Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

42. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the status of discussions he has had with Defence Forces representative organisations on the issue of mandatory retirement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52898/17]

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My first question is to ask the Minister of State to give an update to the House on any discussions he has had with the Defence Forces representative organisations on the issue of mandatory retirement, and if he will make a statement on the matter.

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

Military life places unique physical and psychological demands on individuals. It is necessary that members of the Defence Forces are physically and mentally capable of meeting the challenges of all military operations and to undertake duties on deployments at home and overseas.  To this end, it is vital that the age and health profile of personnel be such as to ensure that operational capability and effectiveness are not compromised in any way.

The 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 by a series of external reports, mainly PricewaterhouseCoopers Consultants and the Efficiency Audit Group, EAG. One of the key areas identified for urgent action by this audit group was the development of a manpower policy with an emphasis on lowering the age profile of Permanent Defence Force personnel. A range of policies was introduced to ensure an appropriate age profile and levels of fitness, including fixed term contracts for enlisted personnel of certain ranks. These are kept under review.

My colleague, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, announced last week that he had secured Government approval for an increase in the compulsory retirement age from 65 to 70 for public servants recruited before 1 April 2004. The uniformed pension accrual group, including gardaí, members of the Permanent Defence Force, fire fighters and prison officers, who are currently required to retire early due to the nature of their work, will not be covered by the new arrangements. The retirement ages for these groups will be best dealt with at sectoral level where the detailed policy, operational and manpower issues relevant to those groups can be appropriately considered.

A claim to increase the mandatory retirement age for all officers has been received from the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers, RACO, under the conciliation and arbitration scheme for members of the Permanent Defence Force. The Deputy will appreciate that as discussions under the conciliation and arbitration scheme are confidential to the parties involved, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on the matter at this time.

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Retirement benefits for the Defence Forces were designed to align and factor in the payment of the contributory State pension into final benefits. Mandatory retirement ages in the Defence Forces kick in well ahead of eligibility for the contributory State pension, which is currently 66, and, as the Minister of State said, will increase to 70. Before 2013, it was factored in that there was a unique situation within the military in the requirement that they require earlier than other public servants. The Minister of State will be aware that in the Conciliation Council Report, CCR, No. 421, the agreement between the parties noted that the Department of Defence acknowledged that the compulsory early retirement regime applicable to military officers sets their occupation apart from other occupations in the public service, so there is an anomaly. However, the current position is that the Public Service Pensions (Single Scheme and Other Provisions) Act 2012 does not allow for a supplementary pension for those persons who are forced to retire early. There is no bridging gap until they get the State pension and they are at a considerable disadvantage if they come in after 2013. Does the Minister of State not accept that this particular anomaly needs to be addressed?

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

I thank the Deputy. At the recent Representative Association of Commissioned Officers, RACO, conference, similar concerns to those the Deputy has raised were raised with me in speeches by the president and the general secretary and also in a private capacity in one of the meetings I had with members of RACO. I took their concerns on board. I spoke to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Donohoe, specifically on this issue. I am aware that members of my Department and members of the representative association, RACO, had meetings with officials from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform specifically on this issue in which they raised their concerns. The Deputy is aware that this does not immediately affect any person who retires post-2013 but the officials from both the Department of Defence and RACO met with officials from the Department of Public Expenditure Reform specifically on this issue after I approached the Minister, Deputy Donohoe's Department on this matter.

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The negotiations on the single pension scheme in 2012 did not reference or include from any side this accepted agreement that was in place prior to that. In fact, at no point was it outlined by the Department that the agreement would be compromised in any way and the representative associations clearly understood that the supplementary arrangement already in place would remain a key element of the integrated model. The expectation, therefore, was that this would continue and there were no discussions of any sort with the representative associations to the effect that it would not continue. Pre-2012 officer entrants had an entitlement to the State pension when they retired but since then the new entrants do not have such an entitlement. Does the Minister of State not agree that is unfair and is yet another example of the reason the Department is failing to retain officers? We have a retention issue. This is one element of that; it is certainly contributing to it.

In short, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform did not acknowledge the flawed nature of the Defence Forces new entrants superannuation scheme. Will the Minister of State agree that the Department has potentially breached the CCR agreement No. 421? The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform states that the Minister of State, as the Minister for Defence, has the authority to recommend and provide for unique conditions of service where mandatory early retirement in advance of the payment of the State pension, contributory, is to continue. Will the Minister of State take it upon himself to address that anomaly? I accept it has been raised many times with him and similarly with me. It does not affect a huge number of people but it is vitally important that we fix the problem.

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

I do not have the powers to do that. That accusation has been put to me previously. This only affects people who retire early and are on permanent retirement. If an officer of member of the Defence Forces retires at 50 or 55 years of age and he or she continues to work for ten years, up to the official retirement age, they do not get the supplementary pension. It only affects a small number of officers rather than enlisted personnel. The Deputy would accept that.

The Deputy is right to say that the Defence Forces are different to other areas of the public service. As I stated, it is about both physical and psychological fitness to meet the unique demands placed on members of the Defence Forces. The Deputy mentioned that this is a retention issue. I would encourage the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers, RACO, when it is making submissions to the pay commission, to highlight this issue.