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

The Deputy might let me answer the question. It has not withdrawn its case as of yet anyway. I have spoken to it directly about that. I have a very good relationship with PDFORRA. If we are going to progress this issue, however, I am not going to do it under threat of legal action. I think that is well understood. There needs to be some good faith here. I can understand the reason the legal action came about and I respect that. However, we are now in the space of having a very short period before the public sector pay rounds start. If we are going to make progress on this, it would be helpful if there was not a legal action still pending.

In terms of allowances, Deputy Brady raised the issue of a specialist instructor allowance. That is a specific issue the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers, RACO, raises all the time with me. I can understand the argument it makes. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform's view on this is very clear. There was a negotiated buy-out, essentially, of that specialist instructor allowance under a previous pay round discussion and negotiation. RACO does not accept that; we are happy to work with it to try to progress this issue. I met with RACO last week and we spoke about this issue. I want to be helpful if I can. We also need to be realistic, however, in terms of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform's view on this issue. It is something on which we can hopefully find a way forward as part of a new round of discussions or negotiations around public sector pay, or in advance of that if it is possible to do so. I will continue to speak to RACO with regard to this, however.

Given the pressure on training and need for instructors in terms of the level of recruitment we will need to facilitate and encourage in the years ahead, I can certainly see why there would be a strong argument around ensuring that we can incentivise specialist instructors to move into that space.

In terms of the sea service commitment scheme, as far as I know, 103 people are in that scheme now. We are looking at how we can broaden that. It took a year to negotiate this scheme and get it agreed. It was not easy because a public sector pay round was under discussion. What we could not do in the Naval Service, essentially, was increase pay in a straightforward pay increase fashion. That would have had a knock-on impact in terms of pay negotiations in other sectors and so on.

That is why this is quite targeted for people who have been in the Naval Service for three years and who are willing to commit to go to sea for a number of years. They get quite a significant financial recognition of that commitment in the sea service commitment scheme. Let me give members the updated figures. The new service commitment scheme was introduced in January 2021 for officers and enlisted personnel in the Naval Service who satisfied the following conditions: they must have a minimum of three years' service at ensign-able seaman grade and give an undertaking to serve for an aggregate of 24 months at sea, and a minimum number of 240 patrol days, over a maximum 48-month reference period. There is a total payment of €10,000 for this commitment and that is to be paid in stages. Stage payments of €2,500 are made following each six-month period of seagoing rotation on confirmation that the individual delivers the required minimum 60 patrol days per six-month period.

To date, the military authorities have advised that 103 applicants for the seagoing service commitment scheme have been approved. Payments for the first tranche of this scheme have been processed for a total of 70 personnel to date. The scheme remains open for further applicants as they commence their seagoing rotation. Would we like a broader scheme than that? Yes, I think so.

We have particular recruitment and retention issues in the Naval Service. That is not just a pay issue, by the way. It is a lifestyle issue as well, which is why one of the recommendations in the commission report is that we would look at double crewing for ships so that people would not have to spend as long at sea, which many find difficult in terms of family life and so on, particularly when there are alternatives in the workforce, the private sector and other opportunities in the public sector. We must, therefore, make it more attractive to be in the Naval Service and go to sea. We have to reward that financially but we also have to make sure the lifestyle issues and retention issues around HR management and so on for people in the Defence Forces are prioritised. It is a combination of all those things.

That is why there are clear recommendations on this in the commission's report. Its recommendation is that we provide immediate access to the seagoing service commitment scheme to direct entry personnel into the Naval Service, replace the existing seagoing allowances with less complex seagoing duty measures and make a few other changes that would apply to everybody. Those are issues we have to consider and talk to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform about, as it ultimately has to sign off on any change to or broadening of criteria.

A number of Deputies raised concerns about the Reserve Defence Force. I have spoken to reservists who up until a few months ago were very downbeat about the future. I have heard people say that this service is being allowed to die on its feet. I can promise that it will not be allowed to do that. We are committed to the future of the Reserve, to broadening the role of reservists and to bringing in professional expertise around recruitment and what is needed to excite people about opportunities in the Reserve. That is a clear recommendation of the commission's report. In fact, there is a whole chapter on it. We need to set about addressing this issue. The report also recommends a reserve for the Air Corps. We would then have reserves in the Army, the Naval Service and the Air Corps so there would be a presence in Haulbowline, Baldonnel and the Curragh.

I do not want to sugarcoat the problems. The numbers are way too low and have been falling in recent years. They are not falling dramatically but they are steadily falling from a low base and that is not good. It is not good for morale, retention or recruitment. It is possible to dramatically increase the numbers coming into the Reserve with the right approach. Deputy Berry said we should be more proactive and should give preferential treatment to people who choose to leave the Defence Forces and allow them the option of staying connected to the Defence Forces by being part of the Reserve. That is already happening in some cases but we could be more proactive on that. It is one of a series of things we need to do to invest in the Reserve. My conversations with the Reserve Defence Force Representative Association, RDFRA, in the last number of months have been very positive and constructive. We need to work in partnership with it on this issue.

Deputy Stanton asked about the allowances and the fact that the Estimate is lower than the outturn from last year. The Estimate is for €48 million. In 2020 there was an outturn of just under €46.5 million and there was an outturn last year of nearly €52 million. The reason the allowances for last year are so much higher is that there were a lot of extra Covid duties and extra allowances linked to overtime and so on. Last year was an extraordinary year for the Defence Forces due to the extra duties and so on. That is the explanation for that. If the Estimate is proven wrong this year or we have a new crisis that requires significant extra Defence Forces input, we will revise that figure, but hopefully we have had enough of that. We will have to wait and see.

