Defence Forces

Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 23 March 2023

Thursday, 23 March 2023

Ceisteanna (4)

Peter Fitzpatrick

Ceist:

4. Deputy Peter Fitzpatrick asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence if he will outline any updates in relation to the mandatory retirement age within the Defence Forces for post-1994 privates and corporals; the steps he will take to retain the affected personnel amidst a staffing retention crisis; if there have been advancements in his discussions with the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13557/23]

Freagraí ó Béal (7 píosaí cainte)

Deputy Peter Fitzpatrick

Will the Minister outline any updates on the mandatory retirement age in the Defence Forces for post-1994 privates and corporals; the steps he will take to retain the affected personnel in amidst a staff-retention crisis; if there have been any advancements in his discussions with the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform highlighted during Leaders' Questions last week; and if he will make a statement on the matter?

Deputy Micheál Martin

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. Without question, military life places unique demands on individuals and it is necessary that Defence Forces personnel are prepared to meet the challenges of all military operations. For this reason, compulsory retirement ages for ranks in the Permanent Defence Force have historically been considerably lower than in other types of employment and that is certainly the case since 1994. In their report on recruitment and retention in the Permanent Defence Force in 2019, the Public Service Pay Commission included in its recommendations the need to consider options to tackle barriers to extended participation in the Permanent Defence Force. A joint civil-military review was subsequently completed in 2021. The report of the review group made a number of recommendations for extended service limits across a number of ranks in the Defence Forces. As current pension arrangements for personnel enlisted to the Permanent Defence Force on, or after, 1 January 1994 are based on date of entry to the Defence Forces, any proposal to amend the length of service requires the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform as there are impacts on accrued pension liabilities.

In December 2021, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform agreed to allow for an extended service limit for privates and corporals who were recruited after 1 January 1994 to serve beyond the 21-year service limit that existed before that date, up to a revised service limit of 50 years of age, subject to them meeting certain criteria, including medical and fitness standards. An interim arrangement was also agreed to allow for the continuance in service of sergeants in the Permanent Defence Force who were due to retire on age grounds at the end of 2022. Sergeants recruited since 1 January 1994 who were due to retire on the basis of mandatory retirement age in 2022 and 2023 will not be required to do so until the end of 2024. The fast accrual pension terms will continue for those additional years.

The Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform has established an interdepartmental working group to consider mandatory retirement ages and service limits for public service groups that have fast accrual occupational pension arrangements. A number of meetings of this working group, of which the Department of Defence is a member, have taken place to date. The recommendations from the joint civil-military review of mandatory retirement ages of all ranks in the Permanent Defence Force are being considered as part of the work of this group.

There are clear staffing challenges-----

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Tánaiste can come back in.

Deputy Peter Fitzpatrick

The numbers in our Defence Forces are under 8,000 which is an all-time low. I have raised this matter with the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach in recent weeks. It is due to compulsory retirement and is an absolute disgrace. In the past few months, 51 recruits were in Gormanston Camp training to become soldiers but only 12 passed out. A number of them had to be transferred from Cork to make up the 51 and still only 12 passed out. In Dublin, two barracks had to be amalgamated to try to get recruits to pass out. Gormanston training camp cannot even be opened at the moment due to a lack of personnel.

I will give some details of a 50-year-old chef who has a mortgage and three children. He is medically fit to carry on his work. He has been overseas seven times. He has high qualifications. Every time I raise the issue with the Army, I am told the Minister this or the Minister that. These people want to stay in the Army. I cannot understand it. As an ex-soldier, I know the experience and training people get in the Army is perfect. It is a way of telling us that the Government no longer wants young men at 50 years of age.

Deputy Micheál Martin

That policy emerged in the 1990s for different reasons and in a different context. The issue the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform is concerned about is fast accrual pensions. I have had discussions with the Minister. An interdepartmental group is working on this matter because it applies across the board, not only to military personnel but potentially to all uniform services in the public service. That is the issue. I have asked for some interim measure and some have already been taken in respect of privates, corporals, sergeants and so forth. I am sympathetic to the idea of extending the time limits for retirement as lifespan has increased dramatically, especially in the past 20 years. Views that might have applied 30 years ago do not apply today as regards people's fitness levels and so on at an older age. Therefore it does not make sense that people retire at 50. We have to work through the implications of extending retirement ages in the military. I support that initiative and I am pursuing it.

Deputy Peter Fitzpatrick

I know the Minister supports it but the bottom line is that action is needed now. We cannot get recruits. We cannot get soldiers. The current strength of 8,000 members is too low. I mentioned Gormanston training camp. We cannot even get personnel to train soldiers. We have qualified soldiers who it cost the Army a lot of money to train.

They cannot even pass on their experience because they have been let go. In the case of a young man of 50 years of age, who is medically fit, it makes no sense. While I appreciate that an extension of two or three years has been granted to sergeants, the number of people leaving is an absolute disgrace. I was in the Army for three years. The Army is fantastic for young people to join because of the discipline you get. You keep yourself nice and clean, you look after yourself and you get respect for everybody. At the moment, we are just taking them in and when they get to a certain age, we think they are no addition. I have raised this numerous times with the Tánaiste. I would love to go back to this 50-year-old chef, who, along with his family, is involved with everything. He wants to stay, but what can I tell him? It is going on far too long. Perhaps I am wrong, but is it just a matter of a stroke of a pen? The money could not be a problem if it is just a stroke of a pen.

Deputy Micheál Martin

No, it is not a stroke of a pen. As I said, it is an issue I am pursuing with the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, but it has wider implications. It would not just apply to the Defence Forces. We must extend the age limits. That will involve discussions with others who will have issues regarding how that is done. It is not a stroke of a pen. It has wider implications. That said, I accept the Deputy's basic point. I do not see any reason someone who is 50 years of age, such as the person he referenced, should not continue in terms of physical fitness levels and the work they are doing. The issue in public expenditure terms is how to deal with, accommodate and manage fast accrual pensions. There should be a proper system in place to sustain it into the future - not just a short-term measure, but something sustainable. That is the work the interdepartmental group is considering at the moment.