Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 12 Dec 2017

Vol. 963 No. 1

Other Questions

Defence Forces Pensions

Clare Daly

Ceist:

47. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence his plans to make provisions for post-2013 Defence Forces members who are mandatorily retired at 58 years of age and who are not eligible to receive a contributory State pension until 66 years of age; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52735/17]

There has correctly been much talk recently about the pay and conditions of Defence Forces personnel, but I wish to raise the issue of the Defence Forces pension system, which is a total mess. Rules which have been changed over the austerity years are simply having a brutal impact on retired members. Those who entered the Defence Forces as officers from 2013 and who will have no choice but to retire at age 58 or 60, will face the loss of the value of their contributory pensions. Meanwhile, there is the issue of pension abatement, which also consistently has a major impact.

I take it that the Deputy is referring to the absence of the concept of "supplementary pensions" from the provisions of the single public service pension scheme.

The occupational pension scheme terms of post-1 January 2013 new entrants to the public service, including the PDF, are governed by the Public Service Pensions (Single Scheme and Other Provisions) Act 2012. All first-time new entrants to pensionable public service employment on or after that date are members of the single scheme. Under the 2012 Act, overall statutory responsibility for the single scheme pension terms and rules rests with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.

The single scheme was one of the key structural fiscal reform commitments agreed by Government with the EU and the IMF in 2010 under the programme of financial support for Ireland. In the context of the Government's decision to introduce the single scheme, a stated primary objective is to help significantly reduce the cost of public service pensions in the long term through reform of the public service pension system.

The new scheme will be fairer, particularly for those on low and moderate earnings and, above all, the public service will be better able to manage the costs associated with the demographic and other changes which are under way. These policy objectives and the underlying rationale for them were well publicised in advance of the enactment of the 2012 Act.

The terms and rules of the single scheme, however, make no provision for the concept or award of supplementary pensions for any new entrants joining any public service group on or after 1 January 2013. This position has been confirmed to the PDF representative associations.

However, there are many other established features of the pre-1 January 2013 public service occupational pension schemes that have been discontinued or fundamentally changed under the single scheme. Among the most notable of these changes is the introduction of career-average pension accrual under the single scheme. This is in place of the more costly final salary pension accrual applicable in the earlier "pre-existing" public service pension schemes.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

I should also mention that, notwithstanding the distinguishing features of the single scheme, members of the PDF in that scheme retain the minimum pension age of 50 to reflect operational needs, as already applies to new entrant military personnel recruited since April 2004. Importantly, the single scheme also retains "fast accrual" pension terms for groups such as the Defence Forces, given that for operational and HR policy reasons they are required to retire earlier than the norm, and on that account they retain early-paid pensions and accelerated pension accrual.

I ask the Minister of State to take a look at this issue. Defence Forces pensions are not like Civil Service pensions; they are a completely different category altogether. Subjecting them to the same rules and regulations, which are being applied in a very slapdash manner, is not helpful for people who loyally serve this State. We are talking about people retiring - being forced to retire - at, say, age 58 or 60, not being able to get their State pension until they are age 66 or 67 and then, when they perhaps seek employment to make up the shortfall, are subject to the pension abatement criteria, which are being applied in a completely slapdash manner. This means that people who have been trained and are highly qualified cannot in essence get jobs in the public sector at present or they will see the value of their pension deducted from their employment. We therefore have the ridiculous scenario whereby officers and highly skilled people who have left the Army are working in low-pay jobs as shelf-packers in Tesco, where they can keep their pensions, instead of getting jobs in the public sector. It is an absolute joke, and I appeal to the Minister of State to examine how this is being applied.

This issue was raised on numerous occasions at meetings of the representative associations. As a consequence, officials in my Department and association delegates met with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform to discuss it. I take Deputy Daly's point that if a member who was recruited before 1 January 2013 retires from the Permanent Defence Force at a specific age and does not take up other employment, he or she is entitled to the supplementary pension, but persons recruited after 2013 do not have the same entitlement. This change will not affect any members in the short term, but after the associations raised it with me, I spoke to people in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and a meeting was set up with my officials and the association delegates. I understand the matter is under negotiation.

I welcome the Minister of State's acknowledgment that there is a problem. In fact, it is a substantial problem and the whole system seems to be in complete disarray. If the meetings to which he referred are meaningful at all, they will uncover the scope of the problem. Looking at the abatement position, it is not even applied evenly across Departments. Nobody seems to know what the rules are for Defence Forces members or how to apply them. Some members who move to certain State agencies and Departments are seeing their pensions cut while others are not. Members going to work in semi-State agencies do not see their pensions at all but members going into Departments do. It is not even clear whether the policy is being applied evenly within Departments. The more than 1,000 highly skilled and trained people who left the service between 2016 and 2017 and who cannot see out their remaining years without working are being severely impacted by this. I am glad the Minister of State is looking at the issue, but I urge him to ensure it is addressed urgently and that a substantial overhaul of the system is undertaken. While I recognise that some of the measures he referred to were introduced for the Civil Service for good reasons, the Defence Forces are a different category entirely.

