Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I do not know whether the Chairman wants me to comment on the ICTU stuff as part of Vote 35 or not. All I am saying is we are working on implementation plans and consideration of all the recommendations in the commission report. There is a recommendation that the Permanent Defence Force representative associations should be facilitated if they wish to pursue associate membership of ICTU. It is important to understand what associate membership, as opposed to affiliation, is. We are speaking to members of the commission who made their recommendation. We are also speaking to the representative organisations on how we will proceed on that and, obviously, to the Department as well. We will be bringing recommendations forward.

There is an element of time pressure on this because the new round of public sector pay talks will be probably getting under way in May. I am conscious that that is a time pressure we need to take note of on this issue, particularly given the interests of PDFORRA but also the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers, RACO, in regard to the relationship they will or will not have with ICTU in the context of those discussions. As I have always said, I have an open mind on this.

By the way, we have also started an initial discussion with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, as is agreed to in the programme for Government, on a separate pay body for defence and how the two issues of potential associate membership of ICTU and having a separate pay consideration body could be married together. It is not straightforward because they are two very different approaches to how you assess and manage pay, and potentially consideration around allowances as well, in the Defence Forces. There is work already very much under way on both of those issues.

In terms of the working time directive, that is more straightforward. We have committed to implementation of the working time directive. That requires legislation but it also requires a recognition that the work of the Defence Forces at times can be different from other work fields and, therefore, within the confines of the working time directive there also needs to be recognition of military service as well in certain circumstances. It is important to say that the working time directive is already a guideline in many ways in terms of the ask of many in the Defence Forces but there is more work to conclude there and to finalise legislation on. By the way, that legislation needs to come from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment as opposed to the Department of Defence, as far as I know.

On the post-1994 contracts issue, in December last agreement was secured with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform for an increase in service limits for privates and corporals recruited to the Permanent Defence Force since 1 January 1994. This will allow such personnel to remain in service up to 50 years of age subject to meeting certain criteria, including medical and fitness standards. Agreement was also secured which will allow for sergeants recruited since 1 January 1994 to continue to serve beyond 50 years of age. Details on the proposal for sergeants will be finalised following further discussions with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. There will also be a discussion with PDFORRA, the representative association for enlisted personnel. These revised arrangements follow a review of barriers of extended participation in the Permanent Defence Force as recommended by the Public Service Pay Commission in the report of recruitment and retention in the Permanent Defence Force. Other recommendations in the review relating to commissioned officers, senior non-commissioned officers and personnel in certain technical appointments will be considered in the forum of an interdepartmental working group which the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has established to consider mandatory retirement ages for public service groups which have fast-accrual pension arrangements, as many in the Defence Forces do.

On Deputy Berry's comments, it is important to say that we have significantly more people who are ex-Defence Forces than currently in the Defence Forces. That is not unusual in many countries because people tend - sometimes they are required - to retire earlier than those in many other careers or else they choose to retire. Not everybody chooses to spend all of their working life in the Defence Forces. The Deputy is a good example of that but many other people are too.

I take the point Deputy Berry made in terms of trying to keep people in the Defence Forces for longer, holding on to that skill set and that experience, particularly in the context of what we must try to do now in terms of responding to the challenges the commission has put forward for us. Not only do we have to get an extra 1,000 people into the Defence Forces to get us to the establishment of 9,500 that we should be at, but we must find a way, if we follow the recommendations and if I get Government agreement on that, to get an extra 2,000 people into the Defence Forces plus a significant increase in the number of people in the Reserve as well. Recruitment, training and intake need to be a substantial factor in building up the numbers in the next few years as well as retention because, of course, turnover is not good if you are having a significant net increase each year given the level of experience that will be available to the Defence Forces, often in challenging environments.

I am conscious of the net increases we will have to deliver each year. While we have not yet settled on an exact figure and how we will deliver it, if we are to get to the second level of ambition in the commission's report, that will mean we will have to deliver an additional 2,000 people in the Defence Forces, which effectively means an additional 3,000, given we are 1,000 behind where we should be. Doing that in the space of five or six years or whatever period is agreed will require very significant net increases in the number of Defence Forces personnel each year, and that will put considerable pressure on the system. Structural change, external HR management expertise and so on have been recommended to help us deliver those kinds of numbers, as well as a potentially increased civilianisation of some of the roles within the Defence Forces. There are many challenges there, but the general point the Deputy made about the importance of retention is central to how successful we will be in delivering on the recommendations and the numbers that have been set out for us.

In response to Deputy Lawless on Defence Forces pensions, it is not always the case that pensions in a certain sector are taken in an entirely separate Vote, although it is the case here because the number is so significant. The issues are relatively straightforward and it is about ensuring we have enough money each year, which I am glad we have had in recent years. There was a practice for a number of years whereby there needed to be a Revised Estimate each year to meet the Army pensions bill, but that has not been the case in recent years. The team has really got it right in terms of Estimates and recommendations to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, and I expect we will be well covered this year with the additional €8 million.