Cathal Berry (Kildare South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister and his team for coming in today and for the opening statement. The Defence Estimates are very clearly itemised. It is very insightful with regard to what is going on in the Defence Forces at the moment.

I will go through the Estimates one page at a time, starting with page 3 if that is okay. I will flag a few things. The strength of the Reserve Defence Force at 39% is appalling. If one was asked to run a school with 39% of teachers, or a hospital with 39% of nurses, one can imagine how dysfunctional that school or hospital would be. It is particularly poignant this year in light of what the Reserve Defence Force could have done during the pandemic and could have done last week during the cyberattack. They really have niche skills that could have been used very effectively. I am aware the Minister has inherited this problem and he is actively engaged in improving it, but those figures are absolutely stark. They do not require any forensic questioning of the Estimates because they just jump off the page and slap us in the face.

On page 3, it is very clear that even though there is quite a large reduction in the numbers of troops, there is detailed expression there that there has been no impact on operations whatsoever. This gives the false impression that even though the Defence Forces claim to be in crisis, they cannot really be in crisis because they are meeting all their operational objectives. Underneath those figures, however, we must realise that many people are working to the point of exhaustion and of burnout. I can speak with personal experience on that. One of the reasons people are leaving the Defence Forces is that so few people are doing so many jobs. They are absolutely exhausted.

The next point I would like to raise concerns sea fisheries patrols. There was a big reduction in 2020 by comparison with the previous year. It is stated there is no control plan and no defined target for Naval Service inputs for 2022. This is also a point of concern. The Minister might be able to comment on that.

The fourth point relates to quite good news. Page 4 refers to the Defence (Amendment) Bill, which I hope will be enacted this year. It is important from the point of view of the Reserve Defence Force. There is a plan to enact the Bill this year. I got very good advice from a gentleman in Portarlington many moons ago. He said, "If the Minister wants it to happen, it will happen." In fairness to the current Minister, he has grabbed the bull by the horns on this one and is bringing forward legislation. Is there a date for enactment? When will the legislation come back before the Dáil for approval on Report Stage? What is contained in it? It was indicated that it would give the Reserve Defence Force the ability to serve overseas. What would be the position operationally from training, sport and ceremonial perspectives? It was suggested that the legislation may contain crucial employment protection provisions for Reserve Defence Force personnel called up on active service. Will it? This would be very useful.

The next point I would like to raise is on page 5. It concerns Naval Service patrol days. As Deputy Brady quite rightly pointed out, there is a big reduction. There is a mitigating factor in that it is stated that 197 days were spent in support of the HSE in three dockyards - in Cork, Galway and Dublin - in respect of the pandemic but even that does not account for the drop-off. My concern is that a reduction in the number of Naval Service patrol days increases the number of gaps in our defences. We need our ships on patrol to address issues with drugs, weapons, fugitives, vulnerable persons and, crucially after Brexit, fisheries protection.

There is some good news on page 6. Subhead A13 refers to built infrastructure. A sum of €28 million accounted for the Estimate in 2020. Unfortunately, 25% of that budget was not spent. I accept that the building sites were closed last year on foot of a Government direction and I can understand the public health reason for that. There is an increase for 2021, up to €37 million. It is already nearly the end of May. I would be grateful the hear the Minister's thoughts on whether that €37 million can be spent as intended. As he is aware, the infrastructure deficit in the Defence Forces is huge. Many of the buildings are from the Victorian era and were inherited from the British armed forces. Therefore, every single euro allocated for infrastructure needs to be spent in this area, if possible.

The next point is a little more contentious so I will be as courteous as possible. Page 7 mentions the Civil Service and the number of civil servants in the Department. I am very much in favour of the Civil Service and Department of Defence but there is an anomaly in that the number of uniformed personnel, or front-line troops, in the Defence Forces has plummeted in the past ten years from 10,500 to 8,500. Unfortunately, the number of civil servants in the Department has increased. That is a red flag in any organisation. According to the Estimates, the number of civil servants in 2010 was 354. Last year, the number had increased by seven. It is incredible that the number of troops has dropped by 2,000 while the number of civil servants has increased by seven over a ten-year period. In any organisation, alarm bells should ring when the number of administrators is increasing and the number of front-line personnel is in free fall. That is the canary in the coalmine. I fully appreciate that there is a need for the Department of Defence and for staff therein doing Civil Service duties but when we see one number increasing and another plummeting, it should raise concerns.

I am aware that an organisational capacity review is taking place. I thank the Minister for mentioning that in his opening statement. My concern is that the review might recommend a further increase in Civil Service numbers. That would have a serious effect on morale in the uniformed services. They would be dealing with more micromanagement, perhaps, and more encroachment and bureaucracy. The role of the organisational capacity review should be to reduce the layers of bureaucracy rather than increase them or keep the status quo. I would be grateful to hear the Minister's thoughts on that.

Even in the three past years, the number of civil servants has increased by 8%. It has increased by 22 in the past three years while the number of front-line personnel has plummeted. That is an anomaly in any organisation. Perhaps we could work on this over time.

