Colm Keaveney (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

6. To ask the Minister for Defence if he will review the 21-year rule for Defence Forces personnel enlisted after 1994; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34557/14]

Colm Keaveney (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The object of the question is to establish whether the Minister intends to review the 21-year rule for Defence Forces personnel. The Minister will be aware that many women and men are prematurely being discharged from the Army after 21 years' service. Generally, the position is that personnel in their 30s, who have large mortgages, child care costs and established family costs, are being prematurely discharged from the service. Would the Minister share with us his views on how he will address this situation?

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The unsatisfactory age and fitness profile of the Permanent Defence Force was an issue of serious concern during the 1990s and was the subject of severe criticism in a series of external reports, mainly those by Price Waterhouse Consulting and the Efficiency Audit Group. One of the key areas identified for urgent action by the EAG was the development of a manpower policy with an emphasis on lowering the age profile of PDF personnel. The EAG report was accepted by Government in 1995.

In an effort to alleviate the situation, the Government had already decided in 1993 to enlist personnel on a five-year contract basis, following consultation with Permanent Defence Force Other Ranks Representative Association, PDFORRA. In 1997 agreement was reached with PDFORRA on a new manpower policy for the Defence Forces.

This policy applied to personnel enlisted after 1 January 1994 and provided that service for private soldiers would initially be for five years, with the option of extension 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 PDFORRA submitted a claim under the conciliation and arbitration scheme for a further review of the terms of service applying to personnel enlisting in the Defence Forces after 1 January 1994. A set of criteria was agreed with PDFORRA to provide longer careers for those who enlisted post 1 January 1994 while continuing to address the Government’s objective of having an appropriate age profile to meet the challenges of a modern defence force.

The criteria require 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 specific criteria in regard to physical fitness, medical category, successful completion of military courses of instruction and service overseas.

PDFORRA has tried to have the 21-year rule, which came from the 12-year rule, which came from the previous five-year rule, extended again because people who joined the Defence Forces in 1994 are close to the end of their contracts. There is a very active and constructive discussion in the conciliation infrastructure in the Department of Defence. I understand that agreement is reasonably close and there are one or two outstanding issues. We are trying to be as flexible and reasonable as we can while at the same time ensuring we have an appropriate benchmark with regard to age profile in the Defence Forces.

Colm Keaveney (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister's commitment to demonstrate flexibility and I am sure he will agree that continuing in stable employment in one's 30s is generally a good thing. Being discharged from the Army in one's late 30s and not having any employment prospects is not good for one's family or community. Significant flexibility was offered to the chaps in the mess, such as the commandants, who received an extra two years. Psychiatric nurses and gardaí were also given significant flexibility to continue in service beyond retirement age.

It may be of assistance to compare our Defence Forces with those of some of our NATO friends. The retirement age in Malta and Finland is 55, in Belgium it is 56, in Cyprus it is 52 and in Australia it is 60. I am delighted the Minister has acknowledged that we have the best fitness programme available and that if people are fit to work they should not be discharged prematurely.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank that the Deputy for his comments. It is important to put this into context, given the active role the Defence Forces have been playing abroad in recent weeks. We are speaking about front-line soldiers such as privates and corporals who are jumping in and out of Mowags and who need to be fit, adaptable, strong and at the peak of their physical and mental fitness for their own safety and the safety of the troops around them. I will not compromise this principle. Let us be clear on this.

If one progresses from private to corporal to sergeant, this is a non-issue. The 21-year rule applies to people who have remained as front-line soldiers in an effort to try to reduce the age profile and ensure we have a constant inflow of new personnel in their 20s coming into the ranks of front-line soldiers. We will try to show flexibility when and where appropriate, but being a soldier is different from being a member of many other institutions in Ireland because of the risks to which they are exposed and the demands in terms of mental fitness, flexibility and physical strength which we require of them to perform their duties.

Colm Keaveney (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not suggest that we should introduce a bogus fitness programme so people can remain within the service. If somebody is fit he or she should be allowed progress beyond the current arrangement of 21 years and retain employment. There is no suggestion that we are asking for something inappropriate to be introduced. All we are asking is for common sense to be considered. There is no doubt that the Minister could intervene immediately because there is a difficulty with respect to how he is managing the existing resources. There is no promotion from corporal to sergeant, but the Minister is promoting and accelerating a natural wastage of critical skills in areas which will never be built up by new intake. Significant resources are being lost with respect to the expertise which has been built over many years in the speciality. Will the Minister report to the Dáil on when he expects the review to be concluded and when he can re-engage with PDFORRA to make some kind of announcement on the flexibilities that we both consider fair and just?

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The flexibilities being discussed are with regard to maintaining levels of expertise built up over time, while at the same time trying to ensure front-line soldiers are of an appropriate age. There is a balance to be found. We are not really speaking about people in their 30s. If there is a 21-year rule and one joined the Army at 19 or 20 or in one's early 20s, we are talking about people who are now in their 40s.

Colm Keaveney (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Or 16, as is sometimes the case. The Minister met such people last week in Athlone. They are in their 30s.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to let the infrastructure in the Defence Forces which exists to resolve issues such as this, and which has successfully resolved this issue in the past when there was a request by PDFORRA to do so, to finalise its work. It would be inappropriate for a Minister to wade in politically and tell people what the outcome should be. I would like to think our conciliation and arbitration systems in the Defence Forces can work here for PDFORRA and the Defence Forces generally. I understand PDFORRA's national conference will take place in several weeks' time and I will speak to them there. It is not appropriate for me to engage until we get an outcome from the conciliation process, which should happen in the coming weeks.