Dáil debates
Tuesday, 25 November 2025
Estimates for Public Services 2025
5:20 am
Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move the following Supplementary Estimates:
Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome the opportunity to present the requirement for Further Revised Estimates 2025 for the Department of the Taoiseach and the Office of the Chief State Solicitor, following on from the Taoiseach attending the Joint and Select Committees on Finance, Public Expenditure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, and Taoiseach on the 2025 Revised Estimates for the Vote group on 9 July this year.
The key function of the Department of the Taoiseach is to support the Taoiseach and the Government, including in implementing the programme for Government, through principled leadership and joined-up governance by: providing impartial high-quality policy advice in the national interest; co-ordinating Government activity to ensure effective, inclusive and timely decision-making; upholding democratic integrity, Civil Service values and public trust at the centre of government; and promoting a strategic and sustainable long-term perspective that safeguards Ireland’s future prosperity, cohesion and resilience.
The 2025 gross Revised Estimate for the Department of the Taoiseach is €38.2 million. A total of 67%, or €25.42 million, of the allocation relates to salaries, wages and allowances.
Administration costs for the Department account for 16%. The remaining 17% provides non-pay funding for the National Economic and Social Development Office, the Covid-19 evaluation, citizens' assemblies and independent tribunals of inquiry and commissions of investigation.
A Supplementary Estimate of €3.389 million is requested for Vote 2 - Department of the Taoiseach. The need for the Supplementary Estimate relates to reimbursement to the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, in respect of third-party costs relating to the Moriarty tribunal of inquiry and the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA, commission of investigation. Funding provision for tribunals of inquiry and commissions of investigation was discussed with the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation as part of the 2025 Estimates process. Given that substantial allocations that had been made under these subheads in previous years went unspent, the 2025 allocation for tribunals of inquiry and commissions of investigation was agreed on the basis that any additional third-party costs falling due would be funded by way of a Supplementary Estimate.
The resolution to establish the Moriarty tribunal of inquiry was passed by the Oireachtas on 26 September 1997. The tribunal cost falls within the remit of Department of the Taoiseach. However, the tribunal is fully independent of the Department. The Department has no control over the amount or timing of third-party costs. Following completion and publication of the Moriarty tribunal’s final report in 2011, a number of significant legal challenges resulted in considerable delays to the completion of the process regarding applications for third-party costs. The legal costs unit of the State Claims Agency has delegated sanction under the National Treasury Management Agency (Amendment) Act 2000 to assess bills of costs when received. Settlements are processed and paid by the legal costs unit and reimbursement is then sought by the NTMA from the Department of the Taoiseach. A total Revised Estimate of €3.31 million was provided for tribunals of inquiry in 2025.
It is estimated that reimbursement to the NTMA in respect of third-party costs relating to the Moriarty tribunal of inquiry will amount to approximately €6.785 million in 2025, resulting in a funding requirement of €3.475 million.
The NAMA commission of investigation was established in June 2017, following extensive consultation with Oireachtas Members, to investigate the sale by NAMA of its Northern Ireland portfolio, known as Project Eagle. The Taoiseach was the specified Minister under the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004. The commission submitted its final report in April 2025, which dealt with the legal costs payable to the witnesses who appeared before it.
All commissions of investigation over the years covered by this subhead were independent and the Department of the Taoiseach had no control over their investigations or the third-party costs the commission would direct the Taoiseach to pay. The 2025 Revised Estimate allocation under subhead A5, commissions of investigation, is €2 million. It is estimated that reimbursements to the NTMA in respect of third-party costs related to the NAMA commission will amount to €2.764 million in 2025, giving rise to a Supplementary Estimate requirement of €764,000 in subhead A5.
The total additional funding requirement in respect of third-party costs related to the Moriarty tribunal and the NAMA commission of investigation is €4.239 million. However, the Department has identified savings of €850,000 to offset this additional funding requirement. Therefore, a Supplementary Estimate of €3.389 million is required for Vote 2 - Department of the Taoiseach. This will bring the 2025 gross Further Revised Estimate for the Department of the Taoiseach for the full year to €41.569 million.
