Matt Carthy
Ceist:33. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the recruitment targets, the number of expected retirements and the net increase of personnel within the Defence Forces in each year up to 2028. [51139/23]
Ceisteanna ar Sonraíodh Uain Dóibh - Priority Questions
Defence Forces
Will the Tánaiste outline his expectation for the number of members of the Defence Forces at the end of this year and the targets for each year up to 2028?
The military authorities have provided me with a table showing the estimated number of personnel who will be required to retire on age grounds from next year up to 2028, if they serve their full contract term. It should be noted that many personnel leave the Defence Forces before reaching mandatory retirement age. The table outlining projected mandatory retirement figures, which should be read bearing in mind this caveat, will be provided to the Deputy.
Similarly, in regard to recruitment, induction numbers fluctuate from year to year. Budget 2024 allocated €1.23 billion for the defence sector, which included a provision for the recruitment and training of a net additional 400 personnel in 2024. As part of strategies to achieve this, a joint induction training centre has been established at Gormanston. The military authorities have advised that when fully operational, this centre will enable induction training to be provided to 900 recruits per annum. Recruitment of cadets will also continue each year, with current recruitment capacity standing at 60 cadets per annum.
While recruitment and retention issues in the Defence Forces are acknowledged, there has been significant progress in improving the pay and conditions of personnel. Current pay rates, including military service allowance, for the ranks of private 3 star-able seaman, in their first three years of service, start at €38,016 in year one, rising to €40,700 in the third year of service. A graduate cadet, on commissioning, starts on €47,245, and a school-leaver cadet starts at €41,962 while in full-time third level education. Private medical care has been rolled out to all ranks in the Defence Forces. I recently announced a doubling of the amount of the patrol duty allowance payable to Naval Service personnel at sea after the first ten days in a calendar year. This measure consolidates, simplifies and improves existing seagoing allowances. The seagoing tax credit has also been retained.
A further range of financial and non-financial recruitment and retention measures are also being advanced. An examination of mandatory retirement ages is ongoing, with interim extensions already agreed for privates, corporals and sergeants to end-2024. There will be a comprehensive review of medical services in the Defence Forces. Work is ongoing on associate membership of the ICTU for the representative associations. The policy position on the working time directive is being finalised. External recruitment expertise is being engaged to inform current recruitment processes.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
I stress that there is no lack of interest in joining the Defence Forces, as evidenced by the total of 8,230 applications received up to 31 October 2023. This includes 1,213 applications for the 60 cadet competition places, which will ensure the current good strength at the officer ranks is maintained into the future.
I acknowledge that there was already a recruitment and retention crisis within the Defence Forces when the Government came to office. The job of the Government was to address that by stemming the exodus of highly trained men and women from our Army, Naval Service and Air Corps and beginning to rebuild. We all accept this was a significant task, considering the underinvestment for the preceding decade. At that time, there was an establishment figure of approximately 9,500. The starting point when the Government took office was that there were 8,650 personnel in place. When the Tánaiste took the reins as Minister for Defence halfway through the lifetime of the Government, that number was down to 7,966. Since then, the establishment figure has increased to 9,600, but the latest figure I have shows a current strength of 7,671 personnel. For all the actions the Tánaiste has outlined, does he accept we still have a situation where more people are leaving the Defence Forces than are joining, and when does he expect that to change? I ask that he answer with reference to target numbers for personnel within the Defence Forces this year and over the next number of years.
I gave that figure, which is net 400.
Does the Tánaiste accept he gave the same number this time last year?
The Deputy asked for the figure and I have given it in my reply. We are, of course, conscious of a recruitment and retention issue within the Defence Forces. I identified a long list of measures we have taken to improve allowances and improve the situation overall for members of our Defence Forces in order to attract new members and encourage retention. There are issues around recruitment processes, which is why we have enlisted and taken on board external advice. A significant number of people apply to join the Defence Forces in any given year, including thousands this year. Some 1,213 candidates applied for 60 cadet competition places, for example. At the officer ranks level, current strength will be more than maintained. We need to look at the rate of conversion from application to recruitment. There are issues apart altogether from the allowances issue, which I am pursuing with our military leadership and the Department of Defence.
