Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour) | Oireachtas source

First, I extend apologies on behalf of my colleagues, Deputies Willie Penrose and Jack Wall, who strongly support my stance and share my concerns in relation to this matter but due to other commitment are unable to be here. I thank the Ceann Comhairle for affording me the opportunity to speak on the very serious issue of compulsory redundancy of enlisted Defence Forces members.

I am aware that negotiations are ongoing between PDFORRA and officials of the conciliation and arbitration section of the Department of Defence. However, time is of the essence in respect of this issue which is causing great distress in my constituency and, in particular, Kilkenny. The compulsory redundancy of enlisted Defence Forces members, which is based on an upper service limit of 21 years, means those recruited into the force in 1994 and post-1994 stand to be discharged on 10 April next year. These troops will be generally in their mid-30s to early 40s and will have high mortgages, loan repayments, child care costs and young families who must be supported. Many of them are already reliant on the State subsidy of family income supplement. Therefore, this is not just an economic matter but a social one. Continuing in employment is vital to them and their families.

Naturally, the renewal of contracts is based on eligibility criteria being met, including fitness and medical standards, with which I agree. As well as meeting the criteria, members must also complete service duty abroad and have reached the rank of sergeant through the completion of the non-commissioned officer course. Owing to the recession and subsequent closure of the barracks in Clonmel, there was an influx of transfers to the barracks in Kilkenny.

This has resulted in a reduction in the number of places available on the NCO course. Most NCO courses have been over-subscribed, which means that, despite having met the other relevant standards, those applying are unable to make the rank of sergeant due to a lack of vacancies. Post-1994 personnel under the rank of sergeant cannot reach their maximum pension, which is 31 years' service, as a consequence. I am not suggesting that such criteria should be deviated from but I am of the view that a degree of flexibility should be shown.

It does not make sense that serving members of the Defence Forces will be discharged after completing 21 years' service, despite having passed all relevant fitness and medical tests. In some instances, these individuals might be qualified technicians. It also does not make sense for pension and redundancy packages to be paid in respect of these people, only for the positions they held to be filled by other members of the Defence Forces. This means that the Department will be paying pensions, redundancy packages and salaries in respect of the positions in question.

Through the training technician scheme, re-enlistment to undergo technician training takes place seven or eight years after someone joins. In addition, 12 years' service may have been delivered by the time a person is fully trained. As a consequence, a fully trained technician will only serve a maximum of nine years. In such circumstances, I fully support PDFORRA's call to have an upper service limit of 50 years for privates and corporals. This would be much more logical and would give rise to much greater dividends. In no other sector of the public service are service periods limited to 21 years. I look forward to the Minister of State's reply.

See this speech in context