CONTINUED.......
Deputy Alan Shatter:
The first stage of implementation is complete and from memory, it is envisaged the rest of it will be completed by September next. In the context of two important issues, I will focus on training days. In 2012, there was only funding for 30,000 training days whereas in 2013, funding for 41,500 training days has been made available. Consequently, the financial focus has gone from the payment of the gratuity to the payment for training days, which is particularly important. In a final comment in the absence of Deputy Ó Cuív on the format for the value-for-money review and the personnel engaged thereon, I note it was the format that always is and always has been used. It has been used by past governments for value-for-money reviews and anyone who has read the report would see there was a clear focus on public interest, on the interaction between the PDF and the RDF and on how the RDF can be made more relevant in today's world. This was the focus in the totality of the report in the context of the different options that were considered and the ultimate recommendations made. It was a very well-written report that sets out clearly the reasoning behind the decisions recommended. I thank Senator Conway for his comments. We moved to implement it as rapidly as possible and I hope that when one looks back on this in a few years' time, the changes will be seen to have been of benefit to the RDF and to its members, as well as being in the public interest.
Chairman:
I have one or two questions on this subject. Was a study undertaken on the reason so few of the 4,554 personnel actually got involved in training? What was the reason they did not actually train? In addition, while I stand to be corrected, was payment of the gratuity in the past dependent on taking part in paid training as well? In other words, was it the case that one did not actually get the gratuity unless one attended paid training for a week, two weeks or whatever it was? Was there a change in this regard?
Deputy Alan Shatter:
I will take the last issue first. In the past, that was the case but they became separated. As I understand it, it became possible to get the gratuity without participating in training. If I am wrong in this regard, I am sure I will be corrected. However, my understanding is there was such a connectivity at one point. However, I am talking about this historically, as I was not around at the time. My Secretary General is telling me that I may be wrong in this regard and I do not wish to mislead the committee. However, the issue really concerned looking at the numbers in the RDF and the numbers who actually were engaged in paid training. This was the clear issue when it came to it, as well as how those resources were being used. The Chairman should remind me of his first question.
Chairman:
I asked the reason so few of the effective----
Deputy Alan Shatter:
I am not clear on the answer to that question and do not wish to guess it. I am sure there was a range of different reasons some people were unable to engage in training in any particular year. I am sure that for some people, there were very good reasons for this. Consequently, I do not wish to second-guess that. Nevertheless, in the context of the review, what is made clear is the importance of the engagement in training in order that members of the RDF are able to undertake any duties should they arise.
Chairman:
There always was a non-effective strength as well within the RDF. What was that non-effective strength before the reorganisation? Does the Minister have such figures to hand? Will this non-effective element still exist somewhere or will virtually all of the force be effective?
Deputy Alan Shatter:
Allow me to check some figures. In 2011, there were 4,554 members, of whom 2,010, as I mentioned, actually participated in training. When one speaks in terms of being effective or non-effective, while one might relate this simply to those who were participating in training, it is or can be something quite different to that in practical terms. Consequently, the objective is to ensure the RDF as a body is fit for purpose and can engage. One important aspect on which I touched in my opening statement but which members have not touched on in any question thus far is that for quite a number of the RDF's members, training will take place within existing PDF barracks. This is an important increase in the connectivity between the PDF and the RDF, rather than there simply being a PDF cadre and the RDF being what effectively was a separate entity.
Chairman:
I welcome that and believe the single force concept is the option to take because the RDF must be far more professional. This leads to the question of members of the RDF eventually serving overseas, which has been spoken about for a long time. In a situation in which both groups were being trained together and the RDF was to reach the same level of competence and professionalism as the PDF, is there any intention or has thought been given to the possibility of members of the RDF serving overseas in the Lebanon or elsewhere? In particular, I refer to those who have specialist skills that may be needed.
Deputy Alan Shatter:
Ultimately, there is a substantial difference between the training members of the PDF receive and the training received by members of the RDF. In dealing with overseas duties, it is important that members of the Defence Forces are trained to the maximum possible extent and at present, it is certainly not envisaged that members of the RDF would go overseas. In the context of overseas duties, there are limited opportunities for members of the PDF to engage in overseas duties. I will not go through the litany of numbers but as the joint committee is aware, approximately 450 members of the PDF are serving in various different locations at present, with the largest contingent of course being in the Lebanon. In the context of the joint operations in Lebanon between ourselves and the Finns, the PDF contingent numbers will reduce next November and there will be an issue to identify other United Nations missions to which we may constructively contribute in order that members of the PDF can realise their objectives and ambitions of being able to use in a beneficial way the substantial training they receive. Consequently, it is not envisaged at present that members of the RDF would be engaged in overseas missions. There would be an issue as to the level of training required and even with participating in the training days that now are prescribed, there would be a concern as to their safety, as well as their capacity to engage in such missions. This does not mean that at some stage in the future, in different circumstances, this may not prove possible but I do not wish to hold out the possibility of something now that is not likely to be fulfilled or to give people unreal expectations based on the level of training available.
