Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Reserve Defence Force

Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 17 May 2012

Thursday, 17 May 2012

Ceisteanna (1)

Dara Calleary

Ceist:

1Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Defence the status of the review into the Reserve Defence Force; the vision he has for the future of the RDF; if he sees it as an integrated part of the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24647/12]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (5 píosaí cainte)

The White Paper on Defence set out the blueprint for a new Reserve Defence Force, while the Reserve Defence Force review implementation plan, launched in July 2004, provided for the phased development of Reserve Defence Force capabilities in the period to the end of 2009. There were significant improvements to the quantity and quality of Reserve Defence Force training over the period of the implementation plan. However, this did not appear to improve retention rates as anticipated and strength continued to decline. In addition, the development of the integrated element of the Reserve Defence Force did not proceed as intended owing to low participation rates in pilot schemes in 2007 and 2008. Subsequently, budgetary constraints reduced the availability of paid training for members of the Reserve Defence Force and plans to send members overseas were postponed.

A value for money review of the Reserve Defence Force was launched in February 2010. This review is examining the lessons learned from the implementation plan with a view to bringing forward recommendations regarding the future development of the Reserve Defence Force. As the Deputy is aware, we dealt with this issue at some length yesterday at the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality.

In the period from December 2010 to the end of 2011 other priorities diverted analytical resources away from the value for money review. These priorities included the preparation of options for making savings arising from the national recovery plan and subsequently, in 2011, undertaking the comprehensive review of expenditure and the associated budgetary process. Work continued on the value for money review, but at a reduced rate.

In practical terms, the development of proposals for the Reserve Defence Force would have been premature in advance of the outcome of the comprehensive review of expenditure. The Government revised the strength ceiling of the Permanent Defence Force to 9,500 personnel and in response I initiated a major reorganisation of the Defence Forces. This superseded prior recommendations regarding organisation and management of the Reserve Defence Force.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

My Department's CRE assessment recommended no further cuts to the Reserve pending the outcome of the VFM review. It is worth noting that the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform's central evaluation unit did not share this assessment. However, the budget for Reserve training was not reduced further in 2012 and limited recruitment within resource constraints is ongoing.

I have asked the steering committee to progress the review as quickly as possible and anticipate its completion by the end of September. I look forward to receiving the final report. At this point I do not wish to pre-empt potential findings or recommendations on the future role of the Reserve Defence Force that the steering committee may bring forward.

The postponement of questions meant we discussed this issue in detailed at the committee yesterday, but I will reiterate some of the points made. The Minister outlined yesterday the sequence of events that had led to the delay in the review of the Reserve Defence Force being completed. Perhaps the Minister will summarise what he said. The delay has added considerably to a serious morale problem within the Reserve Defence Force as it does not see any purpose or role for it. It is a valuable service. Deputy Stanton and Senator Denis Landy spoke yesterday about their experiences in it and the services it had offered during the years in backing up the civil power and doing emergency work, including flood prevention works, which are hugely significant and important. The review gives us a chance to reiterate and define that role for the Defence Forces in the 21st century. A definition of the role would stabilise retention rates and numbers could be improved. I suggested yesterday that in the context of examining the money being spent on the Reserve Defence Force, input costs associated with the Permanent Defence Force were often included and ascribed to the Reserve Defence Force as if they were were specifically its costs. This is a source of enormous frustration. The Minister gave some very high figures that I would like to hear again about the costs ascribed to the Permanent Defence Force and the Reserve Defence Force. When does he envisage the review process being completed? Will he bring it before the committee in draft form in order that we can have an input into it?

As the Deputy knows, the future position of the Reserve Defence Force and the manner in which it is organised are caught up in the reorganisation process being undertaken to reduce it from a three brigade to a two brigade structure. That reorganisation must be fed into the review being undertaken of the Reserve Defence Force. As I said yesterday, I hope the review will be completed by September. We should have greater clarity surrounding the structure of the Reserve Defence Force and the numbers involved in it.

I gave the Deputy some cost figures yesterday and they have not changed in 24 hours. Similar to other elements of the Defence Forces, the cost of the Reserve Defence Force is spread across a range of subheads of Vote 36. Subhead A5 is devoted entirely to Reserve Defence Force expenditure and includes payments for training, gratuities and allowances, including grants paid into unit funds. The 2012 provision is €4.386 million, the same as in 2011, and includes €2.5 million for paid training. Subheads A3, A4 and A17 include, inter alia, the pay and travel costs of the Permanent Defence Force personnel who provide training and administrative support for the Reserve Defence Force, generally known as the cadre. Subhead A19 includes rental costs of property used by the Reserve Defence Force. There is a range of others costs spread across other subheads, including petrol, transport and ration costs. They are not currently disagregated for the Reserve Defence Force, but the key costs relating to it, if we include the Permanent Defence Force cadre, pay and employer’s PRSI payments, amount to €16,262,000. Allowances paid to the Permanent Defence Force cadre amount to €2,592,000. The Deputy will note the figure of almost €19 million within the Permanent Defence Force attributable to the reserve. It is part of the cost of the reserve because if this work was not undertaken by the individuals who form part of the cadre, they would carry out other operational duties with regard to the Permanent Defence Force. This is a real and identifiable cost and it is part and parcel of the overall costs. The total cost of the cadre in all matters relating to the reserve comes to €23,135,000.

What potential future role is there for the reserve? Several people, including Deputy Stanton, have suggested that we consider the Civil Defence as well and its potential role. The suggestion is to combine its role with the reserve. A Civil Defence Bill is due but we are unlikely to see it this session. Does the Minister have any plans to merge the two operations together in the context of the Bill or the review?

At the moment we are examining the reserve in the context of its functioning, its positioning and its inter-relationship with the Permanent Defence Force, PDF, and the back-up it can provide to the PDF. Naturally, there is a cross-over in the sense that certain duties the reserve undertakes to assist the civil power could equally be undertaken by the Civil Defence, a separate organisation entirely. The Deputy has raised an interesting point with regard to whether we should consider the role of both organisations to determine whether some amalgamation might be undertaken. That is not being considered at the moment and I have no wish to cause any undue concern within either organisation or to give rise to any suggestion that decisions of any nature have been made in this regard because they have not. Certainly, I will bear in mind the suggestion raised by the Deputy.

Barr
Roinn