Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this matter for discussion as it is extremely important for serving members of the Permanent Defence Force. I refer to the upper service limits that have applied since 1 January 1994 and pertain to enlisted personnel of the Permanent Defence Force. I understand the Permanent Defence Force Other Ranks Representative Association, PDFORRA, at its recent conference, called for and initiated a claim for a review of these limits.

With effect from January, the Department of Defence unilaterally introduced new terms and conditions in respect of those enlisted in the Permanent Defence Force. The new measures were intended to address the high age profile and non-activity levels of serving personnel identified in reviews of the Permanent Defence Force in the early 1990s. The main provisions of the new measures were as follows: new entrants were engaged for a five-year period, with a small number - I understand it was between 10% and 15% - being given an opportunity to extend service beyond this term; it was planned that maximum service limits of 12 and 21 years would apply to corporals and sergeants, respectively, with senior non-commissioned officers permitted to remain in service until 50 years of age; new entrants would have higher health and fitness standards and those who wished to remain in service for up to 21 years would be required to meet grade 1 standard, with grade 2 standard necessary thereafter. In accordance with the Gleeson commission recommendation, new entrants would not receive pre-discharge leave, extension of service leave or gratuity payments. PDFORRA opposed the shorter contracts and campaigned vigorously against them in an effort to have the careers on offer to its members extended to up to 31 years. The higher fitness and medical standards were accepted by PDFORRA, as were the changes to pre-discharge leave, extension of service leave and extension of service gratuity payments.

Negotiations took place on several occasions regarding the contracts for the period after 1 January 1994. Following a ballot of the relevant members, an agreement was reached in 2006, the main provisions of which were as follows: privates and corporals could serve for up to 21 years and sergeants until the age of 50, with senior NCOs able to serve until the age of 65 years; and to reach the service limits, privates, corporals, sergeants and senior non-commissioned officers must have fulfilled the eligibility criteria - in other words, they must have undertaken specific courses, obtained a record of good conduct, obtained recommendations and achieved high fitness and medical standards.

I have recited the terms of the agreement to provide a background. The agreement has been a great success and has resulted in an increase in the effectiveness of personnel to high levels. A recent report confirms that the Permanent Defence Force has the lowest level of sick leave in the public service. In 2012, PDFORRA decided to seek a review of the service limit of 21 years for the ranks of private and corporal. It did so for a number of reasons. The new higher fitness and medical standards have, as I stated, been a complete success and effectiveness levels are very high. PDFORRA expected the Department to put in place measures to support and prepare personnel for discharge from the Permanent Defence Force after 21 years' service. This would involve assistance with the preparation of curricula vitae, interview and job search skills, training, etc. I understand no such support measures were provided. Given the increase in the number of people who are unemployed, it is much more difficult to secure employment.

The Croke Park agreement provides for the standardisation of terms and conditions. Service periods for other categories of public service member have not been limited to 21 years, as is the case for members of the Permanent Defence Force, even where they are able to perform their duties to a high standard. I ask that the Minister undertake a review of this restriction to provide upper service limits for privates and corporals of 50 years of age, as applies to those of sergeant rank, subject to a requirement that they continue to meet the eligibility criteria, including high fitness and medical standards.

The Minister should introduce a number of measures to help those who have entered the Permanent Defence Force since 1 January 1994. These include assistance with CV preparation, interview skills, training and job search, the payment of a service gratuity to those who have been compulsorily discharged and the payment of outstanding claims for a small additional pension gratuity. I understand that during the negotiations on the Haddington Road agreement, PDFORRA sought the introduction of an upward service limit of 50 years of age for privates and corporals as a cost-saving measure for the Government in the defence sector. I am sure the Minister would be pleased to hear any proposals for cost savings.