There is some good news on page 9. It states there should be 14 members in the Army nursing service. They would have been really useful during the pandemic. They could have gone into nursing homes and helped out with vaccinations and a myriad of other tasks. There are probably only three or four left. A nursing review has been ongoing for the past five years. It depends on who one speaks to. Perhaps the Minister could comment on it or indicate when it will be completed. What is the report likely to contain? The review has been going on for years and the number of Army nursing service staff has plummeted in the meantime. At present, many on-call nurses are being hired. These are really expensive from an organisational point of view so it would make more sense to regularise the nurses' employment contracts. There is a nurse in Kilkenny barracks whose contract has pretty much been renewed every 24 hours for the past ten years. If the position could be regularised and the nurse could be brought into the Army nursing service to have a regular job with full benefits, it would make a whole lot of sense.

There is a comment on page 9 to the effect that the ability to adopt and train recruits in 2020 was severely impacted by Covid. That is 100% correct. My answer is that we should put more emphasis on re-induction. The re-enlistment and recommissioning of former members of the Defence Forces are important. I have two points to make on that. First, a major impediment to getting former members of the Defence Forces back is that their pension abatement is not waived. Most people will be aware that when personnel leave the Defence Forces, they get a very small pension. Its value is between that of the dole and that of the pandemic unemployment payment. That is the kind of scale we are talking about. If a prison officer returns to the Prison Service, his or her pension abatement is waived. Based on a deal struck with the unions and the Minister for Education, Deputy Foley, only a couple of months ago, a teacher who returns to the teaching profession can work for 50 days every year without having his or her pension abated. Similarly, a healthcare professional who returns to the health service can work for 19 hours per week without having his or her pension abated. Is it likely that these policies will be extended to members of the Defence Forces? It makes perfect sense. The principle is exactly the same. Members of the Defence Forces are also public servants. The provision is deemed good enough for the prison officers, healthcare staff and teachers so it should be extended to military personnel. I would be grateful to hear the Minister's thoughts on that.

As mentioned by Deputy Brady, the 1994 contract is coming to a head now. We should try to hold on to the personnel as much as possible. There is no point in turning on the tap of recruitment if there is a big leaky hole in the bath or sink. Any sensible intervention the Minister could make in this regard would make a whole lot of sense. We should remember that most people who join the public service get a full-time job and have tenure for life, but it is not the same in the Defence Forces. Any latitude or flexibility that could be granted would make a big difference.

On page 11, there is another good news story. I acknowledge the work of the Minister and the Secretary General over the last few months to sort out the anomaly in regard to the pay of the Defence Forces Reserve. The FEMPI cuts have been restored, which is a positive news story. There should not have been any cuts in the first instance, but the matter was promptly rectified when brought to the Minister's attention.

At the bottom of this page is news that is not so good. The strength of the Defence Forces Reserve, which should be more than 4,000, has continued to plummet in the last three years and now stands at 1,588, which is probably generous. I understand the effective strength is probably below 1,000 at this stage. The Defence Forces Reserve could have been very useful during the pandemic. Our Permanent Defence Force is exhausted. The Defence Forces Reserve could have been brought in to do camp security barracks guard and thus allow the regular troops to deploy on operations from a pandemic point of view. I do not think any other European Union country would accept those numbers in their Defence Forces Reserve, or the trajectory in that regard. I appreciate that the Minister is trying to make in-roads through the Defence (Amendment) Bill 2020, but a more concerted effort is required to get the numbers and capability back up, particularly from a cyber perspective. Many members of the Defence Forces Reserve work in the cyber field in large big tech companies around Dublin. It would be ideal to hold onto those people, who are very patriotic. The number of cyberattacks will likely increase over time and we need to be prepared for that.

On page 13, there is another good news story in terms of the slight increase in the number of civilian employees. There should be 550 such staff but currently there are only 446, which means we are down about 100. These are key staff. Many of these people have never served in the Defence Forces, but some of them have, and they re-entered as technicians, mechanics, aircraft inspectors and so on. I have received a number of calls from former members of the Defence Forces who would love to rejoin as a civilian employee. These people are skilled armourers, aircraft technicians and mechanics, but they cannot rejoin because of the pension abatement. The introduction of a pension abatement waiver in this area, as happens in other areas of the public service, would result in a large number of former members of the Defence Forces rejoining and a use of the skills they were trained to use in the Defence Forces. If this was implemented, it would make a significant difference, particularly in the Curragh Camp, where much of the technical expertise is based.

Page 17 deals with Naval Service fuel costs. This appears to be dressed up as an improvement. The reduction in costs for the Naval Service, from a fuel perspective, was €1.5 million. For me, this is a bad news story because it means the Naval Service was not patrolling the seas, as it should have been doing, and the fuel bill reduced by €1.5 million in 2020. I take the point that at least two of the Naval Service ships that could have been put to sea were deployed in Galway and Dublin temporarily. Our Naval Service ships should be on the high seas rather than tied up in port for lack of personnel.