I agree that Defence Forces members are different from other public servants. The Deputy may be aware that I have undertaken to review the contracts of recruits from 1994 and 2006. The change we are discussing will not affect anybody immediately, being applicable only to those who joined after 1 January 2013. This means it will be 2040 or perhaps the mid-2040s before there is an impact on personnel. As I said, the matter is under consideration by officials in my Department, and they and the representative associations have met with officials from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. I am not sure how those negotiations are going on, but it is a matter for the latter Department to find an acceptable solution to this issue.

Army Barracks

Declan Breathnach

Ceist:

48. Deputy Declan Breathnach asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the contingency plans in place to reopen Army barracks that were closed along the Border; his plans to reverse the decline in the Defence Forces to mitigate against increased smuggling activity; if his attention has been drawn to the fact that only two Army barracks remain near the border, at Bundoran and Dundalk; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52727/17]

Niamh Smyth

Ceist:

59. Deputy Niamh Smyth asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence his plans to open a new Army barracks in counties Cavan or Monaghan or the greater Border region in view of Brexit and the possible reintroduction of a hard border. [52877/17]

Brendan Ryan

Ceist:

79. Deputy Brendan Ryan asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if he is examining strategies to reopen barracks along the border in the event of a hard Brexit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52904/17]

Niamh Smyth

Ceist:

82. Deputy Niamh Smyth asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence his plans for the reinstatement of troops in the Border counties in view of Brexit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52878/17]

The roles assigned to the Defence Forces in the White Paper on Defence include the provision of aid to the civil power, that is, providing assistance and support to the Garda Síochána when requested to do so, and assisting the Revenue Commissioners in the carrying out of their duties. We in Louth are fortunate to have Aiken Barracks and Gormanston Camp, but many of the Border counties have been denuded of Army barracks. My question refers to the need to have a Defence Forces presence in the region so that people feel safe and confident that help is available when needed.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 48, 59, 79 and 82 together.

As part of a whole-of-government approach, my Department is engaged in forward planning with the other Departments involved in addressing all issues relevant to the United Kingdom decision to exit the European Union.

Recruitment to the Defence Forces is at an historically high level. By the end of October, 702 personnel had been inducted into the forces in 2017. Investment in new equipment in respect of land, air and maritime capabilities is being pursued. A maintenance and upgrade programme has been entered into for 80 armoured personnel carrier, APC, vehicles at a cost of €55 million, exclusive of VAT, and contracts for a small number of armoured logistic and utility vehicles for force protection have been entered into this year at a cost of €11 million, exclusive of VAT. A tender competition is ongoing to replace the Cessna aircraft with three fixed-wing utility aircraft. The ship replacement programme has seen three new ships enter service since 2014 and a contract for a fourth ship due to enter service in 2018 has been placed, at a total cost of more than €250 million.

The UK's decision to leave the EU does not in itself give rise to additional Border control requirements at this time and, therefore, there is no reason to revisit earlier decisions on the closure of barracks. Those closures enhanced the operational readiness and deployability of Defence Forces personnel and, along with other measures, involved the redeployment of personnel from barracks, headquarters and administrative posts into front-line operational units. The recent progress on the first phase of Brexit negotiations gives encouragement regarding the resolution of Border issues.

Primary responsibility for the internal security of the State rests with the Minister for Justice and Equality and An Garda Síochána. Responsibility for the security aspect of Border control rests with An Garda Síochána, while the Revenue Commissioners have responsibilities relating to their particular mandate. As the Deputy noted, among the roles assigned to the Defence Forces in the White Paper on Defence is the provision of aid to the civil power, which, in practice, means to provide assistance and support to An Garda Síochána when requested to do so. The Defence Forces also provide support to the Revenue Commissioners.

I am satisfied that the Defence Forces have the resources available to them to fulfil all roles assigned by Government as set out in the White Paper.

The Minister of State is missing the point of the question I am asking. Nobody is seeking a militarised or nanny state. What I am proposing is that we have an Army presence along the Border which would leave communities feeling safer. We hear constantly in this House about the lack of resources in the Army and the Garda Síochána. It is about presence, visibility and a deterrent to crime. I referred specifically to smuggling in my question but this is also about the ongoing illegal activity that goes on in the Border region. We need an Army presence there to make people feel safer. That is what people want to see in terms of aid to their communities.