The additional pension costs arising from the discharge and subsequent replacement of 100 privates and corporals who entered the Permanent Defence Force after 1 January 1994 will be of the order of €1.3 million per annum. If 100 privates and corporals are compulsorily discharged in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017, respectively, the cumulative additional pension costs will be in the order of €7.8 million. This is a no-brainer, as it were. At the PDFORRA annual delegate conference in 2013, the Minister confirmed that further discussion would take place on the issue. From a management perspective, the manpower and operational needs of the Defence Forces must be a primary consideration. Surely increasing the upper age limit for service, as requested, would not detract from the primary consideration outlined by the Minister. On the contrary, I suggest it would tie in neatly with his views on the matter.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. I will begin by explaining the background to the upper service limits which apply to personnel who enlisted in the Permanent Defence Force after 1 January 1994. In 1990 the Gleeson commission commented on the unsatisfactory age and fitness profile of the Permanent Defence Force. Thereafter, an in-depth study of the Defence Forces by Price Waterhouse Consultants in 1994, which had been engaged by the efficiency audit group, expressed severe criticism of the age profile of the Defence Forces. Following this review, the efficiency audit group report was accepted by the Government in 1995. The findings of the report reflected the serious concerns the military authorities had held for a number of years about the age profile of the Defence Forces. The present terms of enlistment for general service recruits arose as a result of the issues raised in the report.

One of the key areas identified for urgent action by the efficiency audit group was the development of a manpower policy with an emphasis on lowering the age profile of Permanent Defence Force personnel. In an effort to alleviate the situation, the Government had already decided in 1993, in consultation with the representative association, to enlist personnel on a five-year contract basis.

It is important to bear in mind that due to the robust nature of many military operations and their attendant physical training regimes, personnel are exposed to a unique range of challenging environments at home and overseas. Working in the Defence Forces is a demanding career and physical fitness is a basic requirement of military life. Military life places unique physical and psychological demands on individuals and personnel are exposed to a unique range of challenging environments. Personnel need to be physically and mentally prepared to meet the challenges of all military operations and to be in a position to undertake their duties on deployment overseas. In these circumstances it is vital that the age and health profile of personnel be such as to ensure that operational capability and effectiveness are not compromised. As such, in order to maintain the age profile of the Defence Forces to carry out the operational tasks required by Government, it is necessary to have a constant input of recruits into the Defence Forces. The maximum age for enlisted personnel provides the mechanism through which a satisfactory age profile can be achieved.

In 1997, agreement was reached with the Permanent Defence Force Other Ranks Representative Association on a new manpower policy for the Defence Forces. This policy, applying to personnel enlisted after 1 January 1994, provided that service for private soldiers would initially be on a five-year contract basis with a reserve commitment of seven years. This was followed by the option to extend service to a maximum of 12 years, subject to meeting standards of medical and physical fitness and conduct. Longer periods of service were envisaged for non-commissioned officers.

In 2004, the representative association for enlisted personnel submitted a claim under the conciliation and arbitration scheme for a further review of the terms of service applying to personnel enlisting in the Permanent Defence Force after 1 January 1994. A set of criteria was agreed with the representative association to provide longer careers for these personnel, while continuing to address the Government's objective of having an appropriate age profile to meet the challenges of a modern Defence Forces.

The criteria required is that any person re-engaging after 12 years service must be able to continue to operate at his or her current level, both at home and overseas, on an ongoing basis. Re-engagement is subject to the individual soldier meeting specified criteria in regard to physical fitness, medical category, successful completion of military courses of instruction, service overseas and conduct ratings.

The maximum service period for these personnel is as follows - enlisted personnel, up to and including the rank of corporal and equivalent Naval Service rank, may not serve beyond 21 years; enlisted personnel, in the rank of sergeant and equivalent Naval Service rank, may be permitted to continue in service up to the age of 50 years; and enlisted personnel in all higher ranks may serve to the age of 56 years.

This new policy represented a substantial improvement for personnel who would otherwise have had to leave after 12 years service, while continuing to address the issue of age profile and fitness levels in the Defence Forces.

