Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 25: To ask the Minister for Defence the current strength of the Defence Forces; when he intends to commence recruitment to bring the strength of the Defence Forces back up to 10,000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23359/10]

Joe Carey (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 28: To ask the Minister for Defence when recruitment of new personnel in the Defence Forces will commence; the number of positions that will be offered; if these positions will be in the Army, Navy or Air Corps; if recruitment will extend to the Reserve Defence Force; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23468/10]

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 29: To ask the Minister for Defence when the authority to recruit and promote in the Defence Forces will be removed from the Department of Finance and returned to the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23457/10]

P J Sheehan (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 34: To ask the Minister for Defence the progress that has been made on agreeing an Employment Control Framework for the Defence Forces that will enable some recruiting and promotions to resume; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23525/10]

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 25, 28, 29 and 34 together.

Within the available resources, the Government is committed to maintaining the strength of the PDF, at a level of 10,000 all ranks, for which Government approval has been secured in the context of budget 2010. This reflects the reductions in personnel recommended in the report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes. I have outlined the current strength, but targeted recruitment will be carried out in 2010 to maintain the operational capability of the Defence Forces. We have approved the recruitment of 40 people to the Naval Service and further recruitment will occur.

In light of the reduced budgetary provision available for 2009, all recruitment to the RDF was suspended. Following a subsequent review and examination of RDF personnel numbers and budgets for 2009, limited recruitment to fill vacancies arising due to existing reserve members resigning or being discharged in the normal manner resumed. The numbers recruited will depend on the numbers leaving. This limited recruitment is continuing subject to the overall strength level that existed at 1 January 2009 not being exceeded. This recruitment is being monitored and kept under review in the light of the uptake of paid training within the RDF and the future budgetary considerations. I will take account of the points made by Deputies in today's debate.

I have outlined the review that is under way on structures and posts in the PDF. Following this, discussions will start with the Department of Finance on the employment control framework, which we have discussed.

Once the employment control framework has been agreed with the Department of Finance, sanction for promotion will be delegated to the Department of Defence with ongoing control monitoring by the former on a monthly basis to ensure compliance. With the support of the military authorities and within the resources available, I intend to retain the capacity of the organisation to operate effectively.

Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The shortfall in the PDF numbers 144 people. While 40 people are being recruited into the Naval Service, the numbers are not large. It is striking that, although the McCarthy target of reducing the number in the PDF to 10,000 from 10,500 was to be achieved in a two to three-year period, it was achieved before the end of last year.

Given the fact that many young people would like to be recruited into the Defence Forces, is there a case to be made for reverting to the Department of Finance to seek a more graduated approach to reducing the numbers? If an additional 200 people were recruited in 2010, further recruitment could occur and the target set by McCarthy could still be reached.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There may well be a case for approaching the Department of Finance on foot of Deputy O'Shea's general point, but I would be more comfortable doing so in the context of arguing that the operational capability of the Defence Forces was being negatively impacted by certain numbers instead of by adhering to a rounded figure like 10,000, which seems a somewhat suspicious target. Instead of referring to a particular number, it would be better for the operational capability of the Army, navy and air force were we to examine what deficiencies or requirements there might be in numbers at all ranks, particularly at recruitment stage, and made a case on foot of that.

Jimmy Deenihan (Kerry North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I gather from the Minister's comments that there is no requirement for 10,000 people. Instead, it is a question of how efficient the numbers are. Will the Minister be specific and tell us whether the 10,000 figure is the accepted strength, the maximum or the minimum? Confirming which is important.

I welcome the recruitment to the navy, but will the Minister make use of the Naval Service Reserve and focus on recruitment to it? There seems to be a specific problem with the Naval Service as regards personnel. Will he respond to these two questions?

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Historically, new recruits to the navy in particular have tended to come from the reserve. It is how many recruits enter the PDF. It is hardly surprising and will be likely to feature. I have not examined the recruitment numbers over the years. I understand there is a trend for younger members of the reserve to apply to be permanent members when the opportunity arises. That is to be welcomed.

I think it is dangerous to engage in a debate on whether the figure of 10,000 is a ceiling or a floor, as this Department has a mission to fulfil. I would be far more comfortable presenting the numbers and the capabilities, which include equipment and other considerations. We have to face the fact that this must be done within financial parameters that are very difficult at the moment. We are on far stronger ground when we say that this is what the State expects of its armed forces and this is what we need in order to do it. We are on weak ground when we cling to a magical and somewhat artificial number. Contrary to what Deputy Deenihan may be thinking, it may well transpire that the number might not be a magical 10,000, but it could well be higher rather than lower.

Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I take the Minister's point that 10,000 is an arbitrary figure and the real issue is that the Defence Forces are a credible organisation. Is he satisfied that the current strength of the Permanent Defence Force means he has a credible organisation in all its aspects?

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have no doubt at all about that. Having spoken to the military authorities, I am satisfied that we have extremely credible Defence Forces. The credibility of the forces with our people was greatly enhanced last winter during the flood crisis and the snow and ice crisis. We often tend to overlook the value of their contribution and in some areas, there is a tendency to denigrate that contribution, something we should carefully guard against.