Mr. Derek Priestley:

I will respond to Deputy Grealish's question about whether we are being treated fairly by referring to my experience over the past five years as a full-time official with RACO. When one goes into national pay talks and is left sitting in the corridor for three weeks, it is very hard for one to feel one is being treated fairly. We want an opportunity to put forward the concerns of our members about pay or allowances. An overwhelming percentage of the members of ICTU are in that environment. We are meant to be in a parallel process, but the reality is that we are not. At our first outing, we experienced being the last people to leave the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, and turn off the lights without having received a fair hearing. At our second outing, which was during Lansdowne Road 2, it was decided on the second day to allow the representative associations, including gardaí, into the main room. Our voice is not heard because we do not enjoy full status and we do not have industrial relations behind us. As an association, we represent 1,200 people. PDFORRA probably represents 7,000 people. I am not quite sure what the figure for the Garda is. The uniqueness of military service is not recognised in the context of our ability to come forward and speak. I will clarify our experience of national pay talks. It may appear on the face of it that we received fair treatment, but the reality was very different. Although we were allowed into the main room the second time out, we were nobodies. We accept that, by the way. Officers are particularly accepting of the role they play in society and the duties they take on voluntarily.

We did some research in advance of one of our conferences in November 2017. We looked at how other militaries are treated. We identified a statutory pay review body in the UK that was specific to this sector. It was one of eight such bodies that existed across the UK public sector. We were interested to note that it is a full-time committee which sits annually and has access to the highest levels of Government, including the UK Ministry of Defence and its general staff, and of course all the members of the armed services in the UK. The committee engages with all of these interests annually. It also has access to relevant data. The big thing we are talking about today is retention. The committee knows where the pressure points exist in terms of recruitment and retention, which allows action to be taken when the figures fall below a certain level. If recruitment and retention fail to such an extent that the UK armed forces loses 2% of their designed strength, there is an immediate move to address the situation. We are talking about trained personnel, rather than new entrants, cadets or newly inducted people. The committee recommended to the UK Government that allowances should be adjusted upwards or downwards depending on the specific circumstances. Members might think this is a great deal for the representative associations on the basis that they get what they want, but all of this is done within the parameters of the UK Government's national pay policy. At the end of the day, this is controlled by the UK Government, which is aware of the uniqueness of military service and the position of the armed forces.

We have targeted the idea of a pay review body as a way forward. We are cognisant that we are speaking at a time when a report from the Public Service Pay Commission is pending. As an association, we put a great effort into our first submission to the first report of the Public Service Pay Commission. We were heartened that the Defence Forces, RACO and PDFORRA were mentioned throughout the report and that the commission was directed to examine the issue of recruitment and retention in the HSE and related areas as well as in the Defence Forces. Two and a half years on, we are still waiting for the report of that examination to go to the Government. We have no idea what would come out of such a report. We are all aware of the leaks that have come with this process. If what is being reported is true, we would be very disappointed, especially after all our effort. We are absolutely in favour of a pay review body. I am speaking on behalf of the membership when I say I do not think members feel they are being treated fairly. I think we can prove that with the statistics that have frequently been mentioned by Commandant King. There is an opportunity to do the right thing here. We have been calling for this for two and a half years. We are not critical of the Public Service Pay Commission, which has followed its terms of reference quite closely. It is time for action on this side of the House.