Mr. Conor King:

I will address Deputy Grealish's questions first and then answer those asked by Senator McFadden.

There is no doubt that the relationship between the Department of Defence and the representative organisations is a difficult one. I touched on that in my opening statement. There is an obsession with control and micromanagement in the Department. We are of the firm opinion that military advice is not heeded by it. This makes it difficult to conduct our business in terms of the conciliation and arbitration process. There is a significant communication difficulty in terms of receiving written communication and replies. There is a difference of opinion regarding our members' right to representation under Defence Force Regulation S6. On many occasions, the Department has sought to use that regulation to deny our legitimacy as a representative association. If we cannot represent our members under Defence Forces regulations, what is the alternative?

Deputy Grealish asked whether senior officers are doing what they should be doing. We are all leaders in the Defence Forces and it is incumbent on us to do the best we can with the resources we have. That is our responsibility. However, when a unit commander is given less than 50% of the resources required, it is impossible to do the job to the excellent level he or she was trained to do.

As serving members of the Defence Forces, my colleagues and I are apolitical. It would not be right or proper for me to comment on the level of confidence in an official or elected representative. However, I can say that there is an unprecedented retention crisis in the Defence Forces. At the current turnover rate of 9% and the unprecedented and unsustainable levels of induction training, the Defence Forces will not reach the authorised strength of 9,500 personnel in all ranks until 2035.

It is apparent to me that the emergency aeromedical service is rightly recognised as an excellent and vital service for rural Ireland, the midlands and the rest of the country. One must remember that it is staffed by one EAS crew on a 24-hour basis. There are two 24-hour crews in the Air Corps, with the other being the Garda air support unit.

They are all that we can manage. We would love to have ten emergency aeromedical service crews and ten Garda air support unit crews, but we just do not have the resources. I think I have spelled out to the committee the retention difficulties in the helicopter wing of the Air Corps facility in Baldonnel and the implications of those difficulties for service delivery. It is not for me to say whether that operation is under threat.

It says a lot that the Naval Service has a 14% turnover rate. According to the UK Ministry of Defence, a turnover rate of 5% represents a crisis. There are nine ships in the Naval Service at the moment, but the service has enough crew members for just seven of those ships. Able seamen are at 50% strength in station in the Naval Service. Able mechanics are at 46% strength in station, communications operatives are at 50% strength in station, and cooks are at 70% strength in station. The diving section, which is rightly lauded for its bravery in the operations it conducts, is at 33% strength in station. Lieutenant Naval Service marine engineering officers are vital for the safe operation of Naval Service patrol vessels. In April 2019, the effective strength for these officers was 36%. Obviously, these shortfalls have knock-on effects on morale, governance, mentoring and supervision within the Naval Service. It is no wonder that the Naval Service has such a high turnover when its members are being asked to shoulder this burden every day.

I will explain how this has affected people on the ground, or on the waves as we would say. It has an impact on operational capability in the maintenance of ships, boat cranes and armaments, etc. Everybody relies on the Naval Service operations command's stated policy of two years in, two years out. Families plan on that basis and lives are built around it in the Naval Service. Personnel are now finding that they have to apply to come ashore after their two years are up. As the available number of such reliefs is limited for obvious reasons, not all personnel are facilitated in coming ashore. What does that say for morale? What does it say for hope for the future? What does it say for the maintenance of proper family life? The implementation of the working time directive would focus minds in the Defence Forces and the Department of Defence as people reflect on how Naval Service operations can be safely operated. I remind the committee that the Naval Service patrols an area 12 times the size of the country itself. We are not resourcing this service properly.

I want to speak briefly about family income supplement, or the working family payment as it is now known. We are not the competent authority when it comes to social welfare. I think the Minister has reported that "only" 90 people in the Defence Forces are in receipt of family income supplement. One is too many. The loyal servants of this State should not need to have their incomes supplemented by social welfare. I cannot make that point more clearly. There should not be any more talk about "only" 90 people needing this assistance. The number of Defence Forces personnel who could be eligible for family income supplement or working family payment has not been reported. Obviously, it depends on how many dependants one has. According to an analysis that has been done of cases in which the member of the Defence Forces is the only earner in the family - the rate of postings away from home that military personnel have to deal with means they are often the only earners in the family - up to 1,700 people in the Defence Forces could be eligible for family income supplement or working family payment. In many cases, their spouses cannot be earners because they are looking after the children and dependants. As the Minister has rightly said, working family payment is a matter between the individual and the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection. I cannot comment on the accuracy of the 90 figure that has been cited, but I can say that it should be zero.

Deputy Grealish asked how we envisage a Defence Forces pay review body would operate. My colleague, Lieutenant Colonel Priestley, spoke at length on this issue at one of our conferences. As he is an expert on the matter, I ask him to give the committee his perspective on it.