Mr. Eugene Gargan:

Deputy Clarke also asked about overseas service for reservists and our view as to how that might be accomplished or what its purpose might be. I will start by stating that in the first instance, we had proposed overseas service. The intention was not to displace any of our comrades in the Permanent Defence Force, PDF, from their service because we understand overseas service is part of the requirements of their service. We have often noted commentary from members of the PDF who return from overseas service having served with reservists from other European nations. They often remark on how seamlessly it works and the benefits of having somebody with an exposure to the military way of life and a complementary civilian outlook.

We would see that, initially at least, there are specialist roles which need to be filled. That is a short-term solution to other, broader problems with the Defence Forces overall. There are opportunities to utilise specialists in the cybersecurity and medical areas. There are also, presumably, opportunities in logistics when there are shortcomings or challenges around providing the manpower from the Permanent Defence Forces. Those opportunities also come with challenges. For a reservist to serve overseas and make that commitment, not only is it costly in terms of their family commitments but there are also risks to their jobs. It is not just a matter of holding an appointment open for somebody when he or she leaves his or her civilian job, but there are also the opportunities on which he or she might miss out.

We can come to the shape of the legislation and how it ought to be thought of as we try to look after the interests of reserves. We are only talking about a small number of people.

I suggest that, initially, there could be specialist roles. There is, however, another aspect to this. When we made the original proposal for overseas service for reservists, my thoughts on that were that if we could get every part of the mechanism for training reservists working to produce people to the standard required to serve overseas along with the PDF, whose members have a whole military career behind them, then that in itself would mean that all the processes, procedures and training would have had to have gone right for at least some of our number. To be practical about that, someone going overseas, even for a short-term engagement, would have to have all their equipment, be trained, be to a medical standard and a fitness standard and have all the technical courses complete. For all that to happen, however, the whole pyramid of support services has to be in place and work seamlessly, and that is important to consider. That was the objective. It was not necessarily so much about putting Reserve boots on the ground overseas. It was about what that would represent. It would represent the fact that the mechanism from recruitment all the way through for all their training would be working well. That is our view on the role overseas.

I will move on to Senator O'Reilly. I take his point about the Civil Defence in Cavan. I am a Cavan man and know many former colleagues who have moved into the Civil Defence and they do an excellent job, but there is a difference between the Reserve Defence Force and the Civil Defence. We are trained in military matters and in the use of lethal force. We are bound by military law. The Civil Defence does not have those sorts of constraints and its service is very different. I would find it challenging to see how both could be integrated. There are some complementary overlaps on which we could work together more closely, perhaps, such as exercises or something of that nature, but trying to join the two of them up would, I think, be a challenge.

In response to the question about part-time worker status and the legislation, again, there are challenges with legislation on employment protection. I think that in the area of employment equality some work has already been done. The protection of ordinary workers was a long time coming over the years. I am minded that I am probably of an age that I can recall when a long time ago there was a significant debate on the protection of employment for women on maternity leave. That was considered by some to be an insurmountable challenge and one which would be very costly to private industry and the State, yet it was rightly sorted out to whatever extent one might think, and maybe it could be enhanced, but these are challenges which can be fixed.

As for amendments to existing legislation, we would be cautious in making recommendations. We do not want to suggest seismic changes to legislation because these matters should be approached cautiously. I would favour making small changes, at least initially, rather than something too big.

It should be borne in mind there has to be proper engagement with other stakeholders as well. It is not just us but it is also the Department of Defence, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and employers' representatives. There a lot of voices to be heard as to how this will work. Of course, we would like to be at the centre of that to guide how it would go through.

Mr. Richardson made a point in his opening address about our status. The fact that we are classed as volunteers has long been a concern for us. There are two types of volunteers. There is the type in the popular imagination, that is, people who do things for nothing. My concern about that is that if you do something for nothing, it is seen as being worthless, and we are not worthless. We actually provide an enormous pool of resources to the State freely and of our own time. Some of what we do is paid for, but we need to recognise that. In doing so, I think we will go part of the way to addressing issues with recruitment and retention.

Senator O'Reilly asked about funding. The exercise of developing a budget appropriate to what it is the Reserve does would have to encompass the outputs the committee would seek to have us deliver. That is important as well. I would not suggest a figure off the top of my head. I am concerned about the fact that our budget, as Mr. Richardson mentioned, represents, I think, 0.26% of the overall Vote. I think someone remarked that more is spent on cleaning of military installations than on the Reserve. By any measure, that order of magnitude is wrong, we think. However, it brings into consideration what our strategic purpose should be. I think there is an awful lot of potential that has not been recognised in recent years. The appropriate way to operate would be to realise what the potential is, set meaningful objectives and then construct a budget accordingly.

The final question Senator O'Reilly asked was about part-time work and the ethos of volunteerism. I will pass over to our vice president, Ms McCarthy, to take that question.