Cathal Berry (Kildare South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. O'Driscoll and his team. It is great that they are here. I am a big supporter of the commission and the work it is doing. I am hearing nothing but positive reports on the level of engagement, and the fact that there have been over 500 submissions tells its own story. People are very interested in defence matters and the Defence Forces, and want to be involved in finding solutions. I very much agree that this commission is about capability development and that is exactly how it should be. To me, the most important element or component of capability is people. A weapon is only as good as the man or woman holding it and a ship is only as good as its crew. I am sure everyone is familiar with that argument. This is all about solving the people issues and technology is a bonus that comes afterwards.

I totally accept what Mr. O'Driscoll has said about pay in terms of the commission not being allowed to venture into the area of rates of pay. I have a number of questions for the witnesses, some of which are related to the principle or the concept of pay rather than the ratesper se. My first question relates to the principle of paying overtime to military personnel. We know that if prison officers, members of An Garda Síochána or nurses, for example, do shift work, they get paid overtime. If staff work harder and longer, they get paid more. That is a generally accepted principle across both the private and public sectors. I would like to hear the witnesses' thoughts on whether overtime could or should be paid to military personnel. That would certainly solve a lot of the pay issues because I do not think, to be fair, that people have an issue with the core or basic pay but with the additional hours they have to work for almost a pittance.

My second question relates to the principle or structure of pay in the context of the national minimum wage, the legislation for which came into effect in 2000. There has not really been a review of the structure of Defence Forces pay since the Gleeson commission in 1990. I am interested to hear the witnesses' thoughts on that. I am of the view that the Defence Forces is obligated to pay at least the national minimum wage, like every other employer in the State, both public and private. Is there any way we can incorporate the provisions of that legislation, in a very efficient way, into the pay structures of the Defence Forces?

My next question relates to the outstanding pay awards that have yet to be honoured by the State. Again, I totally appreciate that the witnesses cannot comment on rates of pay or even analyse them. However, surely some pay awards that have already been approved, balloted on and accepted by both the State and the representative associations should be considered. This is an issue that the commission could consider including in its report, that is, a paragraph to the effect that all outstanding awards should be paid. When I say "outstanding awards", I am talking about the technical pay award for groups 2 to 6, the Army Ranger wing allowances and the specialised instructors' allowance. A catch-all sentence or statement explicitly stating that those terms should be honoured would have a sea-change effect across the Defence Forces overnight. I urge the commission to consider including same in its report.

A lot of those pay awards come from the conciliation and arbitration system, where an adjudicator makes an adjudication. As the witnesses will be aware, the Defence Forces family is not entitled to go before the Labour Court. As a general rule, when the Labour Court issues rulings the Government accepts them and pays accordingly. I would like to hear the witnesses' thoughts on whether the status of the Labour Court should be afforded to the adjudicator, from a conciliation and arbitration point of view.

If that was included from a structural perspective, it would also have a transformative effect downstream.

The independent peer review body, whether we like it or not, is part of Government policy outlined in the programme for Government. I acknowledge it is a subsequent piece in which Mr. O'Driscoll is not specifically involved but the process towards it is covered in the terms of reference. What would the independent peer review body look like to Mr. O'Driscoll? When will it be established? Does Mr. O'Driscoll see it being established in January of next year or will it be synchronised with the pay talks later in 2022? What are his thoughts on that?

My last two questions have to do with implementation. I have no doubt that Mr. O'Driscoll's report will be excellent. All the views I have heard so far have been very positive. It is like all those excellent reports that have been previously written by so many different organisations. We have a habit, and it is not just an Irish habit but probably is an international pastime, of writing wonderful reports that gather dust on shelves. What are Mr. O'Driscoll's thoughts on implementation? Will there be a requirement to establish a separate implementation body to ensure that the wonderful findings of the commission's report will be implemented in full? All we have to do is look at the White Paper to see that is not always the case.

To finish on a positive, could this committee do anything to assist Mr. O'Driscoll and his team in their work? We could very easily review the implementation of the commission's report on a six-monthly basis, for instance. From a political perspective, is there anything we could do to assist Mr. O'Driscoll's work? It is hugely important and it is a watershed in the history of the Defence Forces.

I thank the Chairman. I thank Mr. O'Driscoll and his team and wish them the very best of luck in the rest of their work.