Deputy Lawless has gone but he raised the issue of pay. Each year, our Estimate is calculated on the basis of the establishment number and not on the number of people in the Defence Forces. We are the only Department, of which I am aware, that has a deal with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform on this. Every year we get enough pay for a full complement of the Defence Forces and if that pay is not spent, which it will not be if we are 1,000 people short, we can then transfer that unspent money into other expenditure across the Defence Forces. Normally that goes into capital expenditure but not always. There may be other issues as well. That has been the practice for the last number of years. I have made it very clear to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform that when the number gets back up to the establishment of 9,500, we will need a corresponding increase in the overall budget. At the moment we are benefiting from that unspent pay money in other areas and it is in many ways supplementing expenditure in those areas that would not be available if we got back up to 9,500. However, it will take us some time to get there. I have flagged that with regard to future budgets.

Deputy Berry had a number of questions and comments. He noted that 19% of Defence Forces members have served overseas. As the Deputy will know, serving overseas is a central part of being a member of the Irish Defence Forces. People are trained and equipped for that and plan for it. It is a huge part of what we do, unlike in many other countries where the priority is often core defence of a state, either along a border or dealing with threats, perceived threats and so on. Our structures are built around peacekeeping service overseas and peace interventions. In the future, some of those interventions will become more complex. We are going to look at doing more chapter VII missions, which will require more complex training, more advanced equipment and better armour. That has a price tag but that is where we need to be.

I take the point that one in five members of the Defence Forces being overseas for six months of the year, or a decent portion of the year, puts pressures on the system. There is a lot of talk about the Naval Service. There was also a lot of talk about problems in the Air Corps because pilots were being lost to the private sector and we had to introduce schemes to get them back. However, there is not enough talk about the pressure on the Army, particularly linked to service overseas. It is short of numbers too. We need to make sure our service overseas is tailored to the resources we have available to us. For example, we have some decisions to make in the months ahead because French forces are pulling out of Mali. France has a huge contingent there. Whether that changes the risk profile of that training mission and the UN mission is a matter we are assessing carefully at the moment. We got a renewed mandate for a continuation of that training mission for another 12 months from Cabinet just in the last few days. We will continue to assess that through the summer as France moves out of a country that has, unfortunately, become more volatile and less democratic. We will take all that into account.

The memorandum of understanding on defence with the UK was signed a number of years ago with the UK's Secretary of State for Defence. It was predominantly about procurement and training. Nothing about defence policy was part of that. It was more a practical memorandum of understanding for sharing knowledge, procurement systems and so on. I do not know whether I can share it but I will take a look at it.

Some of the memos are confidential and some are not. If it is not confidential, I will have no issue with sharing it.

Regarding staff numbers in the Department versus the Defence Forces, it is important to say that, because we have had pressures in the Defence Forces in terms of recruitment, retention and being under strength, it does not mean that there should be a corresponding loss of numbers in the Department of Defence. One is not contingent on the other. We need a Department that is well resourced and is doing the job that is asked of it, and that is what the Department of Defence is doing. We have a significant issue to deal with in terms of recruitment and retention in the Defence Forces and we need a well-resourced Department to help us do that. I do not believe that those comparisons are comparing like with like and that, if the Defence Forces are under pressure, it is all of a sudden not balanced if the Department is not under pressure as well. I know the Deputy is not suggesting that, but there has not been a significant increase in staffing numbers in the Department. We could well make a strong case for increased numbers in our Department, given the work that will be involved in bringing about transformational change and growth in the defence sector on the back of the commission's report. I take the Deputy's point, but the two organisations have different roles to play.

A number of personnel in the Department work in specialist areas of the Defence Forces. Even without the commission's report, we should not underestimate the civil-military partnership that is necessary to deliver the change that is needed in the Defence Forces, be that cultural change and modernisation or our work on gender issues linked to that culture. We have a very busy Department and it is not going to get less busy any time soon.

This brings me on to the matter of the number of women in the Defence Forces. When we put the White Paper together in 2015, we set a target of, if I remember correctly, approximately 12%. Currently, we are at 7%, or essentially half of where we need to be. I will provide the actual numbers on female strength. In 2016, the figure was 2.6%, although the inducted figure was 7.8%. In 2017, the figure was 6.5%. In 2018, it was 6.7%. In 2019, it was 6.9%. In 2020, it was 7%. There has been a gradual, but slow, increase year after year. Of those we are inducting into the Defence Forces, between 7% and 8% are women. According to the challenge that has been put to us by the commission, that figure needs to be more than 30%, so one third of people entering the Defence Forces should be women. There are few, if any, countries in the world that are achieving those numbers, but we have to set ourselves a target. It will take us time to get into the double figures and move on from there, but the Defence Forces will be made a more attractive career option for women through a combination of better HR management; expertise from outside the Defence Forces contributing to HR management and transformation in the Defence Forces, which was a recommended structural change as part of a new defence headquarters with a chief of defence, or CHOD, and a non-military HR head of transformation reporting into that office at a senior level; and multiple recommendations on bringing about cultural change, introducing much more family-friendly practices within the Defence Forces and ensuring that there is more transparency and clarity around promotion opportunities and a complete zero-tolerance approach towards discrimination and bullying, whether it is based on gender or other factors. Making it a more attractive career option for women is badly needed because the contribution they can make to the Defence Forces more broadly will be considerable if we can change those numbers. This applies across the service, including the Reserve.

The report does not pull its punches in terms of the gender issues in the Defence Forces. It is my intention, and that of my Secretary General, the Chief of Staff and our teams, to deliver significant change in this regard. The role that the Women of Honour and others have played in exposing the unacceptable nature of the treatment and experience of some women in the Defence Forces will bring about significant change. I am determined that that will be the case.