I will turn now to the request for a technical Supplementary Estimate for the Office of the Chief State Solicitor, CSSO. While the Taoiseach and other officeholders in the Department of the Taoiseach have certain responsibilities to the Oireachtas for administrative matters in the CSSO, the office operates independently of the Department of the Taoiseach. The CSSO is seeking to reallocate funding so that savings on budget lines can be used to offset increased expenditure under a number of subheads. The CSSO is a constituent part of the Attorney General's office and acts as solicitor to Ireland, the Attorney General and Departments and offices. The CSSO's mission is to provide the highest standard of professional legal services to the Government, Departments and offices as economically and efficiently as possible and to support adherence to the rule of law.
The overall level of counsel fees is entirely demand-led and they are only paid following a robust, multilayered process which assesses each fee note individually to ascertain the correct fee payable for the work involved. The overall level of case fee notes is entirely demand-led and depends not only on the number of cases but also on the complexity of such cases in a given year. The technical Supplementary Estimate is requested to allocate funding of €1.264 million to cover additional expenditure under four subheads in the CSSO Vote: subhead A2, administration non-pay; subhead A3, external legal services; subhead A4, fees to counsel; and subhead A5, general law expenses.
Subhead A2, administration non-pay, was allocated a provision of €4.464 million in the 2025 Revised Estimates. An additional €232,000 is sought under this subhead. Inflationary increases, combined with delayed receipt of certain invoices at the end of 2024 now falling due in 2025, gave rise to the increased expenditure under this subhead.
An additional allocation of €62,000 is required to cover projected total spend of €312,000 on external legal services in 2025. This subhead provides for costs associated with engaging local State solicitors to act on behalf of the CSSO in the Circuit Courts and occasionally in the District Courts outside of Dublin. This increased expenditure arose due to an increase in the level of case activity in the work handled by local State solicitors, which varies from time to time.
An allocation of €17 million was made under subhead A4 in respect of fees for counsel in 2025. However, 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. These are primarily fees payable to external counsel following the delivery of the relevant legal service, where they represent Departments and offices in litigation before the Irish courts, other tribunals and the Court of Justice of the European Union. The overall level of these fees is, to a large extent, demand-led and dependent on the level of activity in the courts at any time and on the complexity of the given cases. It is therefore difficult to forecast the level of fees each year.
A provision of €630,000 was made in the 2025 CSSO Revised Estimates for general law expenses, which are demand-led and depend on the types of cases being taken by and against the State. It is estimated that expenditure on general law expenses will be approximately €800,000 in 2025, which gives rise to a requirement for an additional allocation of €170,000 under this subhead.
The CSSO has 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. To allow the Oireachtas to vote on the technical Supplementary Estimate, an additional €1,000 must be requested on the CSSO's 2025 Revised Estimate, bringing the 2025 gross Further Revised Estimate for the CSSO to €54.55 million. I commend the motion to the House.
5:25 am
Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is unique that we are here in the Dáil dealing with Estimates for the Department of the Taoiseach when the Taoiseach is a missing person in this debate. These Estimates always come before the committee that oversees and holds the Department of An Taoiseach accountable, which is the committee on finance, public expenditure and the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach only presents himself before the committee on rare occasions. It has to be noted that the Taoiseach has refused on a number of occasions to come before the committee. The Minister of State said she offered to attend in his stead, but the committee made it clear that it wanted the Taoiseach in to discuss the Estimates of his Department, for which he is accountable. On numerous occasions, the committee offered to be flexible in relation to the Taoiseach's diary. This is one of the functions of the Taoiseach in relation to his Department.
It is understandable, given what the Minister of State has outlined, because these Estimates only contain one significant change, and it relates to the gift that keeps on giving - the Moriarty tribunal. Since the last time we dealt with the Estimates, we now have, pulling the strings of Government, the star of the show of the Moriarty tribunal, the one and only Deputy Lowry, who, as we know, has been found by that same tribunal to be involved in corrupt practices in relation to his time as a Minister.