It is a matter for An Garda Síochána to request the assistance of the Defence Forces. Following the successful talks last week on the European stage and between the Government and its British counterpart, I do not foresee a need for members of the Defence Forces to be stationed once again along the Border. Nobody in this House wants to see that. If the support of the Defence Forces is required by An Garda Síochána, along the Border or anywhere else, it will be provided under the aid to the civil power function. The Garda Síochána and the Minister for Justice and Equality have responsibility for the security of the State. The Defence Forces work hand in hand with the Garda, whether in training exercises or otherwise, to assist in any eventuality that might arise. Everybody will be happy not to see the hard border that was being predicted prior to the successful negotiations last week.

Again, the Minister of State is wholly missing the point. I am not for one minute advocating militarisation or using the Army as a back-up to the State. I am talking about having a presence in communities. I am advocating for this in the context of barrack closures, including in Castleblayney and Cavan.

Bringing units of the Army into community facilities on a regular basis, even as part of the training process, would allow people to feel safer. I am satisfied that if a poll was taken on the issue of getting people out into the communities - not in an armed capacity, but as a back-up to the Army - we would solve a lot of the issues relating to burglaries and crime because when there is a such a back-up in place, it acts as a deterrent.

There are no plans to reopen any of the barracks that were closed during the recent reorganisation of the Defence Forces. I absolutely take the Deputy's comments on board but while the purpose of the Defence Forces is to protect the security of the State, it would be totally irresponsible to say that they have a role to play such as that suggested by the Deputy. The role of Defence Forces is to aid the civil power and assist An Garda Síochána. I do not believe that bringing members of the Defence Forces out on to the streets for security reasons would help in that regard; it would do quite the opposite. An Garda Síochána is doing a very fine job.

My colleague, Deputy Breathnach, has made a very reasonable suggestion. He is not for one second suggesting that we have total militarisation on our streets. Deputy Breathnach is merely suggesting a visibility and a presence against the backdrop of Brexit. Along the Cavan- Monaghan-Louth stretch of the 500 km long Border, businesses are especially vulnerable in the context of their exposure to smuggling. Our Defence Forces are truly missed in Cavan, Monaghan, Castleblaney and Cootehill, where, previously, troops had been stationed. The Minister of State referred to An Garda Síochána's duty and remit in this regard. In the Border region, the Garda Síochána is working against the backdrop of depleted resources. Gardaí do not have the capacity to do their job. There is also a lack of supervisory capacity. The Minister of State spoke about the Defence Forces not being needed in the area because An Garda Síochána can do its job. I am sorry to tell him that the reality in the Border area is very different.

As the Minister of State with responsibility for defence, it is my priority to ensure the operational capability of the Defence Forces is maintained to its greatest possible extent to enable the Army, the Air Corps and the Naval Service to carry out all of their roles as assigned by the Government. I have been assured by the Chief of Staff that, in providing aid to the civil power or in the day-to-day duties asked of them, Defence Forces personnel have the capability and the capacity to carry out their functions. The Deputy has highlighted her view that members of An Garda Síochána are struggling on the Border region-----

They do not have the numbers.

-----but that is a matter for the Minister for Justice and Equality. The Deputy should raise that matter with the Minister.

Absolutely, but the Minister of State made reference to An Garda Síochána.

There is time for another supplementary question.

It was the Minister of State who referred to the role of An Garda Síochána in this regard, not me. In light of the potential for smuggling along the Border, it would be wrong to say that An Garda Síochána can pick up the slack, particularly if there is to be no reinstatement of troops in the area. The reality is that the Garda is under-resourced and does not have the necessary manpower in place. Local Garda stations have closed all across the Border region, especially in counties Cavan and Monaghan. It is unfair of the Minister of State to say that I should raise the matter with the Minister for Justice and Equality. It was the Minister of State who referred to the role of An Garda Síochána. We have seen the closure of Army barracks and we have seen troops being obliged to leave their families and homes to work further afield. This is not just for normal work shifts; it is to stay further afield for longer periods.

I am disappointed to hear the Minister of State say that he does not have any specific plans to consider the reinstatement of troops. Deputy Breathnach quite rightly suggested that troops be deployed to community resource centres or other centres to show a visibility or a presence. That is a fair point. An Garda Síochána cannot do it alone - it would be the first to admit that - so why not deploy troops to do that job also?

I absolutely disagree with Deputy Niamh Smyth. If members of the Defence Forces were patrolling local communities across the Border region, it would totally send out the wrong message. Such a deployment would be absolutely and completely inappropriate. I am personally opposed to it. As already stated, if An Garda Síochána requests that members of the Defence Forces be deployed in order to aid the civil power, such a request would - like all requests - be considered. After the successful Brexit negotiations last week, I genuinely feel that we are in a space that I thought would be difficult to get to whereby there is not going to be a hard border and people, North and South, will be able to continue doing business in the way they have done in recent years. I remember when members of the Defence Forces were stationed on the southern side of the Border and British forces stationed on the northern side. It was not a pretty sight.