I agree with the Tánaiste's final point. The Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces has outlined the procedures that are in place for joining the Defence Forces. They would make your head spin. I am sure the Tánaiste will acknowledge that he told the Dáil this time last year that the budget had provided funding for a net increase of 400 personnel within the Defence Forces in 2023. So far this year, there are 300 fewer people in the Defence Forces than there were last year. Does he accept that the work done over the past 12 months has not been sufficient to address the tide of departures? What does he consider to be a failure? If he sets targets and fails to meet them, and the situation gets worse in terms of there being more people leaving the Defence Force than joining, when does he consider it appropriate to sit down with the representative organisations for Defence Forces members and set out a plan that has their agreement and will address the haemorrhaging of personnel we are witnessing? Our Defence Forces are nowhere near the optimal level in current strength and absolutely miles away from the strength that is envisaged in the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces.
As the Deputy knows, I was not Minister for Defence this time last year, nor was he his party's spokesperson on defence. There are a number of factors at play, of which the buoyant employment market is a key one. We have been close to full employment over the past two years. There is significant evidence that private industry has recruited a lot of our naval personnel and other staff from other agencies. It is an employees' market and has been for the past two to three years. Notwithstanding that, we have significantly improved pay allowances and other benefits such as healthcare. More than that will be required, which is why we brought in external recruitment specialists to identify and improve the processes and methods by which people are recruited into the Defence Forces. The cultural transformation is also important. In addition, it is important to address the issues around training and induction of new recruitments. I have been saying to the Defence Forces leadership that these issues need review and evaluation with a view to encouraging throughput, which is not just about getting people into the training programmes but maintaining them right through to recruitment and beyond.
Departmental Contracts
Gino Kenny
Ceist:34. Deputy Gino Kenny asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if his Department intends to continue to purchase goods from Israel and Israeli companies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50747/23]
Given the murderous assault by the Israel Defense Forces does the Tánaiste's Department intend to continue to purchase goods from Israel whether they are for defensive reasons or for dual purpose reasons? As the Tánaiste will have seen, Israel is not a normal state. Israel runs on the basis of perpetual violence and oppression. How can any state call itself a democracy while doing trade with a state that has killed more than 5,500 children?
The Deputy will be aware that Ireland has been to the fore. If one travels the Arab world there is huge respect for the stance Ireland has taken and the principled stand we have taken in respect of the Middle East over a long period of time. That was certainly the case in Egypt when I was there last week and with the Palestinian Authority when I met it in Ramallah last week, and when I met with it two months ago when I visited the region. This is in the context of our adherence to UN resolutions around the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, the need for a two-state solution, and a recognition of UN resolutions.
On the question around trade, the principle of competitive tendering for government contracts is used by the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces for the acquisition of goods and services. This is an EU law requirement and is in accordance with the defence and security directive. Central to those procedures is the requirement to allow fair competition between suppliers through the submission of tenders following advertising of the tender competition on the e-tenders site and on the Official Journal of the European Union, where appropriate. Such tender competitions are open to any company or country, subject to the terms of all UN, Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE, and European Union arms embargoes or restrictions. There are no such restrictions or embargoes in place on Israel or Israeli companies, by the EU or the OSCE.
The Department of Defence will continue to carry out its procurement functions in accordance with the legal rules in place and is obliged to follow the established procurement principles for the selection of economic operators with regard to the award of contracts. We do not have unilateral powers here.
Why would the Tánaiste's Department have any sort of trade agreement with the state of Israel? In the last five years, the Tánaiste's Department has procured more than €6 million of Israeli defence equipment. Some of that is for dual use. Will the Tánaiste tell me - or give me a kind of an answer - as to why in the name of hell would this country want to do any sort of trade with the state of Israel? Over the past nine years the EU has exported €4 billion worth of armaments to Israel. These armaments are to kill and oppress Palestinians. Why would this State have any sort of dealings with a state that has killed some 5,500 children in the last six weeks? It is obnoxious. How can the Tánaiste stand over any trade deal with the state of Israel after it has done that?