The Estimates do not relate to a small amount of money but to millions of euro in additional costs that have to be paid out as a result of that tribunal. When we boil it all down, it is as a result of the actions of Deputy Lowry, who is now the glue that keeps the Government in place. He is the person who ensured that the Taoiseach was appointed to the position he is in. I am sure the Taoiseach did not want to sit across from members of the finance committee having to answer questions, which he has now evaded and avoided by not coming before the committee to tease out the ongoing issues in relation to the Moriarty tribunal and its ongoing costs, and to find out where this ends. We know from some public discourse, for example, that the legal case has been settled in relation to Deputy Lowry and his costs, who claimed in the region of €2.8 million. I do not know if that is the final line under the amount. We understand from media reports that Denis O'Brien has also received his costs of €5.8 million. I am not sure if there are further costs or if there is anything in dispute.
The Taoiseach has gone into hiding on this matter. It is little wonder that even his own backbenchers are biting at his heels due to his non-attendance at meetings when he is neglecting one of the key functions of his duties, that is, to present Estimates. Here, he is seeking millions of euro extra from the Houses of the Oireachtas to continue to pay out for a tribunal that had to investigate the king-maker of his own Government. He is in dereliction of his duties in this regard. In his absence, I ask what the running bill is because this is probably not even the final bill at this stage.
Where are we now in relation to the costs of the Moriarty tribunal? How much has Deputy Lowry saddled the State with? The Irish Timesreported, maybe earlier this year, that the cost was €83 million. Now we are looking at Estimates here of an extra €3.4 million. There is some - €3 million - already budgeted. Are we now up at €90 million? Are we in the ballpark of the original figure, speculated 15 years ago, that this could even run as far as €100 million? These are the questions the Taoiseach should be answering, if he was not running scared of these issues. He should be before the finance committee tomorrow, the next day or the day after that. We have offered flexibility in relation to him presenting.
I am a passionate advocate for the committee system and I believe the committees should flex their muscles more. It is not appropriate, regardless of any precedent going back 15 years, for a Chief Whip to step in for the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach should present himself before the committee. Ministers should present themselves before the committee. Junior Ministers who have no responsibility for the Estimates that are before a committee should not be standing in for the Taoiseach or, indeed, any other Minister. I have had the privilege in the past of dealing with Estimates with the former taoisigh, Enda Kenny and Leo Varadkar, and others. The Taoiseach should have been here to deal with these issues, despite the fact that he might be a wee bit red in the face given that core issue here, in terms of the millions of euro extra that is required, is a result of the actions of the person who put him on the Taoiseach's seat in the first instance.
5:35 am
Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
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.
Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This is quite extraordinary. A tribunal was set up in 1997 and millions of euro of public money is going in to paying expenses related to that tribunal in this Revised Estimate this year. The person responsible for answering questions to the Oireachtas about this, the Taoiseach, refused to come to the finance committee to answer questions. He did refuse, because we wrote to him and we said we would accommodate him at any time or date that suits him. The Taoiseach has not come to our committee. He has declined to come. With a few hours' notice, these Estimates have come in here without being discussed at the committee and without us having the opportunity to ask questions, as we should have been able to do and as we wanted to because we want to do our job in scrutinising them. These Estimates should be getting discussed at the committee with the Taoiseach, so that when we ask for the detailed breakdown as to what is happening here, he should be able to answer in a back-and-forth exchange.