It was the Minister of State who made reference to patrolling. He is misinterpreting our proposal.

We are a totally new generation of people and I do not want my children or those of anybody else to have to remember the Defence Forces stationed on the Border.

The Minister of State must deal with the issue.

Defence Forces Strength

Bernard Durkan

Ceist:

49. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the extent to which the strength of the Defence Forces continues to be maintained and-or increased; the degree to which gender balance continues to be observed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52919/17]

My question relates to the current and expected strength of the Defence Forces in all grades of the Army, Naval Service and the Air Corps, and the degree to which the gender balance continues to be maintained.

From the most recent figures available, as of 31 October 2017, the strength of the Permanent Defence Force stood at 9,219 whole-time equivalent, WTE, personnel. In recent years, the levels of departures have exceeded intakes and this has presented challenges in meeting the establishment strength of 9,500 personnel. To fill vacancies, there is significant ongoing recruitment at both enlisted and officer level and it is anticipated that approximately 800 new personnel will have been inducted into the Permanent Defence Force during 2017. This includes general service recruits, apprentices, cadets and direct entry officers.

In addition, a range of recruitment methods are being employed including direct entry competitions for specialist positions and the scope to further expand direct entry is being considered. I have also directed civil and military management to develop proposals for expanding direct entry recruitment of specialists and a scheme to facilitate former personnel with appropriate skill sets to re-enter the Defence Forces.

As I have previously outlined, there are particular challenges with vacancies in certain specialist posts, such as those relating to pilots, air traffic controllers and certain technicians. These specialists can prove difficult to retain where, as in the current economic circumstances, there are ongoing private sector and commercial semi-State sector job opportunities. I understand that the retention of such specialists has proved challenging for many military forces internationally and it is not unique to Ireland.

The strength figure of 9,219 personnel includes 604 WTE female personnel, broken down as follows: Army - 496 female personnel; Air Corps - 34 female personnel; and Naval Service - 74 female personnel.

Currently, females represent approximately 6% of Defence Forces personnel. The programme for Government contains a commitment to increasing this rate over the five years of the programme's duration.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

A number of specific initiatives have been implemented to increase the level of female participation. These include the targeting of female websites as part of recruitment campaigns and visits to female schools by Defence Forces personnel to promote a career in the Defence Forces to women. I remain committed to maximising recruitment to the Defence Forces and ensuring that, where possible, the terms and conditions of service are appropriate to the needs of the organisation and as favourable as they can be within the current budgetary parameters.

With the support of the Chief of Staff and within the resources available, the Government is committed to retaining the capacity of the Defence Forces to operate effectively across all roles and to undertake the tasks laid down by Government, both at home and abroad.

I thank the Minister of State for his reply. Perhaps he will indicate the degree to which it is anticipated that means can be found to encourage more interest in careers in the Defence Forces. What research has been done to ascertain the reasons for a reduction in the number of young people taking up careers in the Defence Forces? How is the gender balance measured against the rest of the inductions in to the Defence Forces? For example, is there a distinct difference between the level at which women are prepared to enter the Defence Forces compared with that at which men are prepared to enter?

I would be the first to state we have faced challenges in fulfilling our gender targets. I have asked civil and military management to look at recent recruitment campaigns and to establish the number of female applicants for the Permanent Defence Force, and how many may have fallen off by the time of interview or around the time of the medical and fitness test. This is very important information for us to have. Recruitment is a matter for the Defence Forces but I have regular meetings with them and one area in which they are very involved is focusing on women's sports and women in sport and in targeting those women.

I am conscious of the number of people who have left the Permanent Defence Force over the past two years. It was for a range of reasons but one important reason is a stronger private economy than had been the case.

I thank the Minister of State. Deputy Durkan has one final supplementary question.

Some years ago, there was a change in the pensions available to members of the Defence Forces so that, for instance, a member of the Defence Forces was no longer entitled to a pension at 42 years after there had been a public outcry, and all that goes with it. Has that been a factor in people leaving the Defence Forces and having to make provision in the private sector?

Among the different branches of the Defence Forces, which has the greatest dearth of applicants? Is it the Army, the Naval Service or the Air Corps? What are the opportunities available for promotion for men and women in those grades?

The Army has by far the highest number of applications within the Permanent Defence Force.