The Deputy has deliberately ignored my answer and is being disingenuous because, as he is aware, trade policy and market access are largely European Union competencies. In the absence of a general trade embargo of Israel, which there is not-----
There should be-----
That is the Deputy's view, but I am saying that there is not such an embargo across Europe. The Department of Defence cannot unilaterally preclude Israeli companies from participating in tender competitions for military or any other type of goods, under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, GATT, and EU procurement law requirements. Under GATT and EU procurement law requirements, the Department of Defence is required, whether we like it or not, to deal impartially with all companies that are entitled to enter tender for competitions, and tenders must be evaluated on the basis of objective criteria.
A small number of Israeli companies have won orders for defensive equipment in recent years as result of tender competitions. This is not a new development. In each case the contract was awarded by way of a tender competition. The question of boycotts and sanctions has been debated on many occasions in the Oireachtas and there is a view that such actions would be ineffective and counterproductive. Again, the point is that we cannot unilaterally do it in the context of the GATT rules and in the context of EU rules.
That is gobbledygook.
It is not.
Ireland needs to take a moral and principled stand against the state of Israel. In the past five years Ireland has spent €6 million procuring Israeli goods and services. Surely the Tánaiste is not saying that given what Israel has done in the past in the last six weeks - and continues to do - that somehow this is business as usual. Surely the Tánaiste does not believe that. Israel is not a normal state. The Tánaiste knows that. We cannot have any sort of trade agreement with a state that continuously oppresses a people and has an almost genocidal policy against the people of Palestine. This is not a normal country and surely in these circumstances we cannot trade with the state of Israel.
I do not believe the Deputy should try to characterise me wrongly as he just has-----
I did not.
I am very clear that I want the war in Gaza to end now. Ireland was one of the countries to come out early to call for a humanitarian ceasefire. We voted for the Arab resolution at the United Nations. When we met the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah it thanked us and appreciated the principled stand that Ireland takes in relation to these issues, and has taken.
I do not disbelieve that.
We will continue to work to get a humanitarian ceasefire and to get aid and medical supplies in at scale into Gaza, which is critical. We signed up to the GATT rules in respect of trade and the European Commission is competent - as the Deputy knows - on trade agreements. Ireland does not have the unilateral capacity and legally we cannot just extricate ourselves and say, "We want to do it this way", because then the same would apply to other countries that have equally signed up to it.
Defence Forces
Matt Carthy
Ceist:35. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if he will report on action 28 of the Strategic Framework: Transformation of the Defence Forces; if the agreed civil-military management policy position on the implementation of the working time directive within the Defence Forces will be finalised by the end of 2023; the average working hours of members of the Permanent Defence Force, by rank; and if the recording of hours is intended to be permanent or temporary. [51140/23]
I am sure the Tánaiste will have had the same conversations with members of the Defence Forces representative organisations and their families in this regard. Reverting to our earlier conversation on the recruitment and retention crisis, every single one of them I have met has pinpointed that action on the working time directive as the single greatest move or action the Government could take to address that crisis. There appears, however, to be a frustratingly slow progression in its implementation. I hope the Tánaiste will enlighten us about some accelerated developments that will occur in the near future.
I thank Deputy Carthy for raising the question. I believe it has actually accelerated. Since coming in as the Minister I identified this as a key priority of mine. The Defence Forces are currently exempted from the provisions of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, which transposed the EU working time directive into Irish law. I assure the Deputy, however, that I am fully committed to ensuring that the provisions of the working time directive are applied, where appropriate, to its members in line with the Government’s commitment to remove the blanket exemption in the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 for both the Defence Forces and An Garda Síochána.
Dialogue took place during the year with the Permanent Defence Force representative associations and civilian-military management through the working time directive sub-committee as part of the conciliation and arbitration scheme. These deliberations have been constructive. Significant progress has been made with regard to activities deemed outside the scope of the directive and associated protections. I understand that a further meeting is scheduled for early December.
European case law on military service, of course, has been clear that certain activities due to their specific nature can be considered outside the scope of the directive. The provisions of this ruling have, quite rightly, informed the formulisation of a civil-military policy position, which has as its guiding principle, the fundamental requirement to ensure that appropriate rights and protections with regard to health and safety are afforded to serving members, while also ensuring that the Defence Forces can continue to fulfil their essential State functions.
