Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Let me put things into context. I was appointed as Minister to this Department half way through the year. In my role as Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine I know every single line of the Estimate because I have been involved in the preparation of the Estimates over a three year period. The Department of Defence has a really efficient finance team and I have learned a great deal but I have a great deal more to learn.

The ongoing funding of Vote 35 remains a considerable challenge for future years and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is well aware of the position and the context. There are particular difficulties, however, that are unique to the Defence Forces in terms of predicting retirement and turnover patterns. This can contribute to greater than expected expenditure in a given year. This is due among other things to the availability of early payment of a person's pension benefits immediately on retirement after relatively short periods of service, regardless of age. The timing of a person's actual departure is largely set by his or her own choice.

Basically, we make an Estimate at the start of each year. The Vote has been very tight because of the pressure we have been put under by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, as every Department has, so we try to calculate very accurately Vote 35 without any head room. In the other defence Vote, there are many other expenditure variables that the Defence Forces must factor in, so there is normally a little more head room. With pensions, we try to make calculations as accurate as we can as want to have some focus. That is non-discretionary funding but we want to focus as much funding and flexibility as we can on Vote 36, which essentially deals with the financing of our current Defence Forces and the Reserve Defence Force and so on.

I have provided the explanation, sequence and history of the 21-year rule but I can provide an update. This was going through the arbitration process within the Defence Forces and there was no final agreement on it. It has now gone to an independent arbiter to make a recommendation to me. I have very deliberately made the choice not to get involved with this outcome from a political perspective. We want a recommendation that is as fair to the Defence Forces personnel as is possible, particularly with regard to flexibility, but which is also good for the broader Defence Forces in terms of age profile, fitness levels, facilitation of new entrants to the Defence Forces and so on. We should not forget that when most of these personnel started, it would have been on a five-year contract that would have been extended and extended again as contracts drew to a close. Some Defence Forces personnel are now coming to the end of the 21-year period and, unfortunately, have not been promoted as there was not space or they have not managed to reach that level. We are trying to achieve an outcome in the best interests of the broader Defence Forces and the fulfilment of obligations in a safe and efficient manner. We are trying to maintain an age profile appropriate for the Defence Forces while at the same time ensuring that if people have built skill sets over a period, we would try to avoid losing those skills if appropriate. Other issues, such as fitness levels, would also be taken into account.

We should have an outcome in this regard relatively soon, and I expect it within a couple of weeks. I hope the outcome will be politically acceptable and make sense both for the Defence Forces and the personnel involved. If people are to leave the Defence Forces, we have an obligation to prepare them as best we can. If a person comes out of a structure, having been part of it for 21 years, the world can seem quite intimidating, even for people as disciplined, fit and sharp as those in the Defence Forces. There is an obligation to ensure we have prepared people as best we can for the new challenges they face. These are relatively young people coming into the work force. Ironically, they would be about my age, in their early 40s.

The average age of the Permanent Defence Force personnel now is 35 and 68% of them are under 40. We made strategic decisions some time ago to change the age profile of the Defence Forces and that has been a very successful project. We now have one of the fittest defence forces and we can be proud of that change. Nevertheless, I know there is concern within families for people now coming to the end of the 21-year period. They are concerned about their future income and so on, so we are trying to be as flexible as possible without undermining the reason behind the project, which is to maintain an appropriate age profile for a relatively small but what needs to be a very flexible and fit Defence Forces. That relates to some of its assignments, particularly abroad. I am going to southern Lebanon tomorrow and going on to Golan, and I will meet members of the Defence Forces there. That is where our two biggest contingents abroad are now, and people do not need me to remind them of the dangers in those missions. This is why we need fit, sharp and flexible young minds, as well as the experienced minds, in our Defence Forces. I hope the outcome will be acceptable to everybody, or at least as close to that as possible.