On pensions, a review is under way for all contracts of enlisted personnel from 1994 to 2006. Over the past two to three years we have been losing young, fit men and women who have the capability and capacity to give another ten years or more to the Permanent Defence Force. I announced this review at the recent PDFORRA conference. The review of contracts is something PDFORRA has sought for some time and it welcomed my decision. Those joining the Army, in particular, want to serve overseas and to do so as soon as possible after training having done two or three years back home. We are doing everything to give them the opportunity to do that.

The next three questions are from the Independents 4 Change group and I am anxious to get all three in. If Deputy Clare Daly forfeits her 30 seconds, we might squeeze in the three.

Go on, then. I will, but only because the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is asking.

I am trying to be accommodating. There may be a stray supplementary allowed in too.

Defence Forces Expenditure

Clare Daly

Ceist:

50. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if, in the event that Ireland becomes a signatory to the permanent structured co-operation framework, PESCO, a request from his Department for an increased budget will be necessary to fund the increase in defence spending envisaged by the mechanism and the associated European Defence Fund. [52736/17]

I am pleased to inform the House that yesterday, at the Foreign Affairs Council meeting in Brussels, Ireland joined the other 24 EU partners in collectively launching PESCO. Joining PESCO does not involve an additional cost to the Exchequer. Additional costs may arise in respect of participation in specific PESCO projects similar to the case where the Defence Forces participate in European Defence Agency projects. As the projects will relate to the ongoing development of Defence Forces capabilities for peace support and crisis management operations, such costs would be incurred in the normal course and will therefore be met from within the Defence Vote.

The Deputy will be aware that the allocations for defence announced in the budget means that Ireland’s total defence expenditure will increase in real terms over the coming three years. It is also expected that sharing the costs of capability development across a number of member states should provide for greater economies of scale in terms of overall defence investment expenditure.

PESCO has been presented to the Council by means of a notification. This notification clearly states that it does not prejudice the security and defence policy of the member states. The notification also states that the member states remain sovereign and that the commitments will be implemented fully in accordance with the treaty, its protocols and the constitutional provisions of the member states. As such the budgetary process and role of Oireachtas in determining the Defence Vote remains untouched.

The European Defence Fund, EDF, and PESCO are separate but complementary initiatives. The EDF will be funded from the EU budget and will not therefore impact on the Defence Vote. The EDF aims to co-ordinate, supplement and amplify national investments in defence.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

By pooling resources, it is proposed that individual member states can achieve greater output and develop defence technology and equipment that may not be feasible on their own. The fund will also foster innovation and promote a more efficient market within the defence sector, eliminating duplication and fostering greater competitiveness.

Ireland has strongly supported the continued development of the capacity of the EU to contribute to international peace and security through the deployment of capabilities on peace support and crisis management operations under the common security and defence policy, CSDP. Both PESCO and the EDF will enhance and contribute to that EU capacity.

There is a contradiction in the Minister of State's answer. On the one hand, he states the budget will not increase but then he states it will be increasing anyway and it will be covered as part of that. It is a simple fact that the notification to which we signed up last week, thanks to Fine Gael and its friends in the Independent Alliance and Fianna Fáil specifically has the commitment to "regularly increasing defence budgets in real terms in order to reach agreed objectives". As PESCO commitments are binding, we have to increase that expenditure. There is no solace to be had by saying it might have increased anyway because the type of increased expenditure Members would seek are improvements to the pay, conditions and pension entitlements of Defence Forces personnel, not expenditure on a project that is clearly driven by the arms industry across Europe. It is uncontested that PESCO, along with the European Defence Fund, is driven by arms manufacturers sitting at the heart of the European Commission. We are talking about €6 billion a year in grants to the arms industry from EU member states under PESCO. The Minister of State needs to explain it a little more.

The White Paper on Defence clearly states there will be ongoing investment in the Defence Forces. I have stated this on numerous occasions, here in the Chamber last week, before the select committee last Wednesday evening and in replies to parliamentary questions over the past 12 to 18 months. PESCO is provided for in the Treaty on European Union in Articles 42.6 and 46 and Protocol 10, which were introduced by the Lisbon treaty. PESCO was comprehensively discussed in the context of the Lisbon treaty, which was approved by the Irish people by referendum in October 2009. It is not the case that PESCO just appeared in this House last week. It has been debated at European level, it has been debated here at national level as part of the Lisbon treaty. I have heard some outrageous comments about us entering a European army, that we are giving away our sovereignty on neutrality. It could not be further from the truth.