Deputy Alan Shatter:
The first stage of implementation is complete and from memory, it is envisaged the rest of it will be completed by September next. In the context of two important issues, I will focus on training days. In 2012, there was only funding for 30,000 training days whereas in 2013, funding for 41,500 training days has been made available. Consequently, the financial focus has gone from the payment of the gratuity to the payment for training days, which is particularly important. In a final comment in the absence of Deputy Ó Cuív on the format for the value-for-money review and the personnel engaged thereon, I note it was the format that always is and always has been used. It has been used by past governments for value-for-money reviews and anyone who has read the report would see there was a clear focus on public interest, on the interaction between the PDF and the RDF and on how the RDF can be made more relevant in today's world. This was the focus in the totality of the report in the context of the different options that were considered and the ultimate recommendations made. It was a very well-written report that sets out clearly the reasoning behind the decisions recommended. I thank Senator Conway for his comments. We moved to implement it as rapidly as possible and I hope that when one looks back on this in a few years' time, the changes will be seen to have been of benefit to the RDF and to its members, as well as being in the public interest.
Chairman:
I have one or two questions on this subject. Was a study undertaken on the reason so few of the 4,554 personnel actually got involved in training? What was the reason they did not actually train? In addition, while I stand to be corrected, was payment of the gratuity in the past dependent on taking part in paid training as well? In other words, was it the case that one did not actually get the gratuity unless one attended paid training for a week, two weeks or whatever it was? Was there a change in this regard?
Deputy Alan Shatter:
I will take the last issue first. In the past, that was the case but they became separated. As I understand it, it became possible to get the gratuity without participating in training. If I am wrong in this regard, I am sure I will be corrected. However, my understanding is there was such a connectivity at one point. However, I am talking about this historically, as I was not around at the time. My Secretary General is telling me that I may be wrong in this regard and I do not wish to mislead the committee. However, the issue really concerned looking at the numbers in the RDF and the numbers who actually were engaged in paid training. This was the clear issue when it came to it, as well as how those resources were being used. The Chairman should remind me of his first question.
Chairman:
I asked the reason so few of the effective----
Deputy Alan Shatter:
I am not clear on the answer to that question and do not wish to guess it. I am sure there was a range of different reasons some people were unable to engage in training in any particular year. I am sure that for some people, there were very good reasons for this. Consequently, I do not wish to second-guess that. Nevertheless, in the context of the review, what is made clear is the importance of the engagement in training in order that members of the RDF are able to undertake any duties should they arise.
Chairman:
There always was a non-effective strength as well within the RDF. What was that non-effective strength before the reorganisation? Does the Minister have such figures to hand? Will this non-effective element still exist somewhere or will virtually all of the force be effective?
Deputy Alan Shatter:
Allow me to check some figures. In 2011, there were 4,554 members, of whom 2,010, as I mentioned, actually participated in training. When one speaks in terms of being effective or non-effective, while one might relate this simply to those who were participating in training, it is or can be something quite different to that in practical terms. Consequently, the objective is to ensure the RDF as a body is fit for purpose and can engage. One important aspect on which I touched in my opening statement but which members have not touched on in any question thus far is that for quite a number of the RDF's members, training will take place within existing PDF barracks. This is an important increase in the connectivity between the PDF and the RDF, rather than there simply being a PDF cadre and the RDF being what effectively was a separate entity.
Chairman:
I welcome that and believe the single force concept is the option to take because the RDF must be far more professional. This leads to the question of members of the RDF eventually serving overseas, which has been spoken about for a long time. In a situation in which both groups were being trained together and the RDF was to reach the same level of competence and professionalism as the PDF, is there any intention or has thought been given to the possibility of members of the RDF serving overseas in the Lebanon or elsewhere? In particular, I refer to those who have specialist skills that may be needed.
Deputy Alan Shatter:
Ultimately, there is a substantial difference between the training members of the PDF receive and the training received by members of the RDF. In dealing with overseas duties, it is important that members of the Defence Forces are trained to the maximum possible extent and at present, it is certainly not envisaged that members of the RDF would go overseas. In the context of overseas duties, there are limited opportunities for members of the PDF to engage in overseas duties. I will not go through the litany of numbers but as the joint committee is aware, approximately 450 members of the PDF are serving in various different locations at present, with the largest contingent of course being in the Lebanon. In the context of the joint operations in Lebanon between ourselves and the Finns, the PDF contingent numbers will reduce next November and there will be an issue to identify other United Nations missions to which we may constructively contribute in order that members of the PDF can realise their objectives and ambitions of being able to use in a beneficial way the substantial training they receive. Consequently, it is not envisaged at present that members of the RDF would be engaged in overseas missions. There would be an issue as to the level of training required and even with participating in the training days that now are prescribed, there would be a concern as to their safety, as well as their capacity to engage in such missions. This does not mean that at some stage in the future, in different circumstances, this may not prove possible but I do not wish to hold out the possibility of something now that is not likely to be fulfilled or to give people unreal expectations based on the level of training available.
Comment