As the Taoiseach is aware, our peacekeeping troops are rotating overseas, to Syria, Mali and Lebanon in the next few weeks. A number of them have asked me to pass on their gratitude for the Taoiseach's personal intervention last week, which ensures that they will be vaccinated prior to deploying on a six-month tour of duty. I have no problem with doing that and it is very much appreciated.

There is a long-running saga that I would like to get to the bottom of today if possible, regarding the defence budget. Our troops are fully engaged in the fight against Covid-19 as well as fully maintaining their ongoing normal operations by land, sea, air and cyberspace. The Taoiseach will also be aware that our troops are fighting their own internal crisis from an organisational perspective, as a result of poor pay, poorer conditions of service and poor infrastructure. There is very little control over the budget and visibility of how it is spent. A number of parliamentary questions have been tabled in the last couple of years, which all point to a consistent pattern whereby significant amounts of the defence budget are returned unspent, every year, to the Exchequer. The latest example is in a reply to Deputy Nash from two weeks ago. Deputy Nash quite rightly asked how much money has been returned from the defence budget to the Exchequer in the last seven years. He was told that €130 million has been returned in the last seven years.

I am sure the Taoiseach can understand how upsetting, infuriating and inflammatory that is to the defence community, who are screaming for resources and see money being handed back without being spent. Whenever I query this phenomenon on the floor of the Dáil, I am always given different figures from the Minister's briefing notes. What is the true figure? Is it what is mentioned from briefing notes on the floor of the Dáil or is it the figure in formal responses to parliamentary questions, which are based on the fully audited appropriation accounts? I emphasise that I am approaching this question with an open mind. I have been consistently constructive since I first arrived here. I am not looking to blame anyone in any shape or form. I want to establish the truth of what the true figure is and, most importantly, the rationale behind the ambiguity. What is the reason for different figures in parliamentary questions, appropriation accounts and ministerial briefings?

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. I thank the Defence Forces for the essential and extraordinary role that they have played in the pandemic, especially in testing and tracing, and stepping up to assist with the quarantine system and vaccinations. Their logistical support has been consistent throughout the pandemic.

The issue that the Deputy raises has come up on a number of occasions. He referred to Deputy Nash's parliamentary question and the reply. I will try to clarify it for the Deputy and maybe make some additional comments. Defence has two Votes. The main one is Vote 36 - Defence, which includes pay. The second is Vote 35 - Army Pensions. Over the period in question, from 2013 to 2020, a total of €130 million was surrendered from Vote 36. This was the figure referred to in the parliamentary question reply from the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform to Deputy Nash. This comprises a number of parts and does not necessarily mean there are underspends in the Department.

Traditionally pensions are difficult to forecast and tend to run ahead of what is provided. This requires a transfer of funds from Vote 36 to Vote 35. Vote 36 surrenders funding to the Exchequer and Vote 35 is granted a Supplementary Estimate of the same amount. Therefore, of this €130 million, €47.7 million was surrendered to increase Vote 35 by this amount. This shows up as money handed back to the Exchequer, if one looks at Vote 36 in isolation. If one looks at Vote 35 and Vote 36 together, nothing is handed back to the Exchequer. The reality is that this money is reallocated from one Vote to the other within the defence ministerial Vote group.

Of the €130 million, a further €74.5 million relates to excess appropriations-in-aid. The Department receives receipts annually, such as from the United Nations, referred to as appropriations-in-aid. When a Vote receives more revenue through appropriations-in-aid than what was provided for, this is known as surplus or excess appropriations-in-aid. In this instance, the Department's receipts were €74.5 million more over the period than it had projected. As a consequence, that €74.5 million was handed back to the Exchequer. As with all other Departments, surplus appropriations-in-aid encompassing these receipts cannot be used as additional expenditure on a Vote under public accounting procedures. If the surrendered amounts due to matching excess spending on pensions, and due to surplus compared with anticipated receipts not being factored into spending plans, are excluded from the calculation, the Department of Defence advises that the underspending over the period compared with planned spending plans is only €7.9 million from an allocation of €5.7 billion, which represents just over 0.1% over the eight-year period.

I suggest that we could seek further clarification from the Minister, Deputy Michael McGrath, and the Minister for Defence. I might join in on that meeting because this is a potentially an issue of forecasting too and may get into the detail of the areas where the underspending occurred. There is a genuine issue, as there has always been, with forecasting pensions, and there is a legal requirement regarding appropriations-in-aid.

I thank the Taoiseach for that helpful response. It is especially revealing about appropriations-in-aid and the United Nations portion of that. The United Nations rebate is earned by our peacekeepers overseas. What are the Taoiseach's thoughts on establishing some kind of standing arrangement or mechanism where the UN portion of appropriations-in-aid is ring-fenced and returned to the Defence Forces via a Supplementary Estimate? That would certainly go some way to assuaging some of the anger. It is an approach that is worth exploring.

Perhaps the Taoiseach's office could kindly remind the Department of Defence that there is a budget to be spent this year? If as small a portion as possible, preferably none at all, could be returned to the Exchequer, it would be important because the money is desperately needed in the Defence Forces and should be spent for its intended purpose.

I thank the Deputy for his comments. These Supplementary Estimates are discussed by the relevant select committee and approved by the Dáil in the normal way. Appropriations-in-aid cannot be used as additional expenditure on the Vote under public accounting procedures. The Deputy raises an interesting point which we can pursue to see what potential there is.

Also, as the Deputy knows, we have established an independent commission on the Defence Forces which is due to report by December this year and perhaps this issue could be considered by that commission. Upon completion of the commission's work, a permanent pay review body will be established, reflecting the unique nature of military service in the context of the public service. A scheme to the allow for the re-commissioning of former officers of the Permanent Defence Forces is in place and has had a noticeable impact in quickly restoring pilot capacity in the Air Corps while other training initiatives are in train. I appreciate the Deputy's interest in these matters and will continue to engage on them.