The Minister of State is completely wrong. The Irish people voted again in the Lisbon treaty when they got the answer wrong the first time. To baldly state that this issue has been discussed in Irish society is simply wrong. There has hardly been a single article in the press or any coverage in the media at all. If one were to randomly stop people on the street, even people who are usually very well informed have an incredibly low level of knowledge about PESCO, what it means and our involvement in it. It is not an exaggeration to say that the reason it was rushed through in such an unorthodox way was to avoid that type of public scrutiny because the Minister of State knows well that Irish people do not want to be part of a European army. The Minister of State is correct to refer back to the White Paper on Defence. It explicitly urges steps towards the creation of an EU army, such as integration of military capabilities and defence industries but it is not something that the Irish people have had the chance to address.

I think that is one of the reasons the Minister would not let us address it.

Standing Orders allow me to take a supplementary question.

The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Coveney, told us this was a structured initiative, to opt into and to opt out of what we want. We already have an opt in-opt out facility so why do we need to join a group to have more opt-in and opt-out? We are not opting in but joining. Ireland's neutrality is a matter of Government policy rather than a requirement of statute law as it is not in the Constitution. An exception to this is Article 29.4.9°. Deputy Eamon Ó Cuív played his part in ensuring this was in the Nice and Lisbon treaties. Following an amendment, it states: "The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union where that common defence would include the State." We are not supposed to be joining this but only yesterday Jean-Claude Juncker boasted:

In June I said it was time to wake up to the Sleeping Beauty of the Lisbon Treaty: permanent structured cooperation. Six months later it is happening. I welcome the steps taken today by Member States to lay the foundations of a European Defence Union.

That is exactly what we are joining. How come the Government has not outlined where the money is going to come from in the next three years?

That will be a matter for the Dáil and, as an elected Member of this House, the Deputy has an opportunity to vote on the annual budget for the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces. That is where the money comes from - it is State funding and we have committed to increasing defence spending, in both the programme for Government and the White Paper.

We are increasing defence spending but not building any houses.

Why do we fund hospitals or education?

We are not building enough of them, either.

It is easy to trot this sort of stuff out but last Wednesday evening I spent an hour and a half in committee, where I was asked the exact same question about why this was taken out of the blue. I have answered questions in the Oireachtas, both written and oral, on PESCO. I answered written questions on the matter on 16 December 2016, 17 May 2017, 12 July 2017 and 22 November 2017, and I answered oral questions in July 2017, as well as a topical issue in November 2017. I took a Commencement matter in Seanad Éireann on the topic. There was a recent article-----

There has been no public debate.

I understand the rules of the House but I would have liked another opportunity to respond.

I want to accommodate the two following Deputies. My problem is that I am too reasonable. In future, I will allow two minutes only.

Defence Forces Remuneration

Catherine Connolly

Ceist:

51. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the steps being taken to reduce the number of persons in the Defence Forces in receipt of the family income supplement and other welfare supports; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52906/17]

Richard Boyd Barrett

Ceist:

57. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence his plans to address the specific issues of pay and conditions in the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52968/17]

Brendan Ryan

Ceist:

64. Deputy Brendan Ryan asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if there is a timetable for Defence Forces pay restoration; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52900/17]

Brendan Ryan

Ceist:

70. Deputy Brendan Ryan asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if there will be an increase in the duty allowance or payments to Defence Forces personnel; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52901/17]

Brendan Smith

Ceist:

83. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence his plans to improve pay and conditions for members of the Permanent Defence Force; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52973/17]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 51, 57, 64, 70 and 83 together.

As I said earlier in reply to a previous question, the pay of the Permanent Defence Force, similar to other areas within the public service, was reduced during the financial crisis. The reductions in pay were on a graduated scale with higher percentages being deducted from those on higher earnings. This action was one of the measures that it was necessary to take to stabilise the financial situation which faced the country at the beginning of this decade.

The Government appreciates the contribution made by all public servants, including members of the Permanent Defence Force, during the economic crisis. Under public service pay agreements, pay is being restored to public servants, including members of the Permanent Defence Force. Successful negotiations with the Permanent Defence Force representative associations have provided for pay increases under the Lansdowne Road agreement. These pay increases were weighted in favour of the lower paid.

PDFORRA signed up to the Lansdowne Road agreement in March 2017. The finalisation of negotiations under the agreement allowed for the commencement of the process for the implementation of pay increases and arrears, which have now been applied to the Permanent Defence Force. In addition, improved pay scales for general service recruits and privates who joined the Permanent Defence Force post-1 January 2013 were backdated to 1 July 2016 and paid in August 2017. Gross annual earnings for this cohort is €27,000, inclusive of military service allowance. This is a significant increase in pay, which was approximately €21,800 per annum prior to this agreement.

