Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 13 Dec 2023

Vol. 1047 No. 5

Appropriation Bill 2023: Committee and Remaining Stages

Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 4

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, line 17 after “cited” to insert “as Acht Leithghabhála 2023 or, in the English language,”.

Each year I raise different things about the Appropriation Bill. I am sorry to tell the Minister that this one is even more left field. Everybody will remember being in school. I only just spotted that the Title to the Bill is "An Bille Leithreasa". Every year we vote to stick the moneys down the toilet. Going back to 1923 it says, Mar a luadh i dteideal na hAchta Leithreasa, 1923:

Acht chun suim as an bprímh-chiste do chur chun seirbhíse na bliana dar críoch an t-aonú lá déag ar fhichid de Mhárta, míle naoi gcéad a ceathair fichead, agus chun an soláthair eile a deonadh sa tsiosón so den Oireachtas do chur i leithreas.

It is just odd. We should use the term, which is not totally accurate but is one the public will understand, "An Acht Leithghabhála" rather than the toilet. We would not use the word "toilet" in English. I am as guilty as everybody else in not noticing this because I have always concentrated on another issue which we will return to in a few minutes. It is one of those little anomalies and perhaps the Minister can look at it. I do not think there is any difference other than there has been a tradition since 1923 to use that term. It is not a term I have ever used in terms of appropriation and it is not the only term available to use.

When I got the Deputy's amendment, it goes without saying that I took it seriously. First, I treat seriously any amendment to legislation from a Member of the Oireachtas. Second, when this issue about how the Bill had been described came in, it not only caused raised eyebrows, it also raised a question with me to go and verify the correct terminology. My officials went away and checked this. I actually checked it again this afternoon to make sure that we had the terminology correct. It will not come as a surprise to the Deputy, but I hope it comes as a relief to him to know that I have been informed that the citing of the Bill in Irish is correct. It has been described as "An Bille Leithreasa" since 1923 and is done so accurately and correctly. While the Deputy's concerns are appreciated, on this occasion it looks like the terminology as Gaeilge is correct. If it would help in putting the Deputy's concerns to rest and maybe in persuading him not to press the amendment, I would be very happy to furnish him with a further note in the new year explaining why the terminology is correct and why, on this occasion, the vernacular is appropriate.

I am happy to withdraw the amendment in the knowledge that it is correct and that we are not flushing all our money down the toilet.

We certainly are not.

It is funny how language is very important.

This is especially the case with legislation. A tradition had been built up, so I did not expect it to be changed. However, we sometimes need to look at the language in our legislation in order that the public can understand it.

How many members of the public understand what the term "appropriation" means, what its consequences are or how important this Bill, which passes each year, is? I remember, because I have been in the House for long enough, how there was no debate on some previous Appropriation Bills. It is good that there is, and there has been in the past. I will come back to the other points I want to raise when we get to the Schedule. I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 4 agreed to.
SCHEDULE 1

Amendment No. 2 has been ruled out of order.

Amendment No. 2 not moved.

Amendment No. 3 has also been ruled out of order.

Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Schedule 1 be a Schedule to the Bill."

I expected that the amendments would be ruled out of order because I cannot do anything with moneys. That is the prerogative of the Minister for Finance. The problem is that over the past number of years, €2 million has just been floating around. There is no oversight in this House in any shape or form. That money just goes to the Secret Service. I have had this debate before. There is no other funding. It is tiny when we consider the scale of what we are doing here, so I will not delay the House too long. If it is money for informers, then it should come under the Vote for An Garda Síochána because it is responsible for that. If it is money for the Secret Service, it should also come under the Vote for An Garda Síochána because it deals with the security of the State. If you really wanted to, you could throw it under the Vote for the Defence Forces. Subhead J2, which used to be subhead G2, relates to military intelligence. Ultimately, those to whom I am referring here are still subservient to An Garda Síochána. It is a justice Vote, and I cannot understand why it falls under the brief of the Minister for Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform. It does not seem to state why. If it is for international espionage on behalf of the State or if it is a slush fund for embassies to buy secrets, then so be it.

Over the years, I have tried to ask about this matter. Every time I have tabled a question, it has been ruled out of order. Accounting is very important and has to be done. The only answer I got was in 2008, when it was stated that the purpose of the Secret Service Vote is to obtain information which is necessary for the security of the country and that given the sensitivities associated with a Vote of this nature, information relating to its operation is not made public. When Brian Cowen was Minister for Finance, he gave the same type of answer. It should be stuck somewhere. The Vote can disappear altogether and it can be a line under some Minister. If you look at the Revised Estimates, you can open the page but there is nothing there. There is no explanation and there are no capital costs. There are no wages, so it is not going on wages. If it was for wages, it would come under administration and that would explain it. There is nothing under travel, subsistence, training, development, premises or expenses. There is absolutely nothing. It is just €2 million that is floating around. If they stuck it in with the Vote for An Garda Síochána, which is more than €2 billion, then happy days. Nobody would ever hear about it ever again. It may be, as some people have said over the years, money to pay for informers or maybe for relocation, etc. I am not interested in that. A system was put in place after the Morris tribunal, whereby the Garda has to account for that type of money and any payments in any event. There is an accounting mechanism there, but there is no accounting mechanism for this.

