Mary Wallace (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 464: To ask the Minister for Defence the reason for the decision taken in 1994 that soldiers in the Army would no longer serve 21 years and that the service contract would be 12 years, leaving a 17 year old at 29 years of age on discharge; his views on whether it is a waste of resources to discharge young, fit and extensively trained personnel at 29 years of age without reason and to incur further costs in training replacement personnel; the position with regard to the commitments given that alternative training opportunities would be provided prior to discharge; if plans have been put in place to provide such training in advance of the 2006 discharges; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11769/05]

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The unsatisfactory age and fitness profile of the Permanent Defence Force was commented upon by the Gleeson commission in its report in 1990. The matter had also been of serious concern to the military authorities for a number of years. The age profile was also the subject of severe criticism by Price Waterhouse consultants who had been engaged by the efficiency audit group, EAG, to conduct an in-depth study of the Defence Forces. 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 Permanent Defence Force personnel. The EAG's report was accepted by Government in 1995.

In an effort to alleviate the situation, the Government had decided in 1993 to enlist personnel on a five-year contract basis with a reserve force commitment of seven years. The recruitment of personnel on five year contracts was introduced following consultation with the 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, applying to personnel enlisted after 1 January 1994 provided that service for private soldiers would initially be for five years with the option to be extended to a maximum of 12 years. Any extension was subject to the individual soldier meeting certain criteria to include standards of medical and physical fitness and conduct. Longer periods of service were envisaged for junior and senior non-commissioned officers. The new policy represented a substantial improvement for personnel who would otherwise have had to leave after five years service while continuing to address the issues of age profile and fitness levels in the Defence Forces. I am satisfied with these existing arrangements.

PDFORRA has 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. As discussions on issues raised under the conciliation and arbitration scheme are confidential to the parties concerned the Deputy will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to comment further at this time.