Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)

I intend to focus my contribution on asking some questions about the statement the Minister of State made outlining this proposition and, in general terms, what the Supplementary Estimates are designed to support.

A total Revised Estimate of €3.31 million was provided for tribunals of inquiry in 2025. We are talking about third-party costs for the Moriarty tribunal. The updated Estimate is €6.785 million in 2025 for third-party costs involving the Moriarty tribunal. That is a funding requirement now that is being requested of this House, a Supplementary Estimate of €3.475 million.

There is a relatively limited amount of information contained in the Minister of State's proposal. Given that we talking about essentially doubling the amount of money required to support third-party costs arising from the Moriarty tribunal of inquiry this year alone, it would be useful if she could place on the record, in terms of the information that she has available, precisely who will this be paid to. We are required to drill down into the facts here, given the relative quantum of the moneys that the Minister of State is asking the House to sanction. Constitutionally, it is our role, as the Legislature, to sanction expenditure based on the proposals brought to us by the Executive. I the Minister of State to put on the record of the House as much detail as she possibly can, and provide at least a breakdown, not in global terms but in the most precise terms she can with the information she has available. If it is the case that the Minister of State is not in a position to do that today, she could inform us, the Opposition finance spokespersons, and members of the relevant line committee of those details when she has them available to her, if she does not have them today.

The Minister of State then spoke about the Project Eagle element of the NAMA commission of investigation. She articulate that "the Department has identified savings of €850,000 to offset this additional funding requirement", that is, the additional Supplementary Estimate to support the NAMA commission of investigation. I ask her to elaborate on where those savings are derived from.

I move on to Vote 6 - Office of the Chief State Solicitor. It is unusual, to say the least. I draw the Minister of State's attention to subhead A4, fees to counsel. In her contribution, the Minister of State referred to value-for-money assessments and stated that "the current position shows that after the fees requested by counsel undergo a value-for-money assessment, it is estimated total fees to counsel in 2025 will be €17.801 million, leaving a shortfall of €801,000 in this subhead." It is quite extraordinary that after a value-for-money assessment, which usually leads to cost savings in the normal run of events, we are, in fact, saddled with a larger bill and a requirement to approve a Supplementary Estimate. I ask the Minister of State to go into some detail on how, after a value-for-money assessment, we find ourselves having to pay out more. Usually, it is the case that savings are identified when a value-for-money assessment takes place.

I accept as fact the Minister of State's point that these are demand-led situations. We absolutely understand that. The Minister of State stated, with regard to subhead A5, that the Chief State Solicitor's office had identified savings under subhead A1, administration pay and excess appropriations-in-aid, which will offset the total estimated €1.264 million expenditure shortfall in Vote 6. I ask her to elaborate on where those savings have accrued.

Returning to the points related to the Moriarty tribunal of inquiry, it is incredible, almost 30 years since that tribunal first sat and almost 15 years since it reported, that we are still seeing rolling costs being accrued at the expense of the taxpayer. Thirty years on, the cumulative total now is climbing close to €100 million. Thirty years on, and a year on from the formation of this Government and many years on from the commitment to revise, review, renew and update ethics legislation, we still do not have it. There is no updated ethics legislation whatsoever. We cannot be surprised at that given that Michael Lowry has been at the heart of the formation of this Government. That is a stain on the reputation of this Government in many respects. One way the Government could rescue its reputation would be to make a commitment that the laws that were introduced a number of years ago need to be modernised. We all accept that they need to be modernised and updated and that many of the lessons learned from the Moriarty tribunal need to be incorporated into the new legislative suite of proposals. We have not seen those proposals yet. They have not been published by successive Ministers for public expenditure and reform. One way this Government can recommit to accountability and transparency in public life would be to publish that legislation, have it debated on the floor of this Chamber and have it enacted as soon as possible.

See this speech in context