Aengus Ó Snodaigh
Dublin South-Central · Sinn Féin · Ireland
“In a reply to a parliamentary question on MetroLink in April of this year, the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, again stated his belief that the MetroLink terminus can facilitate any potential future MetroLink expansion to serve the south west, south or south east of Dublin should sufficient demand develop. That demand is already there.”
“A millennium and a half later, with Ireland serving as the President of the Council of the European Union, it is the same law we want to see enforced in the era of AI. In the words of the author Scott Turow, in paraphrasing The Atlantic's Alex Reisner, the bold future promised by AI has been "created with stolen words".”
“Tá roinnt samplaí anseo agam. Glacaim leis gur chuir an conradh agus BÁNÚ roinnt samplaí eile chuig an Aire ag léiriú an damáiste a dhéanfaidh sé sin. In ainneoin an méid atá ráite aige, i gceantair áirithe, tá coinníollacha ar leith ann ó thaobh forbróirí atá ag forbairt iliomad tithíochta faoi láthair.”
“Theft is being rewarded and creativity is being punished to the tune of €22 billion globally in music and film, according to the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers. The European directives are no longer fit for purpose because of the exemptions granted to train AI.”
“Cloisim é seo. Chuala mé é thar na blianta ó dhaoine a bhí ag iarraidh go laghdófaí teorainn na Gaeltachta. Bhí siad ag iarraidh díriú isteach ar na ceantair a bhí in ísle brí ó thaobh labhairt na Gaeilge chun iad a chaitheamh amach ón nGaeltacht. Bhí siad ag iarraidh go mbeadh an Ghaeltacht srianta go dtí ceantair ina bhfuil 50% ann.”
“Bhí líne den scoth sa leabhar Ag Caint Linn Fhéin , a scríobh Joe Steve Ó Neachtain, laoch an Ghluaiseacht Chearta Sibhialta na Gaeltachta agus ealaíontóir ildánach, "Is é an croí atá i gceol na hÉireann a dhéanann náisiún mór den náisiún beag seo ar fud an domhain." Tír gan teanga, tír gan anam. Tír gan ealaín, tír gan chroí.”
The complete record
Every one of 904 lines we hold for Aengus Ó Snodaigh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 19.
“The change proposed to subsection (4) is intended to adjust and augment what was intended to be provided for in section 3A of this Bill. Insofar as the right to a particular percentage share is to be provided for, it must be provided for, as between the performers on a sound recording and the producer as distinct from "a performer", where there may be several performances comprised on the sound recording. In other jurisdictions, a statutory or prescribed split is typically made, subject to an alternative agreement between the interested parties, and we have made provisions for that in the amendments.”
“The European Commission has explicitly stated that legislative wording that does not achieve its objective is not only not fit for purpose, but is not compliant with EU law. In other words, as RAAP has outlined, if the Government passes legislation that ticks the box with the legal provisions but is of no practical help to the artist seeking to get their royalties, then it has not achieved compliance with the EU directive. At the end of the day, this is about ensuring full compliance but also ensuring that artists and producers get their equitable share and that the artists and performers get their royalties. Therefore, once again, we ask the Minister of State to delete these sections. Instead, we propose to retain and amend the existing subsections.”
“4 and 5, which she will move herself, will bring clarity as to how the Circuit Court will deal with subsequent requests to change as an order under the proposed new system, we ask that the Minister of State reconsider entirely the transfer of functions from the Controller of Intellectual Property. The Association of European Performers' Organisations, AEPO-ARTIS, made it very clear in its submission to the Minister of State that transferring this function to the Circuit Court, thus necessitating costly litigation, is tantamount to depriving performers of any redress or dispute resolution mechanism. It also pointed out that it was a fundamental principle of EU law that rights must be effective in practice.”
“(6) Subject to subsection (7), a person or persons by or to whom equitable remuneration is payable having the right to apply to the Controller under subsection (5) may also apply to the Controller— (a) to vary any agreement as to the amount payable, or (b) to vary any previous determination of the Controller as to the amount payable.”,”. Amendment No. 3 seeks to delete paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 2 as proposed in the Bill, which intends to replace subsections (4) to (9) of section 208 in the Act and to insert new subsections (3A) to (3E), doing away with the right to recourse to the Controller of Intellectual Property. Amendment No. 7 deletes section 3, which also transfers the controller functions to the Circuit Court. While the Minister of State's amendments Nos.”
“Where there are numerous persons having the same interest in the subject matter of any such application, one or more of such persons may apply to the Controller under this subsection on behalf of all persons so interested. Representation by the same licensing body for the same rights shall be taken as proof of persons having the same interest in the subject matter of the application for the purposes of this section. A licensing body which represents persons making an application under this section may also be a party to an application made by any person or persons whom it represents.”
“I move amendment No. 3: In page 3, to delete lines 16 to 32, and in page 4, to delete lines 1 to 14 and substitute the following: “(a) by the substitution of the following subsections for subsections (4), (5) and (6): “(4) Subject to subsections (5) to (9), and unless otherwise agreed by or on behalf of the persons by and to whom it is payable the amount of equitable remuneration payable under this section to the performers on a sound recording is equal 50 per cent share of the payments referred to in subsection (1), which shall be referred to in this Part as the Statutory Share. (5) The person by or to whom it equitable remuneration is payable may apply to the Controller for an order under subsection (8) to vary the Statutory Share.”
“I move amendment No. 2: In page 3, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following: “(a) in subsection (1), by the substitution of “which is comprised of a share of any and all payments collected or collectable by or on behalf of the copyright owner under section 38(1) after deduction of justifiable and documented costs of collection” for “where the sound recording of the whole or any substantial part of a qualifying performance which has been made available to the public for commercial purposes is— (a) played in public, or (b) included in a broadcast or cable programme service”.”.”