I was trying to dig out the last answer in relation to the typo. I found an interesting one which shows how we need to account for it. In 1923, the President of the Dáil, W.T. Cosgrave, was giving out about the audacity of poor old Deputy Figgis in asking a question about funding for trawlers. He stated:

At no time have I any recollection of having sanctioned, in my capacity as Minister for Finance, the purchase of £4,000 of electrical machinery, or electrical gadgets, or whatever other sort of melodeon the Deputy was speaking about. It has not come before me.

All told, £87,000 was being given to buy trawlers. The trawlers had only been worth £250, but approximately £7,000 was being paid for each of them. W.T. Cosgrave was not happy that Deputy Figgis was getting "petty advertisement" from raising the issue. Things have not changed in some ways. I will leave it at that.

There are other appropriations, as I said, and there are other things that appear in the Schedule. I do not have a problem with them. Again, we can go back to the céad Dáil of 1920 and the appropriation that was made at that stage. Moneys were allocated to the Defence Forces, the Irish language consular services and the like. On 29 June, one of them was moved by the acting president that the sum of $1 million be voted to the Department of Defence. This was suggested by the president and the Vote would come out of the fund subscribed in America. It would not affect the moneys raised for the loan in Ireland. That motion was seconded at the time by Fionán Ó Loingsigh, who was from Kerry. It was carried. That was money to prosecute a war during that time.

I will not delay any further, but at some stage somebody has to get to grips with this anomaly. I have raised it and asked questions of various different Ministers for Finance and Ministers for public expenditure. I have not got much further than the answers that the then Minister, Brian Cowen, gave me. Now, however, the Ceann Comhairle seems to rule them out of order. I have checked committees to see if the Vote is ever discussed. It has never come up. It does not come up on the floor of the House. It is an anomaly that we need to address. We were dealing with another anomaly just before this when we spoke about private charter bills. These are things we need to tidy up.

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. This is an issue that has come up on a number of occasions when I have brought the Appropriation Bill before the House. I should say to Deputy Ó Snodaigh that when I brought my own Estimates before the relevant Oireachtas select committee, it did contain within it the Estimate we are now discussing. It was potentially available for discussion and engagement on Committee Stage and is presented-----

-----as part of the Estimate. It is listed as a Vote under my Department, as opposed to the other Departments the Deputy has just listed, because it is possible that a number of other Departments could make a request to use that fund during the year.

There has been a long-standing tradition, as the Deputy has just said, that we never comment on its use. It is the only money on which the Dáil makes a decision in respect of which we ask the Oireachtas not to enquire into the detail. This is because it pertains to issues relating to the use of money that is important to our State and its security. I do, however, want to emphasise to the Deputy that there are procedures in place in relation to it. The Comptroller and Auditor General plays a role in relation to it. That role is an auditing one.

It is very different from the role that happens in the use of taxpayers' money in the provision of other services. What happens there is that a Minister provides a certificate. The Comptroller and Auditor General looks at that certificate to deem it is correct and then the Secretary General plays an overall financial control role with it.

If the Deputy looks at the tens of billions of euro we are making decisions on, this is the only amount of money which we respectfully ask the Oireachtas to treat in a different way. This is for reasons that the Oireachtas has understood over many decades. While I accept the Deputy's disquiet as a parliamentarian that I cannot tell him what exactly the money is used for, I will ask him to accept the tradition and my word that it is used in a way that is appropriate but for reasons we cannot comment on publicly.

I understand and I am around long enough to understand this. It is somewhat strange that the figure is still at €2 million, which it has been for about five years. In years previous, while it may have been even longer than five years, it was quite a small figure but, as the Minister has said, in the overall scheme of things it is not that big. This expenditure was not always under the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform and it has moved but it is never down as coming under the committee which deals with the Vote of that Department. It never appears in the list of what that committee is dealing with. If that is the tradition, I will leave the tradition as is. It is just one of those oddities in here. It will probably be called "them" or something like that in years to come.

A book was produced about an organisation which never existed and I think it was the only secret service we probably ever had in this State other than one belonging to another country. The book was produced in 1924 which was called Ireland's Secret Service in Britain. This book was about the IRA carrying out actions in Britain during the 1919 to 1921 war and I think a man called Brady was the author. This organisation did not exist but consisted of whoever operated in Britain during those years. As far as I know there was no organisation and I believe it is the title which attracts the interest of people. If it was called something else, probably nobody would ever pay heed to it.

I am happy enough with the reply of the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.

This Bill, which is certified to be a money Bill in accordance with Article 22.2.1° of the Constitution, will be sent to the Seanad.

Barr
Roinn