On page 19, again, there is a good news story in terms of the increase in the infrastructure spend for 2021 to €37 million. As we are almost half way through the year, how likely is it that that €37 million will be spent on infrastructure? My own view is that it will be difficult to spend that amount of infrastructure given building sites have been closed for four months. Are there alternatives or a plan B in regard to that spend from a capability perspective, if not on infrastructure? I was grateful for the Minister's comment a week or two ago that he is open to an multi-departmental approach to solving the infrastructural deficit in the Defence Forces. It would be a good move to get the Departments of Education, Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, Housing, Local Government and Heritage and Rural and Community Development and the OPW involved. In that regard, I would like to raise one matter with the Minister. The post office in the Curragh Camp is a historic building with massive heritage, but it is falling into disrepair. Kildare County Council is keen to use the town and village renewal scheme across the county. The old post office is owned by the Department of Defence. I would welcome the Minister's thoughts on tapping into that fund through Kildare County Council. My constituency team is meeting tomorrow to map out our plans for the post office and to put forward a proposal in that regard to Kildare County Council. Perhaps the Minister would arrange a meeting for us with the property management branch of the Department over the next few weeks at which we could firm up on what is possible in regard to the old post office. If we do not intervene soon, it will deteriorate further and open the doors for anti-social behaviour.

On page 23, there is another interesting statistic. In regard to travel and moving of stores and people abroad, the Defence Forces spent €1.74 million last year. That is a very expensive way of moving troops and cargo around. Would we not be better off purchasing our own organic capability from an aircraft perspective? If we are spending €1.74 million per annum in this area, would it not make more sense to invest in a strategic aircraft over a ten or 20 year timeframe? The aircraft would pay for itself overtime and also add a great deal more capability and flexibility not just across the Defence Forces, but Government. Rather than outsourcing that spend, we should in-source it and ensure maximum benefit across the public service.

I come now to page 24. I am very grateful to the Minister for addressing the issue of private healthcare for enlisted personnel, at a cost of €4 million, in the programme for Government. I accept it is expensive, but it is much less expensive than the cost of personal injury claims.

Page 27 deals with both a good news and bad news story in that it is about litigation and compensation costs. Approximately €7 million was spent on compensation claims last year. For me, this is unnecessary spend. Many of the compensation claims are medical claims, the reason being, that enlisted personnel who are injured in training exercises and operations receive emergency treatment free of charge through the HSE hospitals, but, if required, they have to pay for back surgery, knee surgery, MRI scans and CT scans. The only recourse they have then is to sue so that they or their families are not out of pocket. It would be helpful if the commitment in the programme for Government that private healthcare be extended to enlisted personnel, which is 11 months old at this stage, was implemented. This would result in savings for the State because the level of compensation would drastically fall. The vast majority of the compensation claims are to ensure that troops are not out of pocket. In regard to the €7 million paid out in compensation claims, statistically about 40% of those claims will go to legal fees. I do not think the Defence Forces should exist to pay the legal profession. The establishment of a compensation tribunal should be considered by the Minister and the Department. I refer to the model used by An Garda Síochána and the Irish Prison Service. As in the case of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board, PIAB, which is based in Cork, matters would be dealt with in a non-adversarial and non-legalistic way. This would save the Department a fortune in legal fees and, most important, it would result in swift and smaller pay outs for people who are deserving. If the Minister is not minded to establish a Defence compensation tribunal, consideration might be given to the Defence Forces linking into the model used by An Garda Síochána, which would then become a tribunal for gardaí and Defence Forces personnel. That would make a big difference from a compensation perspective and it would ensure that people who are injured would not be out of pocket.

I note that €1.5 million of the €7.5 million was for employment cases, rather than personal injury cases. Again, this begs the question as to whether we should be adopting this overly legalistic approach to solving employment cases. There is a conciliation and arbitration scheme in the Defence Forces' establishment. The findings of an adjudicator should be on a par with that of the Labour Court. The adjudicator's findings should be implemented and the matter not taken down the legal road because in doing so we are only feathering the nests of the legal profession, when the money should be going to the people who are deserving of it.

On page 28, there is a very good news story, or at least I think it is. On the grants to the veterans associations, I am not sure what the figures were last year but they seem to have increased this year which is a good thing. The amount is €411,00, which is very positive. IUNVA and the ONE will be very grateful for that. I am not sure of the breakdown but that appears to be an increase. Many people do not know this, but I suspect there are in excess of a 250,000 military veterans in the country, including former members of the Reserve Defence Forces and Permanent Defence Forces. That number is increasing over time. It is probably on a par with the GAA or the IFA in relation to the size of the network and constituency. I would not have become be a Deputy if it were not for that network. It is regularly overlooked. The veterans' network is huge and it must be supported. There are people in it with issues resulting from service and with medical issues. The veterans associations are the original Men's Shed. Any further support the Minister or the Department could provide would be greatly appreciated.