Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Deputy Ó Snodaigh is right that the pension Vote is obviously less contentious because it is essentially money that has been committed to and is being paid. Historically, the defence Vote has been split into two. It goes back decades. My understanding is that the public service pension is also in a separate Vote so there is other precedent there but the Deputy is right. They are not separated into two separate packages in the justice and education Votes. It is quite useful to have them separate because if the Army pension Vote is increasing, we do not want to have to effectively supplement that by reducing expenditure elsewhere to compensate, so having both separate is somewhat helpful. It is true to say that there are considerably more Defence Forces pensioners, which is a reflection in recent years of the number of people who have retired but also the age at which people retire from the Defence Forces. This is a more demanding job physically than many other jobs in the public sector and, therefore, people are required in many cases to retire earlier, which means that there are many people of working age who essentially qualify for a Defence Forces pension. The Deputy will be glad to hear that we are unlikely to see as many people retiring this year as in recent years. Part of this might be linked to Covid-19 and other job opportunities and possibly less headhunting and trying to persuade people to move out of the Defence Forces because we have people who are really well trained, well educated, motivated and disciplined. That the private sector tries to target people in the Defence Forces all the time is a reflection of the quality of training within our Defence Forces. It might be a combination of less economic opportunity this year and a big increase in effort to retain and recruit. Hopefully, both of those things combined mean that we will not see as many people retire this year as we have seen in recent years.

In terms of capital expenditure, I will give Deputy Ó Snodaigh a sense of some of the priorities. Key priorities include expediting a range of infrastructural projects across Defence Forces installations, including new and refurbished accommodation blocks in Haulbowline, Renmore, County Galway and the Curragh; upgrade and refurbishment works to the apprentice hostel in Casement Aerodrome, upgrade and refurbishment at McKee Barracks, Dublin; upgrade of accommodation at Cathal Brugha Barracks, Rathmines; and a new medical facility that will enable a move out of the St. Bricin's site, which, in turn, will allow the Land Development Agency to provide for housing demand there. In addition, funding is provided for new gyms in Kilkenny and Limerick so there is a good mix of quite significant investments across different barracks in different parts of the country. Obviously, we must focus on where need is most acute. I agree with the Deputy about the Curragh and have said this publicly. The Curragh is a huge campus and there is too much dereliction there. We have a plan to change that. We have already seen investment in accommodation there and I hope we will see a lot more of that. Having walked through the Curragh and spent some time there, I know there are opportunities there with investment in terms of a lot of space and capacity, some empty buildings and some dereliction that needs to be addressed. There are a number of projects that are quite exciting in terms of what can be done there. Only this week, we announced investment in terms of the jetty in Haulbowline. There will be further commitments in terms of accommodation in terms of block eight and possibly another block that we want to take into next year with regard to improving accommodation at Haulbowline. I could go through that whole plan but I will just reassure the Deputy that we have a rolling capital investment programme and have increased the capital budget quite significantly for next year on top of this year, which is significantly increased on previous years.

I can remember that when I was Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government, we spoke to the Department of Defence a few years ago about whether the State could, in partnership with the Department and the Defence Forces, develop the site at St. Bricin's. The Department of Defence and the Defence Forces at the time rightly said that they could not move out of St. Bricin's unless the medical facilities there were replaced with something better and more modern that could allow for that move. Now the shoe is on the other foot. I am the Minister for Defence but I do recognise the potential of that site. It is a really strategic site in the middle of Dublin city. I also recognise that from a defence perspective, while the medical facility there serves an important purpose, it could be a lot better with a purpose-built modern facility so there is a double benefit for the State as a whole. The Defence Forces would get a much more modern military hospital and, more broadly, the State would have a really strategic site for the Land Development Agency to develop for social and affordable housing.

Nothing is being forced on the Department of Defence or on the Defence Forces. This is a partnership that I hope we can move together, which works for both. My understanding is the most likely site for that, coming from recommendations from the Defence Forces, is Baldonnell because it is centrally located nationally and well-connected by road infrastructure. It has a great deal of space and it would be an obvious place to develop that new military hospital. That is not for this year's Estimates, however;I just wanted to give the committee a sense of the thinking there.

There is a very valid and good question on salaries. We are signing off on Estimates for 9,500 personnel in the Defence Forces. We are going to be 1,000 short of that so what happens to the money that was allocated for the salaries of those 1,000 people? The answer is that we have a facilitation with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to keep that money in the Defence Forces Vote and, therefore, we effectively factor in that additional money into other costs that benefit the Defence Forces, either capital investment or some of the other current expenditure we have. We have insisted, and to be fair, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has facilitated, that we maintain the benefit of that unused salary money to keep it in the defence Vote to invest more in some of these other projects, be they capital or current expenditure. We will do the same again this year but I hope to be in a position, next year and the year after, where that unused money earmarked for salaries and allowances will shrink dramatically because we will get our numbers back up to where they should be, namely, 9,500. I have had that conversation with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. That is why there has been a significant increase in our capital allocation for next year because we want to spend more of this money on salaries as we move beyond 8,500 to 9,000 and ultimately to 9,500, which is what our strength should be. The money, therefore, which at the moment comes from that element of the Vote and essentially gets added to capital expenditure, will shrink if we are successful with retention and recruitment. That has to be reflected in an increased Estimate, particularly around capital expenditure. The defence Vote does not lose the money; we do not give it back. It is a significant amount. Pay savings were €38 million in 2016; €27 million in 2017; €37 million in 2018; and last year, €33 million. When we are 1,000 people short, we save a significant amount but we have agreed a facility to hold that money within the Defence Forces Estimate and it will get transferred into other forms of expenditure that benefit the Defence Forces.