Mr. Gerard Guinan:

PDFORRA recognises that Deputy Brady has raised the issue of ICTU affiliation on a number of occasions in the Dáil. We initiated legal action last year arising from the pronouncement that we were going to have a pay review body. If we did not do that, the pay review body could be there and then one could be initiating legal action. We were never asked about a pay review body. PDFORRA had mooted the prospect of a pay review body - an independent once-off commission similar to the Gleeson commission to try to re-establish the relativities between Defence Forces pay and wider public sector pay. That is what we want. We believe there is a need to re-establish that link in relativities between public sector pay and Defence Forces pay. It has been broken over the years.

We believe that membership of ICTU provides us with the greatest opportunity to provide the public services committee of ICTU with the information that it needs to be able to grant or accede to the pay demands that are necessary. Pay negotiations in this country are conducted centrally by means of collective bargaining. In circumstances where the primary partners at the centre of those discussions, the public services committee of ICTU and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, do not know the concerns or issues involved in one's pay they do not make allowances for it. Then one is an afterthought, and one is trying to unwind pay agreements that are set in place. It is not good enough.

That leads on to the proposition that a pay review body will resolve all our problems. If one looks at the terms of reference of the armed forces pay review body in England, one sees it is subject to public sector pay policy. The Commission on the Defence Forces and the Public Service Pay Commission last year were subject to public sector pay policy. That does not provide the ability to explore the details that must be addressed in order to mitigate the problems that exist within the organisation. We believe the shade of the big tree is the best option for us. If the umbrella of ICTU is afforded to us, we can go there and make the claim for the allowances or movements that are needed. That is our stance.

There is no evidence to suggest that a pay review body will work out any better. In fact, it potentially will work out worse, because there will be an annualised pay so members may not know what their pay is going to be two or three years hence. If there is an annual report and one is dependent on that report, one has a pay determinant for that year. In addition, it will disenfranchise members. If one is giving members pay awards as a fait accompliwithout consultation with them or consideration of their fears, one will disenfranchise them. We have always voted on every national pay agreement in order to provide members with the opportunity to voice their concerns about pay. Part of the problem is that it will just be a return to the situation that existed before 1990 and before representation - there is the pay, so take it or leave it. What will happen is that members will leave. This is shown in the British armed forces where, in some instances, front-line units were down to 40% strength. Yes, we have difficulties in Ireland at present with it, but we believe they can be rectified through affiliation to ICTU.

With regard to the 1994 contracts, in 2014 we came to the cliff edge of the 21 years for post-1994 personnel.

I was working in the association as a regional liaison officer at that time. The lack of clarity and security that existed for members demoralised the organisation. I cannot emphasise this enough. We need clarity on contracts for post-1994 personnel as soon as possible.

We have made the case that privates and corporals should be allowed to remain in service up until age 50, providing they meet the medical and fitness standards required, and that sergeants should be allowed to remain in service until at least 55, providing they meet those standards. We impressed upon the Minister yesterday that this has to be done as soon as possible. If it is left on the long finger, people believe they are being disrespected and start to look for opportunities outside of the Defence Forces well in advance of that cliff edge. I thank the Deputy for raising it. The matter needs to be raised frequently until it is resolved this year. Our members and their families deserve clarity on it. It impacts on people taking out loans and on the long-term plans they have. If a member does not have security of tenure and does not know where he or she will be, it is impossible to plan a career in the Defence Forces.

On the question on limited help to members before they leave, we believe those who are going to be veterans deserve support before they go out. The Committee of Ministers' publication, Human Rights of Members of the Armed Forces, from 2010 states there is an obligation on the State to provide services and vocational training for members of the armed forces prior to their return to civilian life. It is negligent and reprehensible that people would not be provided with vocational training and supports prior to departure. At the moment, a pre-retirement course is run for all personnel. Once they have 21 years done, they are entitled to apply for this course. It is a good course, run by the barrack personnel support service, which does excellent work. However, it is not comprehensive enough to ensure people are possessed of the skills necessary to transition to civilian life.

We believe training is needed and there should be a short service gratuity for people who do not reach retirement age, especially post-2004 personnel who go before 21 years of service. Pre-2004 personnel have a pension but post-2004 personnel may have a pension deferred until they are 60. It depends on their age. If they are sergeants, they get a pension at 50. There should be a short service gratuity for post-2004 personnel who depart the organisation earlier than the mandatory retirement age to assist them to transition to civilian life. We have a claim at conciliation council for that.

