Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for his statement. He mentioned demand-led drivers and one of the submission documents states there is a natural rate of turnover. Is the current rate of turnover a natural rate of turnover? Will he clarify what he meant by this? Is he satisfied that turnover is at the appropriate and natural rate or is it too high? He stated it is driven by natural turnover annually. We know the rate of turnover at present is above 10%, which is double what it was a number of years ago. If that is the new natural rate of turnover for the Minister of State and the Department, then they are accepting the rate of turnover, which is of serious concern. I ask him to clarify this point in his submission.

The Supplementary Estimate is about paying for the exodus. He can talk about demand-led drivers and the pension process but this is the Department having to account for its failure to keep people in the Defence Forces and the dysfunctional approach to having a serious retention policy. This is paying for many people who would like to stay in the Defence Forces but who are forced to leave because of the collapsing structures. When we look again at the Public Service Pay Commission report and examine people's reasons, drivers and triggers for leaving it is very predictable that this Vote will increase year on year because of the failure to retain staff.

It is surprising that the Minister of State said it varies from year to year and it is not predictable. The turnover rate was 5.12% in 2013; 5.18% in 2014; 6.25% in 2015; 7.44% in 2016; 8.09% in 2017; 8.16% in 2018; and we know that this year it is above 10%. What is directly proportional to the rate of turnover is the centrality within the Department. Does the Minister of State now consider this turnover rate as acceptable?

He seemed to say the pension entitlement is a motivator or an incentive for people to leave and I would like him to clarify this. He is telling the men and women of the Defence Forces that they are better off getting out when they get their pension than they would be working on. This is a concerning message from the leader of the Department.

On a broader point on budgetary allocation, every year there is manipulation of Estimates and Supplementary Estimates. Extra is needed to fund the exodus.

This is funding the Department's continuing failure to promote a retention policy. Given that it cannot meet the 9,500 personnel level, it is also reapportioning amounts that are specifically focused on pay to other areas, for example, capital requirements. What other public service provider uses pay savings to fund equipment and capital allocations? It is highly unusual. Are there examples in the HSE or elsewhere? Perhaps the national children's hospital project is an example, with the Government failing to recruit to the health service because of the mess it has made of procurement. There is a diversion every year and the Government cannot meet the 9,500 figure. I would like the Minister of State to answer some of my questions.