Family income supplement provides a means to supplement a family’s income, be its members employed in the public or private sector, having regard to combined family income and the number of dependent children. Pay levels in the public service, including the Defence Forces, are determined on an individual basis and are not weighted in accordance with family circumstances. Going forward, there is potential for further increases arising from the recent negotiations on the extension to the Lansdowne Road agreement. The public service stability agreement 2018-2020 contains proposals for increases in pay ranging from 6.2% to 7.4% over the lifetime of the agreement. The proposals have been presented for consideration to the Permanent Defence Force representative associations which participated in the negotiation process. They are subject to ballot by members of the associations. The agreement will bring undoubted benefits to members of the Permanent Defence Force. I encourage members of the Permanent Defence Force to ballot for acceptance, so that they may start to feel the benefits of the increases in pay arising from the agreement in early 2018.

My question was on what steps the Minister was taking to reduce the number of persons in the Defence Forces in receipt of family income supplement. If the Minister tells me he is happy that our Army is dependent on family income supplement, we are in serious trouble. In previous questions, he has repeatedly said he is committed to increasing the expenditure on defence and he acknowledges there is a crisis, with more people leaving the services than going into them. I understand that approximately 580 leave every year so when I ask what steps he is taking, the Minister might say what the Government is doing to address the crisis in addition to what has been agreed with unions or representative bodies. It seems to have any amount of money to spend on a European basis but not on basic salaries to lift basic conditions in the forces.

I remind the Deputy that fewer than 117 people, out of a total of 9,219 or 9,220 whole-time equivalent members, are in receipt of family income supplement in the Defence Forces. It is totally untrue to say there is a large number, or a high percentage, of people in the Defence Forces in receipt of family income supplement. This information is also in the public domain.

The Deputy referred to the large number of people leaving. The number is above average for the past number of years but there is always a high turnover in the Permanent Defence Force and it is nothing new in the Defence Forces. There is a budget for 9,500 personnel and I spelled out the increases we have given. I am not sure if the Deputy was listening but we went through a recession from 2011 to 2016. On this side of the House, we have to mind the pounds, shillings and pence and to act in a prudent way.

One thing I do is listen very carefully. My question related to family income supplement and other welfare supports. It is an absolute scandal that members of our Army have to resort to family income supplement and other welfare supports, at a time when there is no shortage of money to commit to the militarisation of Europe. I do not think people stood outside the Dáil last week, in the coldest of weather, just for the fun of it. They did so to tell us how difficult it was to survive on the money they are getting. Can the Minister stand over the fact that they are on minimum pay?

The Minister's answer referred to "117 customers" but it is unacceptable to refer to them as customers. They are households, families and people who are on family income supplement, not customers.

I did not use the word "customers".

No, you did not, but the word "customers" was used in the reply I received to the Dáil question. What steps has the Minister of State taken, other than what he has just outlined?

I outlined to the Deputy the pay increases. All elements of the public service were subjected to pay cuts during the financial crisis. On completion of recruit and three star training, newly qualified three star privates and their Naval Service equivalents can expect minimum gross annual earnings of €27,000, up from €21,800 last year. A newly qualified non-graduate entry second lieutenant can expect a minimum of €34,915 per annum after 15 months training, while a graduate entry lieutenant can expect a minimum of €39,860 per annum after 15 months training. The first point on the payscale for a corporal, including military service allowance, is €37,000. The first point on the payscale for a sergeant, including military service allowance, is €39,600.

With regard to family income supplement, fewer than 117 families are in receipt of family income supplement in the Defence Forces.

The Minister of State will recall that my colleague, Deputy Lisa Chambers, and myself at each meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Trade and Defence when defence issues have been discussed have raised the need to improve the pay and conditions of members of the Permanent Defence Force. I cited examples of real hardship to families directly to the Minister of State where, unfortunately, the previous Government closed Dún Uí Neill Barracks in Cavan, which was the most modern army barracks in Europe and the only purpose-built barracks in Ireland. Those members were transferred initially to Athlone to Custume Barracks, but subsequently most of them have ended up serving in barracks in Dublin.

There is a cost on individual members travelling to their place of work. In many instances there may not be a second motor car in the household and there are extra costs when the member of the Permanent Defence Force is away at work and the spouse, wife or partner is at home caring for children. Real hardship has been inflicted on these people. There is a need for them to get an improvement in pay and conditions. They do not want to have their spouses or partners out on the streets. They want to be rewarded for the work they do in a very professional way. I come from two counties in the south of Ulster where we had the benefit of the protection of the Permanent Defence Force when paramilitary organisations were trying to bring down the State. They have always done us proud and we should reward those people for their work on behalf of all of us.