With the approach of 2015, the first effects of the agreement, whereby privates and corporals may not serve beyond 21 years, will be felt by Permanent Defence Force members in those ranks. A claim has been received from the representative association for a further review of this matter. In accordance with normal procedures, the association's claim is being dealt with under the conciliation and arbitration scheme for members of the Permanent Defence Force. The Deputy will appreciate that as deliberations under the scheme are confidential to the parties involved, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on the matter at this time other than to emphasise that in dealing with this issue the manpower and operational needs of the Defence Forces must be the primary consideration.

Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I and the representative association accept the point that extending the age limit for service depends upon personnel satisfying the health and fitness criteria. That is a sine qua non. Those are exacting standards and everybody accepts that.

In this era of cost-effectiveness and value for money, I will illustrate to the Minister of State how important is the proposal I have made in the following example. A number of privates and corporals who will be compulsorily discharged after 21 years are technicians who have undergone a four-year technician scheme. Typically, such individuals may have completed ten years' service before becoming fully trained in their trade or occupation. I estimate that the four-year training period costs €200,000 and the State may get only a further 11 years' service from them as fully-trained technicians before they are discharged. By extending the period, the State would get another nine or ten years' service from them. It would increase the level of efficiency.

There are a number of issues I want to raise. What will be the cost to the Exchequer in additional pension and gratuity following the compulsory discharge of 1994 entrants after 21 years? I have given the Minister of State an idea of it. What would be the additional cost to the Exchequer to train and replace the general service personnel being compulsorily discharged after 21 years? Those are issues. The Minister of State will not have the answers to them today and I do not expect them, but I raise them in the context of the conciliation and arbitration procedure. Those are matters the Minister's side should be raising. I am making the case for the Minister as well as the personnel concerned. I have close contacts with the Army. I am one of the few who gave up a senior position because I have such a strong belief and association with the personnel in the Army, especially given how important the barracks was to Mullingar.

What will be the additional cost to the Exchequer to train and replace the technician-class personnel being compulsorily discharged after 21 years? What arrangement is being put in place to deliver on the commitments given in 1994 to train and upskill those personnel being compulsorily discharged? If the personnel being compulsorily discharged after 21 years are legally entitled to redundancy payments, what is the position there? Assuming the personnel who are being compulsorily discharged after 21 years continue to meet health, fitness and efficiency standards laid down for their ranks, why let them go? Does the Minister of State believe that those being compulsorily discharged after 21 years will end up being unemployed and will incur an additional cost to the Exchequer through jobseeker's benefit or whatever?

It is rarely I come in with such a strong case. This case is so strong that the Department should be going before the conciliation and arbitration body hoping that the adjudicator makes the right decision. It would be good for the Army and the Department of Defence and for the personnel involved. It would save money. From sitting around the Cabinet table along with the Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe, for a while, I am aware that such was the key, while still ensuring that we have the necessary personnel with the appropriate standards to meet the demanding obligations that the Minister of State correctly outlined in the reply.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Penrose for his further questioning. He raised some points and I will ask the Department to come back to him on them.

I understand from where he is coming on the cost-effectiveness issue. I have spoken to the association as well, specifically on this issue. Deputy Penrose feels strongly on the issue, as he does on all facets of the Defence Forces.

I understand from the Department and from the Minister, Deputy Shatter's office, there are talks at an advanced stage. It would be unfair of us to discuss those advanced deliberations here.

Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept that.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I assure Deputy Penrose that, in accordance with the procedures of the association and the Department, the matter is being dealt with under the conciliation and arbitration scheme. I would hope that we can find some common ground here that will meet the needs of both Deputy Penrose and the association.

In fairness, the Minister, Deputy Shatter, has listened to the concerns of the associations since his appointment, as I have done. They might not have always agreed on them, but the Minister is committed to the Defence Forces. This is a case to which he will give due consideration.