That is the normal process on Estimates and Revised Estimates, and which is done with all the other Revised Estimates but is not being done here. That is completely wrong. The Taoiseach should come to the committee to answer our questions on this. The Taoiseach's absence today, his not coming to committee today and the Minister of State, Deputy Butler, bringing them forward today with a few hours' notice without the Taoiseach answering questions is utterly unacceptable. It is all the more unacceptable when we look at what is going on here with millions of euro still going to pay for the expenses of the Moriarty tribunal almost 30 years after it was set up. That is extraordinary and it is extraordinary that the Taoiseach is evading accountability on it. This is exactly what is happening. He is evading accountability. We wanted him at our committee to answer questions on this. We asked him to come. We said we would accommodate him at any time or date that suited him. I know he is a busy man but surely he should be able to schedule a time and date to come into the committee to answer questions on this. He has declined to do so. It is utterly unacceptable and all the more so when this Government is being propped up by Deputy Michael Lowry and, of course, there would not be a Moriarty tribunal were it not for the findings that were made against him. Evading accountability on that is utterly unacceptable.
There is a fundamental question here. Where are the millions of euro of additional funding for the Moriarty tribunal going? We should not be in the Dáil Chamber without this having been trashed out properly with proper information at the committee and with the Taoiseach present. Where is the detailed breakdown of that? Why has it not been provided to the committee? Why has the Taoiseach not come in to answer questions? Will that detailed breakdown be provided at this stage? Why were we only given a few hours' notice of this? Why was it just sprung today? If this is the Government's way of doing business, and if it thinks this is an acceptable way of doing business, why did the Government not give us notice last week at the Business Committee? Why was it just sprung at the very last minute? The Government is trying to pull a fast one here by evading accountability. That is what the Government is doing. There is a much better way of doing this. There is an established way of doing the Estimates, which all the other Revised Estimates go through, which is that the line Minister - in this case, the Taoiseach - comes to the committee. That is not happening on this occasion. It is not acceptable. It is pulling a fast one and we are calling the Government out on it.
5:45 am
Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Does the Deputy want to discuss the Estimates?
Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yes, and the Taoiseach should have come to the committee to do that. I have asked the Minister of State my questions on it and I want answers on it.
Michael Collins (Cork South-West, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Today we are once again discussing the legacy of the Moriarty tribunal, a process that began in 1997 and officially concluded in 2011, yet continues to cost the taxpayer millions. The latest revelation is an additional €3.5 million payment to settle outstanding legal costs. This comes on top of over €71 million already spent with previous settlements, such as €5.8 million earlier this year. This is not just about historical inquiries; it is about accountability and efficiency in how public money is managed. When a tribunal has ended over a decade ago but its financial impact still grows we must ask, "Where is the oversight and where is the transparency?". That is why Independent Ireland is calling for the creation of a Department of efficiency and transparency, something very few in this House have supported. I would like to know why. It would be a dedicated body to monitor public spending, ensure timely resolution of legal disputes and prevent runaway costs in future inquiries. Such a Department would set clear timelines, enforce cost controls, and publish real-time updates for the public.
Today we learned Uisce Éireann, another Government body, has missed its leakage targets by a mile. A target of 176 million litres was promised but only 20 million litres was delivered. Now Uisce Éireann faces a €20 million penalty while €13.6 billion is being sanctioned for water investment over five years. This is another example of oversight matters. It is not acceptable in this island that this carry on is happening when others are suffering and we are trying to deliver services and infrastructure.
To put it in perspective, the €71 million already spent on the Moriarty tribunal could have funded over 350 new social housing units, given that the average cost of building a social home is approximately €200,000 per unit. Imagine the impact that would have on struggling families with housing insecurity. Our citizens deserve confidence that every euro is spent wisely. Endless delays, missed targets and ballooning costs undermine trust in this Government.
We keep asking for an oversight body on expenditure. To me it is a no-brainer but for some reason the Government does not seem to want to support a Department of efficiency and transparency. This is an opportunity for the Government to stand up and say, "Okay, this might deliver and it might deliver savings to the State and savings to the taxpayer, the hard working people". At the end of the day, all these bills and overruns happen but somebody must pay and that is the hard working taxpayer who gets up in the morning, the man or the woman who is trying to go to work at 5 a.m., 6 a.m., or 7 a.m. This is where their money is being wasted. It is no longer acceptable. We are not talking about €50,000; we are talking about hundreds of millions of euro.
Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We have serious issues in relation to cost overruns in this country. Inquiries, commissions of investigation and tribunals have cost the taxpayer millions of euro. The fact the Taoiseach is not here this evening is reflective of that. He is the line Minister in relation to this and he should be here to answer questions. Millions of euro are pumped into this system and yet so many of these inquiries fail to deliver justice. The Moriarty tribunal was established in the late 1990s, the final report was published in 2011 and the cost is in the region of €100 million but what is the outcome? It is zero accountability and zero convictions. Almost 30 years later, and despite the final report being published over a decade ago, the Irish taxpayer is still paying for it. What is going on? That is why the Taoiseach should be here, namely, to answer questions in relation to it. Sending in junior Ministers without responsibility in here is simply not good enough.
This money could be spent on so many better things, such as housing, health, infrastructure, Irish Water and so on. It could be spent on special needs. I know a family in Mayo struggling to find a school for their child because the schools are oversubscribed at the moment. There are so many issues in the country and it seems this Government just does not want to address value for money for the taxpayer. That is hugely regrettable. Instead, the Government appears to be happy to continue to pump millions into a black hole.
This inquiry needs to be wound up. We need to get to the end of this inquiry and €100 million on one inquiry is simply unacceptable. We want to see real accountability in relation to this and reform of tribunals and commissions of inquiry. The first step would be the Taoiseach coming in here to answer questions in relation to it.
Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach, Deputy Quaide, for his forbearance and allowing me to speak. I am very disappointed the Taoiseach is not here because this is a huge Vote and a huge amount of funding. There are many different aspects to it, in particular it deals with NAMA and Project Eagle, as was mentioned. There is also funding for the Moriarty tribunal, for which we are paying 30 years later. Some €850 million were supposed to be saved in one area with NAMA and yet we fail to see where those savings were teased out. There are extra costs in other sections. There is no rhyme nor reason to them. I am very disappointed, in that the Taoiseach was purportedly asked to come to the committee on finance to discuss this. After all, it is his Estimate, his Vote and his money. It should be dealt with.
On a number of occasions in this House, I have asked questions about NAMA as did former Deputy, Michael McGrath, in his time as finance spokesperson for the Minister of State's party. On two previous occasions in this House, I raised serious matters relating to the unauthorised use of Mr. John Fraher's personal tax number by NAMA and the Poppyfield Consortium partnership - VAT No. 9540943A - since the dissolution of the partnership on 3 December 2013.
That is a most serious thing to happen. This man has been trading in Clonmel for decades. He got into financial difficulties. He went into bankruptcy and moved to England. His tax number continued to be used. I put on the record that Mr. George Maloney, trustee in bankruptcy, appointed at the express request of NAMA, fraudulently used Mr. John Fraher's tax number in a dissolved partnership over a protracted number of years, related to Clonmel Park Hotel. Things are going on in NAMA and have gone on in NAMA, and history will not be kind to it. However, it will be too late for the taxpayers who are being bled dry here. It is shocking. This is supported by annual Revenue returns submitted by the dissolved partnership and knowingly false returns by NAMA in 2015. It is clearly shocking stuff. The former chairman, Frank Daly, chief executive, Brendan McDonagh, and head of legal, Alan Stewart, are all aware of the above and all are or were NAMA employees. What is going here, that this could go on? It was questioned by the finance spokesman of the Minister of State's party when he was in opposition. He is now a Commissioner. George Maloney now sits on the regulatory decisions unit of the Central Bank. His profile on the Central Bank website includes that he is included on the current insolvency and enforcement panels for NAMA and is a member of the Revenue Commissioners panel for expert witness and complex bank insolvency arrangements. I question it, my goodness. This is a white-collar crime, and I am calling for all disclosure on every transaction relating to Clonmel Park Hotel and the dissolved partnership after 13 December 2013. They are all fraudulent.