Action 28 of the strategic framework published on 26 September last provides that the agreed civil-military management policy position on the implementation of the working time directive in the Defence Forces is to be finalised by the end 2023 and submitted to me. I have given clear instructions to my officials and military management that this timeline must be met. Without doubt, the introduction of a robust system to record daily hours of attendance is an essential element for the Defence Forces, in ensuring that the provisions of the working time directive are properly afforded to serving members. The military authorities have convened a working group to examine options for such a system in the long term. In the meantime, I have directed that, as an interim measure, a time and attendance system to specifically record daily hours of attendance be introduced on a pilot basis without delay. The military authorities have informed me that this pilot system will be rolled out in early December in a number of areas.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
As the Deputy will be aware, the responsibility for developing the legislative framework to remove the blanket exemption for the Defence Forces in the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 lies with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Upon finalisation of the policy position, my officials will commence formal engagement with that Department. In the interim, my officials are actively engaging with it on an informal basis.
I am on the record several times as having said that the implementation of the working time directive in the Defence Forces is the single most important thing we can do to address the crisis in recruitment and retention. I hear frustration from members of the Defence Forces all the time about what they consider to be false dawns, slipping deadlines and missed targets. This leads them to question the credibility of the commitment to move forward.
Members of the Defence Forces do a unique job. It will never be a standard nine-to-five job, but it is not acceptable that we are still in a situation where we expect members of the Defence Forces to operate in circumstances in which no other members of the workforce do. It is regrettable that it has taken so long for the recording of hours to happen. This has only come about in recent weeks. I cannot understand why it has taken so long, but I expect it will happen permanently because in the absence of recording hours, it is impossible to quantify how much it will cost. How much money has been allocated for the plan to implement the working time directive next year?
I have met the representative associations about this issue. They know my commitment to it. As part of the conciliation and arbitration scheme, we established a sub-committee and the representative associations have had an input through that committee. As part of that, compensatory rest is now provided for certain duties in line with the provisions of the directive. There is no question, but that I have given this my focus. As a result, the dialogue with representative associations, through the sub-committee on the proposed management system, has gained momentum this year. The finalisation of a policy position, including with regard to activities deemed outside the scope of the directive, is imminent. We are on track. There is no slippage in the timelines that I set.
I am determined to get this done. We are in touch with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, which is responsible for bringing forward the appropriate legislative amendments. We are told by the military leadership that a high percentage of activities are already compliant with the directive. This is not an issue of funding per se. We will deal with that, but the fundamental issue is getting it organised and agreed.
I do not know how the Tánaiste can say that without having the information about the hours currently being worked by the Defence Forces. Its members regularly tell me they work way beyond the hours that would be expected under the directive. I have another concern, which is not an inference from dealing with any person or Department; it is from an experience I had when I was dealing with agricultural issues. Many aspects of agriculture require another Department to bring forward primary or secondary legislation that might not be a priority for that Department and there are inevitable delays in the context of timelines. As a result, it is crucial that there be a whole-of-government approach to ensure that the legislative work which needs to be done in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is advanced in parallel with all the other work. Is the Tánaiste aware that drafting has commenced and that there will not be any delays on that front, when - we hope it will be soon - we get to the point where we can advance this further?
The responsibility, as the Deputy said, for developing the legislative framework to remove the blanket exemption for the Defence Forces under the Organisation of Working Time Act lies with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. We have to get the policy positions finalised to inform the general scheme and the eventual legislation. Formal engagement will commence once that is completed. In the meantime, however, the Deputy can be assured that my officials are actively engaging with officials from the Department of enterprise on an informal basis to update them on progress. It is clearly the expert Department on the working time directive and drafting the legislation. That is not where the delay is. The delay in the past few years has been in getting agreement, but since I came into office last December, I identified this as a clear priority. I am determined to see it through. We will have a milestone by the end of this year. We are making progress. It is accepted that progress is being made, but it is important to maintain the momentum and to get this done.