Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

9. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if it is intended to review the ages at which members of the Defence Forces have to retire, particularly taking into account specialist skills that have been acquired by many of them during their careers and positions held as a consequence that can capably be carried out by such personnel up to the normal age of retirement in comparable employment outside of the Defence Forces, and the ongoing shortage of members in the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13976/23]

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

25. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if he will provide a definitive timeline on when a decision will be made about the mandatory retirement age of 50 years being extended for Defence Forces members; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13880/23]

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it intended to review the ages at which members of the Defence Forces have to retire, taking into account the specialist skills required by many during their careers? Given the types of positions these people might hold, the work could be capably done by people over 50 years of age.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The answer to that question is "Yes". As I said, because historically military life placed unique demands on individuals, it was considered necessary that Defence Forces personnel had to be prepared to meet the challenges of all military operations. The compulsory retirement ages for ranks in the Permanent Defence Force are considerably lower than in other employments.

The Public Service Pay Commission, in its report on recruitment and retention in the Permanent Defence Force in 2019, included in its recommendations the need to consider options to tackle barriers to extended participation in the Permanent Defence Force. A joint civil-military review was subsequently completed in 2021. The report of the review group made a number of recommendations for extended service limits across a number of ranks in the Defence Forces.

As current pension arrangements for personnel enlisted to the Permanent Defence Force on or after 1 January 1994 are based on date of entry to the Defence Forces, any proposals to amend the length of service requires the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, as there are impacts on accrued pension liabilities. In December 2021, the then Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform agreed to allow for an extended service limit for privates and corporals recruited post 1 January 1994, to serve beyond the 21-year service limit that existed before that date up to a revised service limit of 50 years of age, subject to them meeting certain criteria, including medical and fitness standards.

An interim arrangement was also agreed to allow for the continuance in service of sergeants in the Permanent Defence Force who were due to be retired on age grounds at the end of 2022. Those sergeants who were recruited since 1 January 1994 and would be due to retire on the basis of mandatory retirement age in 2022 and 2023 will not be required to do so until the end of 2024. The fast accrual pension terms will continue for those additional years.

The Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform has established an interdepartmental working group to consider mandatory retirement ages and service limits for public service groups who have fast accrual occupational pension arrangements.

A number of meetings of this working group, of which the Department of Defence is a member, have taken place to date. The recommendations from the joint civil-military review of mandatory retirement ages of all ranks in the Permanent Defence Force are being considered as part of the work of this group.

There are clear staffing challenges across the Defence Forces. Compulsory retirement ages and service limits in the Defence Forces are one of the factors impacting manpower policy, which has to be balanced against the operational requirements of the Defence Forces. I discussed this matter recently with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. Options for interim measures pending the outcome of the work of the interdepartmental group are being considered.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is well recognised that there is a shortage of personnel. Personnel used to be allowed stay in the Defence Forces until they were 60 years of age and that changed in 1994. I do not suggest that all of the personnel be allowed to remain because I understand that depends on their role in the Defence Forces. If we take, for example, paramedics, they have to retire, depending on their rank, at 50 years of age. The following day, however, they could go to the HSE or to the National Ambulance Service to get a job and could continue with fairly similar work to 66 years of age. It seems anomalous that the PDF is losing very skilled personnel who may want to stay on just because there is an arbitrary age limit there that does not reflect the particular skills level and the physical attributes needed for those skills.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We all accept the service and importance of what the Defence Forces do and the difficulties that they have to work with at times. That was drawn to our attention by the loss of Seán Rooney and I am aware that the Minister is dealing with the family in that respect at this time.

The Minister has accepted that the compulsory retirement age at 50 does not suit for a considerable number of people and does not make any sense. Interim arrangements have been made in respect of some privates, corporals and sergeants. The only problem is that we are talking about a report, review and an interdepartmental working group, and the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform where sometimes issues, unfortunately, go to die. I am not looking to take a cheap shot here. Will there be a timeline in respect of delivery on this and can more interim arrangements be put in place in the short term?

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept the principle that Deputy Ó Cuív and other Deputies have put forward, including Deputy Fitzpatrick earlier. To be fair, I outlined in the reply that a significant move has been made in respect of 21 years' service, I believe, and going to 50 years of age.

I accept the basic principle that the world has changed. Ireland has gained 25 years in lifespan for Irish people compared to 1922. There has been a dramatic improvement in lifespan in the past 20 years in respect of cardiac issues, disease survival, and so on. I have seen 50-year-olds who are fitter than 25-year-olds.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just not in here.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are some in here too.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would not like to race Deputy Peter Fitzpatrick at the moment.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The clock is running.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The point I am making is that we have to apply that to the Defence Forces. There are wider issues in respect of the fast accrual pension, which is at the core of it. I believe we can resolve those, and if a move is made, the Deputies opposite will be the very first to come back and ask what about another group that deserves similar treatment and so on. That is why the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform are dealing with that but, in the interim, we are trying work through and carry out some interim measures.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister might give the House some more clarification on timelines. I accept that a process has to be gone through and that there are always knock-on effects and so on in the public service. On the other hand, it is an issue that needs to be tackled. Are we talking about an interim arrangement this year and in the long term within a full year, or what kind of timelines are we talking about? Things seem to get lost in the system and get gummed up. This is always going to happen and we hear this word “soon”, which is used and abused. The Minister might give some indication as to the finite timelines that could be involved here? If it is 18 months, can he tell us that?

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree. The nub of the issue is that we all accept that there is a problem in respect of 50 being the compulsory retirement age and we must get to the point of introducing the necessary flexibilities. It comes down to the timeline so that we at least know what sort of timeline we are looking at and whether that is for the interim or finalised arrangements. Can the Minister provide that information, please?

If he has time, I will also raise an issue that has come to my attention and perhaps that of many other Members. This relates to abatement and people who have given 30 years' service in the Defence Forces. On that basis, these people at an earlier stage would have received their pensions at in or around 50 years of age. Some ended up working where they did not believe they were working in the public service such as for education and training boards and were not necessarily on full-time contracts and all of that. Then suddenly they face a big bill. I am not going to go into the ins and outs of it now but it is an issue on which I am waiting for more information and I will definitely return to the Minister later about it.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the timeline issue, the Minister of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform is very clear that the interdepartmental group is not a mechanism for allowing something to be buried, or whatever, but it needs to be resolved quickly. The interim measures I am talking about are within a much shorter timeframe.