I am the first to recognise that when barracks closed during the reorganisation extra costs were incurred by members of the Defence Forces and I am not disputing this. Since I was appointed to this position in May 2016 I have asked that members of the Defence Forces are located as closely as possible to their homes and this is happening. A number of family initiatives have been introduced by the Chief of Staff and the general staff to comfort members of the Defence Forces. I am the first to recognise this. There have been real salary increases which I have stated and I do not want to state them again, during the Lansdowne Road agreement and the extended Lansdowne Road agreement and for post-2013 members of the Defence Forces whereby they received a €5,000 increase which was backdated. There has been a huge amount of increases.

I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I urge him to continue to engage with PDFORRA and other representative organisations to ensure the areas of conciliation and arbitration are dealt with. There are other issues apart from pay and conditions. I emphasise the need to ensure members doing us proud in their work on behalf of the State go home with a decent wage packet every week to meet the needs of their families so they do not have to have people out on the streets protesting on their behalf and seeking proper remuneration for a job they do very well in the most difficult circumstances. When there are difficulties in this country and abroad we call upon those people to rise to the task ahead. They work in difficult circumstances. They are away from home a lot of the time. All of us would pay quite rightly our commendation for the work they do abroad championing Irish foreign policy in awfully difficult circumstances. Those people should be properly rewarded for their work.

In pay restoration for all public servants anybody on less than €70,000 per year will have their pay fully restored and this is part of the legislation going through the Seanad at present and which went through the House last week. I engage regularly with the representative organisations PDFORRA and RACO. The report of the Public Service Pay Commission published in May 2017 highlighted the Defence Forces. There are areas in the Public Service Pay Commission that will sit next year on specialist pay. The health care sector and the Defence Forces are recognised as needing urgent attention. The Deputy can be absolutely assured I will continue to push that we show appreciation to members of the Defence Forces.

Not realising five questions were grouped, I wrongly gave a commitment to Deputy Broughan but I will keep my word. We will go straight to the reply and we will have a very short supplementary question.

Defence Forces Strength

Thomas P. Broughan

Ceist:

52. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the steps he is taking to address the personnel gaps in the Defence Forces; the areas in which these gaps are most acute; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52732/17]

From the most recent figures available, the strength of the Permanent Defence Force is currently 9,219 personnel, or 97% of the establishment of 9,500 personnel. To return to and maintain the agreed strength levels, significant targeted recruitment has taken place in 2017 which resulted to date in 702 personnel being inducted, comprising general service recruits, cadets and specialists for the Army, Air Corps and Naval Service. Similar recruitment campaigns are being planned for 2018.

As I have previously outlined, there are particular challenges with vacancies in certain specialist posts, such as pilots, air traffic controllers and certain technicians. These specialists can prove difficult to retain where, as in the current economic circumstances, there are ongoing private sector and commercial semi-State sector job opportunities.

The number of officers as at 31 October 2017 is 1,056 out of an establishment of 1,233. The number of cadets in training has substantially increased recently, with 100 cadets having been recruited in each of the years 2016 and 2017. Approximately 70 Army cadets will be commissioned in January 2018.

To address these difficulties, a range of recruitment methods are being employed, including direct entry competitions for specialist positions. I have directed the civil and military management to develop proposals for expanding such direct entry recruitment of specialists and a scheme to facilitate former members of the Permanent Defence Force with appropriate skill sets to re-enter the Defence Forces. The Public Service Pay Commission will further examine the issue of retention of specialist personnel in accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Stability Agreement 2018-2020.

In tandem with these actions, my Department is also engaged in planning on a longer-term basis. Projects arising from the White Paper on Defence around topics such as medium-term manpower planning and encouraging as wide a pool as possible for recruitment are already under way. Further projects, scheduled to begin in the new year, will address issues such as age profiles and a gap analysis of skill sets within the Permanent Defence Force. The gap analysis will help to identify the frequency of such gaps and identify appropriate measures to address them.

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, who was kind to allow me to come in. The other side of the very poor pay and conditions are the huge gaps in the establishment figure of Defence Forces. The Minister of State told me recently there are only seven crews to man eight ships in the Naval Service. The bomb disposal unit workload has doubled but there are major gaps in that unit. The most serious of all is the Air Corps. A few months ago, the Minister of State told me there were 132 vacancies in the establishment figure. We saw the serious impact of this in March 2017, in the tragedy off the Mayo coast when an Air Corps plane was not able to be brought into use.

Clearly, there are major gaps across the Defence Forces. I voted against PESCO. I believe that a strongly neutral country should have an effective defence force that is well paid, well looked after and available to serve the nation. I ask the Minister of State to address the serious gaps in the current force.

The establishment strength and number of ships in the Naval Service have not changed in decades. The Deputy referred to the Irish Coast Guard. The latter is responsible for coast guard activities and assistance is provided on an available basis.

The Irish Coast Guard requested the assistance of the Air Corps in the instance to which I refer.

It is on an available basis only.

Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.
Barr
Roinn