We have alluded to the introduction of a vocational advisor in our submission to the commission on the future of the Defence Forces. We state that a vocational adviser or trainer should be there. I was recently talking to the Deutscher BundeswehrVerband, the representative organisation for the German armed forces. It has a cradle-to-grave vocational officer who assists personnel along their careers. If they do not reach certain benchmarks in the German armed forces, they are brought in by the vocational officer. He tells the person it does not look like he or she will make corporal by 50 and so needs training to transition back to civilian life and to be given the necessary skill set. We believe that would be appropriate in Ireland to help members of the Defence Forces transition to civilian life.

The tech review on cybersecurity is an operational issue. The Minister told us yesterday the review was signed off on by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. We do not know exactly what has been signed off on. We welcome that it has been signed off on but we do not know that it will sort out the problems. There are problems at the higher end in the navy, where the rate is not appropriate: aircraft mechanics and inspectors; air traffic controllers; cybersecurity personnel. There is a need to increase the allowances above tech 6.

On the review by the Department, I commend the work of Robert Mooney, Major General Clancy and officials in the Department for getting it over the line. I thank Kevin Callanan from ICTU for technical support provided to us to get that and Congress to have it signed off on. There is a need and will still be a need by virtue of the constrained terms of reference that committee had to deal with regarding the tech 2 to tech 6 issue. It was not allowed to increase the rates or the number of bands that existed. That was a failing of it. We have to welcome the work of the Minister and everybody in getting this over the line. It will help some cohorts of personnel but to what extent remains to be seen. I hope Deputies Berry, Brady and Clarke follow up on this in the Dáil to make sure it is pushed through.

I will leave the medical assistance scheme with Mr. Quigley, who will speak after I am finished, if that is okay.

Deputy Clarke asked if PDFORRA was experiencing the impact of the housing crisis; we absolutely are. Something happened last week and we had to write to the Department. Allowances have been taken off the certificate of earnings for personnel. Some of the allowances members of the Defence Forces utilise for the purposes of certificate of earnings were removed, which decreases the ability to borrow the maximum amount. A number of members contacted us on that. We are actively engaging with the Department to see if permanent pensionable allowances can be included in the calculation of the certificate of earnings.

PDFORRA has sought the introduction of a rent allowance to ensure members have the earning capacity to be able to borrow. They are priced out of the market at the moment. The issue of the rent caps being lifted is a problem. I did not know about the wage subsidy scheme. I am sure as more members discover it, it will raise its head here. I thank the Deputy for highlighting that. I will be able to ensure we are well versed and try to nip that in the bud.

As to whether €29,500 is reflective of the role, it is not. The hours worked by members are not comparable to the rest of the public sector. The entry rate of guards, prison officers and so on could be the exact same but the hours are completely different. Prison officers would have a shift but I am sure Mr. Keane will explain that it is a different thing being locked up on a ship for four weeks compared to working a shift in a prison. The comparison is not appropriate in all circumstances. One has to consider the exposure to danger. The unpredictability of membership of Defence Forces and the hours impact on the ability of partners of members to get employment with the level of security needed for childcare arrangements.

Another employer is not going to help the Army carry out its role. If a member of the Defence Forces is away on an exercise for three or four days, the children still need to be picked up. That is the problem. The onerous nature and unpredictability of service in the Defence Forces means that a salary of €29,000 is not appropriate. That was what I meant when I mentioned the vagaries of service in my introduction.

What do we need to address that? We need proper pay and allowances, the application of the working time directive and pensions that match up with retirement ages. I said that before this committee in 2019. We are, thankfully, working through some of the issues. Progress on things such as the working time directive is extremely slow but it is being worked on and we are getting there. We are not in the place we want to be as regards pay but the likes of the review of technical pay grades should help. The excellent deal that was done by the public service committee of Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, the Building Momentum agreement, should, provided it is accepted, see the gross pay of members increase by somewhere between €1,200 and €1,500 over the course of the next year. That will happen without the implementation of the review of technical pay arrangements for grades 2 to 6. More needs to be done. Fundamental problems such as the application of the working time directive need to be resolved. We need to provide a rent allowance to ensure that members are able to afford rent because most of our units are in urban areas where rents are through the roof, as the committee knows well and has pointed out previously. That is what needs to be done.

Is July 2021 time enough? As I have said, members will start to go fairly soon if clarity is not brought on the issue of post-1994 contracts. The lack of clarity has a demoralising impact on the organisation that cannot be underestimated. I saw morale hit the floor in 2014. We had already been sucker-punched by the reorganisation of the Defence Forces in 2012, which discommoded many families, but the lack of clarity on post-1994 contracts was a blow to the solar plexus and hurt us as an organisation.

I will turn to the shortfall in Estimates and how that excess should be used. It should be used to pay our members more money and pay them appropriately.