How can we have a debate here this evening? The presence of the Taoiseach is vital. Okay, maybe he has to be wherever he is. I have said in the past that he wants to be anywhere bar this Dáil, whether it is Ukraine, the WEF, the World Bank or the COP. He needs to cop on and know that his responsibility is to this House and to the people of Ireland. I met a person at a function in Buswells Hotel earlier who said that he was doing great duties all over the world. His profound and solemn duty under the Constitution is to be here. This has to be rooted out here. The corporate and white-collar crime is disgusting. It is John Fraher, a Clonmel businessman. His tax number could be used for several years when he was out of the country and had ceased trading. NAMA knows this. The Revenue knows this. The Department of Finance knows this. Who is going to deal with it? I do not expect the Minister of State, Deputy Butler, to deal with it. I do not expect that if the Taoiseach were here today, he would deal with it. It is going on for too long. Questions were asked by the former finance spokesman for Fianna Fáil, now Commissioner, when he questioned this on behalf of Mr. Fraher. How is that a businessman from Ireland was abroad and bankrupt and trying to trade abroad and his tax number was being used here? Millions of euro were shovelled through his tax number and tax returns, falsely. How can that stand up in any kangaroo or banana republic if we let that go on? We vote all this money for NAMA here. We vote all this money for all the different overspends and underspends that pass through with glib reference to what we should be doing. It is totally unacceptable. I thank the Chair for allowing me the time this evening.
5:55 am
Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have raised it a couple of times in the past couple of weeks. How do we think as a Government we can keep paying €1.2 billion for asylum seekers or refugees or whatever they are in this country? We are under savage pressure for services in every regard. I am asking that question. How long can the country stand up to this? There are taxpayers out in the morning and late at night working and trying to survive and they are taxed to the hilt. That is the question I am asking. I hope someone will address it for me. It is a serious problem. We need to come to grips with it because we must see after our own people too.
Shay Brennan (Dublin Rathdown, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the Supplementary Estimates before the House today for the Department of Taoiseach and the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. I understand that these proposals are not about allocating new funds for fresh initiatives or discretionary spending. Instead, they represent essential expenditures that arise from legal obligations. These obligations come from decisions taken by independent bodies that operate beyond the direct control or influence of the Government. Specifically, the Supplementary Estimate for Vote 2 amounts to just shy of €3.4 million and is required to reimburse the National Treasury Management Agency for third party costs arising from tribunals of inquiry and the NAMA commission of investigation. These sums reflect assessments made independently and the Government must meet these costs in full. Additionally, a technical adjustment of €1,000 is sought for Vote 6, the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. I am satisfied that this technical provision allows that office to work with its budget lines to effectively manage surpluses and deficits.
The Department of the Taoiseach plays a critical role in supporting the Taoiseach and the Government. It ensures co-ordinated Government activity, delivers impartial policy advice and oversees tribunals and commissions of investigation. It provides transparency and accountability, which are vital to maintaining public trust. Equally important is that these tribunals and commissions function independently of Government, to preserve their integrity and their credibility. Independence, however, means the Department cannot predict or control when needed costs will arise, or indeed their magnitude. These are statutory obligations that must be honoured. They are laid out under the Commissions of Investigation Act and backed by resolutions of this House. Failure to fund these costs would undermine our system of inquiries. I believe supporting these Supplementary Estimates is essential to uphold the integrity of our investigative process, ensure the State meets its legal commitments and to maintaining public confidence and the administration of justice.
Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Deputies for their contributions on the Supplementary Estimates for Votes 2 and 6, and for setting aside the time for this motion, given the time-sensitive nature of the Supplementary Estimates process. I will just clear up a few points. Last Thursday afternoon, in my diary, I was to attend the finance committee on behalf of the Taoiseach in relation to these Supplementary Estimates. At approximately 12 noon on Thursday, after our Business Committee meeting, I was informed that I was no longer required to attend by the committee. Those are the facts.
Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Excuse me, this is not questions and answers.
Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister of State cannot invent her own facts.
Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Excuse me, this is not questions and answers.
Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The committee never agreed to a substitute to appear on behalf of the Taoiseach.
Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
A Chathaoirligh, please chair the meeting.
Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is exactly correct.
Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is important because the Minister of State is not on the committee.
Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Please chair the meeting.
Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
No matter what arrangement she and the Taoiseach had, that is not the fact.
Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. The arrangement was made with my private secretary and the clerk of the committee. I am only speaking the facts.
Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It was never made by the committee.
Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
No, it was never made by the committee.
Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is wrong to draw a civil servant into this argument.
Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy might get away with shouting at people all of his life, but I am here to answer.
Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister of State is drawing a staff member of this House into this issue
Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
On a point of order, will the Minister of State clarify whether there was ever an agreement with the finance committee to have her in before it?
Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There was never any decision.
Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
On two occasions the committee unanimously said-----
Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This is not a point of order, a Chathaoirligh.
Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
-----that it would facilitate the Taoiseach at whatever time he wanted with regard to his attendance.
Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
A Chathaoirligh, please chair the meeting. This is not a point of order. I know the rules of this House.
Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is the Minister of State going to give clarity or are we just moving on?
Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
If they want me to answer I will answer, or they can talk down the clock, whichever they require.
Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Let the Minister of State answer.
Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have heard what Deputy Doherty has said. He can try to undermine me all he likes, saying that he does not want a junior Minister standing opposite him. I am the Government Chief Whip at the Department of the Taoiseach.
I am also Minister of State at the Department of Health with responsibility for mental health and I attend Cabinet. I am well qualified to stand here. Deputy Doherty might not recognise that sitting in opposition but I am proud of what I am and who I have become as Chief Whip of this Government. That is the first point.
The second point, which none of the Deputies opposite wants to acknowledge, is that this is time sensitive and this Vote has to happen by 3 December, next week. It is my job to make sure the Votes are taken.
It is too easy to comment that the Taoiseach will not come and present here. He simply did not have the time to come before the committee.
6:05 am
Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There is precedent for this, as I said today on the Order of Business. I have been ten years in this House and for ten years, I have done Estimates, including four years as Chair of the Oireachtas Committee on Business, Enterprise and Innovation from 2016 to 2020. I have done Supplementary Estimates for the past six years, including last Wednesday in relation to health. I know what Estimates are and I know how they work. I also know there is precedent for the Chief Whip to take Estimates. It has happened before. I repeat that in 2004 the Minister of State, Mary Hanafin, attended select committee; Deputy Jack Chambers, who was Minister of State at the time, took Director of Public Prosecutions Supplementary Estimates on 30 November 2022; and on Thursday, 23 November 2023, the Chief Whip, Deputy Naughton, took the DPP Supplementary Estimates and a technical Supplementary Estimate for the Department because the Taoiseach was not available. The whole purpose of the meeting here today-----
Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Three occasions in 21 years.
Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
No, those are just three examples I came with. I can find more if the Deputy likes. I have no problem looking back on things. The most important thing we should be here discussing are the Estimates, and many of the Deputies opposite chose not to discuss them.
Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We asked how much the tribunal would cost.
Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The situation is very clear. The Supplementary Estimate for Vote 6 is purely technical in nature. The CSSO does not require additional funding in 2025; it just needs the permission of the House to move funding within its Vote.
The Supplementary Estimate for Vote 2 is substantive but unavoidable. It arises solely due to the payment of additional third party costs related to the Moriarty tribunal of inquiry and the National Asset Management Agency commission of investigation. I must stress again - it does not matter how many times I say it - that the Moriarty tribunal of inquiry and the NAMA commission of investigation are fully independent of the Department of the Taoiseach, and the Department has no role in determining the amount or timing of any third party costs.
Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
But the Department can tell us the running cost. Please.
Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I must also stress that when finalising the 2025 Revised Estimate for the Department of the Taoiseach, the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation agreed that any additional third party cost falling due in 2025 would be funded by way of a Supplementary Estimate. It is important to note that the Department of the Taoiseach is otherwise within budget for 2025 and has managed to identify savings of €850,000 within its Vote to offset some of the additional third party costs that have arisen in 2025. My preference was to attend at committee, not to be here on the floor of the Dáil, to set out the case for the Supplementary Estimates for Votes 2 and 6, and I had set time aside last Thursday.
Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is the Minister of State going to answer any questions?
Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I regret that this did not prove possible. In particular, as I said, there is precedent for the Chief Whip-----
Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What is the total cost of the tribunal? I think three people have asked the Minister of State that question.
Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
-----presenting requirements for Supplementary Estimates for Votes in the Vote group of the Department of the Taoiseach.
Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What is the detailed breakdown?
Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What is the total cost of the-----
Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh.
Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
On a point of order, three Members have asked what the total running cost of the tribunal is now. The Minister of State is here to take Estimates. It is not just about the money that is there; it is also about the actions and the objectives that are met. Can she please tell us, what is the total cost of the Moriarty tribunal now to date, given the Estimates she is asking the House to agree? That is a fair question, and I imagine she would accept that.
Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is a fair question. We asked for a detailed breakdown.
Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The problem is that we do not have a Q and A.
Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is a fair question. I asked for a detailed breakdown. This is millions in public money. Deputy Nash and I asked a fair question. Where is the detailed breakdown?
Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
As regards the Moriarty tribunal, established in 1997, the spend to date is €77.948 million. I would have been quite happy to answer any questions if I was afforded the time to do so but the Deputies opposite chose not to do so. They chose to attack me and the Taoiseach.
Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister of State has failed to answer the question again.
Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I acknowledge that the Minister of State may not have the information available, or maybe she was not prepared to put it on the record today. If, however, it is the case that she has that information, which she will have, or at least the NTMA will, can the Minister of State forward the information in writing to each finance spokesperson and members of the committee to let them know, to inform us, as to precisely what the breakdown of the additional Supplementary Estimate will go towards?
Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am sure all the paperwork has been circulated.
Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We were told this morning that this Supplementary Estimate would be brought in. This is no way to run a railroad anyway.
Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
-----to get that information to the relevant spokespeople and the committee?
Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I was not aware that they had not got the briefs. I would have assumed-----
Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
No, it is not the briefs. We were informed only this morning, in fact, that this Supplementary Estimate, this resolution, would be introduced.
Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yes, because it is time sensitive. I was prepared to go in last Thursday afternoon and I was informed-----
Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
So the Minister of State knew on Thursday and could have told us on Thursday.
Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
No, I did not. I was prepared to go in last Thursday afternoon and I was told around lunchtime on Thursday that the meeting was no longer going ahead and that the committee did not wish the Chief Whip to attend.
Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is what I was told.
Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Who told us on Thursday that-----
Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I was not aware of that during the committee.
Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
A Chathaoirligh, the debate has concluded.
Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Notwithstanding that that is the Minister of State's position-----
Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yes, but a promise has been-----
Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
-----can she communicate the details that we require in writing through the NTMA to us?
Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The debate has concluded.
Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I understand the debate has concluded, Minister, but you had already said earlier that the information will be sent.
Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The information that goes to any committee in relation to Estimates will be circulated.
Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
But, based on the fact and the nature and the way in which this information has been presented is unsatisfactory-----
Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We are not going to be able to get an answer beyond that which has been given.
Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
-----I would imagine that if the Minister of State were prepared to meet us halfway, acknowledging that this was rushed and-----
Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It was not rushed; it was debated on the floor of the Dáil.
Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I understand the Minister of State's defence of her own position. That is fine.
Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputy Nash, the problem is that we are not in a select committee. We do not have the power to deal with this here. There is obviously a complaint and-----
Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I would imagine, as a courtesy, that the Minister of State would ask the NTMA to write to us to provide us with the information we require.
Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This is the third time this has been dealt with this way this year - three committees.
Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is basic, and it is the job of this House to hold the Executive to account. It is our job, fundamentally, constitutionally, to approve expenditure.
Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I understand. We have no facility-----
Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Could everybody be quiet for one minute? We have no facility to deal with this particular issue here.
Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputies asked the Minister of State a question; the Minister of State has given her answer. If there are issues and grievances in relation to that, they will have to be brought up at another date and in the correct setting.