Defence Forces have been paid less than their peers in other areas. That has to be addressed.
I take some of those points. I do not want to repeat my reply to the previous question. Two Departments are involved in this matter, my Department and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. We are trying to maintain a Defence Forces strength of 9,500. We are in the process of taking on a significant number of new recruits to ensure we maintain that strength, which obviously will have budgetary consequences. I will insist that the reviews to which we have committed take place. We will consider the outcome of those reviews when they are ready and, hopefully, we will be able to act on them. Many families and people in the public sector and, in particular, in the private sector have needed support from the State in terms of income levels in recent years, for all sorts of individual and, in some cases, very complex reasons. I do not think we should draw broad sweeping conclusions from this particular matter. The issues arising in the Defence Forces around pay and remuneration will be the subject of a review in the not too distant future, and let us await the outcome of that review.
It is not a case of broad sweeping conclusions. The criteria operated by the Department of Social Protection provide that if an individual's income falls below a certain level, social welfare steps in to bring it to a level of decency. One need only look at the pay rates in the Defence Forces to know why this support is particularly necessary in this context. Irish Defence Forces personnel have always been poorly paid. I was brought up in a Defence Forces family and I know these long-standing problems. However, the problem has been aggravated by the cuts and the 20% loss of earnings since 2009. That has consequences. Unless the review is prepared to examine the basic pay rates for Defence Forces personnel, the problem will persist. The Minister does not appear willing to budge in that regard.
The issue of people sleeping in cars is linked to barracks closures but it is also linked to the undermining of residential accommodation to which, according to the Minister, people are referred. I know of people in the Curragh who are not affected by barracks closures but who cannot find residential accommodation on the Curragh because of the way it has deteriorated and the number of families who have been forced out of residential accommodation due to Defence Forces policy. The Minister has a duty of care to Defence Forces personnel and these pressing issues have to be addressed.
I take seriously my duty of care to Defence Forces personnel. In regard to basic pay, the only pay agreement for which this Government is responsible is the Haddington Road agreement. There was no cut to basic pay for enlisted Defence Forces personnel under that agreement. I will not go into previous pay deals or decisions previous Governments were forced to take. That is our record. We have also recognised the need to review some of the elements of pay and remuneration in the Defence Forces, and we are proceeding with that. I take the Deputy's point and, on the basis of the review, I will have a credible set of recommendations on which to act. When we get the recommendations we can bring them before the House for discussion and, hopefully, the Government will be in a position to act on them.
Pay does not solely comprise basic pay. While basic pay may not have been cut under Haddington Road, it is none the less a fact that the payments to and average earnings of soldiers have deteriorated by 20% since 2009 because of the cuts in allowances which form an essential part of their pay packets. These issues have to be addressed. I note that the Minister is not in favour of giving them negotiating rights but he will be aware that PDFORRA is taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights and, as a consequence of the judgment in the case brought by gardaí which allowed them to access the State's industrial relations machinery, that privilege should be extended to the Defence Forces. The Minister might be better off agreeing that with them rather than being forced to act by Europe.
The only reason I referred to basic pay was because the Deputy referred to basic pay. I accept that other elements also affect people's incomes. I am not pretending this is not an issue. I also acknowledge that other elements of Haddington Road have impacted on effective take-home pay of people in the Defence Forces. Of course we will take note of any legal judgments made in Ireland or the European Union and if there are consequences to those judgments, we will act on them.