“Most of these amendments are tied together in some ways to make sure there is fair and equitable distribution of that based on what was fully intended in the EU directive. Avoiding doubt would ensure that we are not back here again in the future with other legislation to plug a hole that we have identified here and that we can take the opportunity to address it now rather than wait until another judgment in the future finds that we are still in breach of the directive.”
“I am disappointed that the Minister of State has not seen the need to adopt these amendments, which are clarifying a situation that she says does not need to be clarified because it is already in law. Obviously, it is not in law and it is not clear if two different organisations with their legal teams had a look at this. My own legal advisers had a look at this and they all said that, to avoid doubt in any way, these amendments were required. Separate to that, they are required to ensure that there is no undermining of the position of the collective management organisations on both sides. RAAP would be one in this case or Phonographic Performance Ireland, PPI, would be the one on the producers side. It is to make sure that there is no doubt as to their role and their ability to collect revenues.”
“If the Bill puts the producer's CMO in a position of collector of revenues for rights holders that are not its members, then the attendant requirement of transparency and reasonableness off the cost of collection should follow. It is in some ways a bit convoluted but the key is to ensure that we are transposing legislation in the proper fashion, that we do not fall foul of it, and that it is very clear to ensure there is no doubt and to prevent any arguments in the future that would require the Controller of Intellectual Property or, if the Minister of State gets her way, the Circuit Court to deal with them.”
“The correction of the qualification criteria to provide a common qualification for the right means that there would be no distinction between the sums paid and payable under section 38 and the sums from which the performers' share gets paid. The condition as to the justifiable nature of the costs of collection and their documentation needs to be introduced to avoid any possibility that these protections provided for in section 10(3) of the collective rights management, CRM, regulations might be argued not to apply in circumstances where the collective management organisation, CMO, is collecting licence revenues for rights holders that are not its members.”
“The change proposes to make explicit the effect that the existing provisions of the Act, namely, the payments made under section 38, represent payments for both the copyright owner of the sound recording and the performers whose performances are incorporated in it. It is useful to remove doubt at this point, should any exist, to facilitate simple and efficient collection and the sharing of that right. The amendment expresses what is required under Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115/EC, namely, the payment of a single, equitable remuneration to be shared. The additional wording proposed in amendment No. 2 bookends the proper transposition of the right to be shared in providing that performers have the right to a share of all payments collected under section 38.”
“At the very least, we want to get on the record what the amendments seek to achieve and to make sure, if they are not accepted tonight, that the debate will continue. Perhaps the Minister can look at them again before the Bill goes to the Seanad. I thank RAAP and its legal adviser for the amendments and for the comprehensive notes supplied with the proposed amendments. I will concentrate a lot on this today. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 deal with two substantial points. Amendment No. 2 proposes to delete words from section 208 of the principal Act and amendment No. 1 proposes to insert wording in section 38 of the principal Act. These are to clarify the revenues collected by the licensing body acting on behalf of the recordings and by the performers whose performances are being incorporated therein.”
“In fairness to both organisations, they offered constructive proposals to improve the wording. The key is to ensure full compliance with the European law. The only reason we are here is because the courts have found that we were not in compliance. We believe that a few minor changes will put us in compliance and I will come back to this. In the amendments I tabled I have echoed the requests of both organisations. We believe there is gravity in this and some of those from RAAP have joined us in the Gallery tonight. They are disappointed that the debate has been guillotined to one hour. Perhaps it will be enough and perhaps the Minister will accept the amendments and we will all be happy with the hour.”
“There is not a huge number of issues but they are very pertinent to those who are performers. We did not see ministerial amendments so we have gone ahead and tabled amendments reflecting the work done by Recorded Artists Actors Performers, RAAP, and AEPO-ARTIS, the Association of European Performers' Organisations, which represents more than 500,000 performers across Europe. Both organisations made submissions to the Minister. RAAP has been a lot more concise in this submission because we teased out a lot of the issues on Committee Stage. RAAP sent its submission to the Minister and it had hoped there would be an answer at the very least. A more affirmative answer would have been in the form of amendments to address the clear problems that are still in the Bill.”
“I move amendment No. 1: In page 3, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: "Amendment of section 38 of Principal Act 2. In subsection 1(b)(i) of section 38 of the Principal Act, to insert the following after "programme service to a licensing body": "for the purpose of remunerating jointly the copyright owner in the sound recording and the performer(s) whose performance(s) are incorporated in the sound recording, in respect of such playing or inclusion".". These amendments relate to issues that were previously raised on Committee Stage. I and some of the organisations involved had written to the Minister of State in the hope that during the gap between Committee Stage and Report Stage, she would take the time to consider and address the issues with her own amendments on Report Stage.”
“I know well the buildings the Minister is talking about in the Digital Hub. I know the costs to bring them up to a modern standard. They have been used up to recently by the National College of Art and Design. It would satisfy one part of what The Complex is doing but not all of it and it is not the only venue that closed in this city in the past couple of years.”
“I will not get into the finances of Dublin City Council and the problem that most of the funding that is meant to go to Dublin City Council sometimes does not end in Dublin City Council especially when you take into consideration the property tax that disappears out of Dublin. Having said that, I was not necessarily asking that at this stage that the Department purchase The Complex. However, there is a need that a greater fund be available, not just for Dublin City Council, but also for Galway council. There are other areas around the country that have identified sites. Dublin City Council will reluctantly take on buildings. It has a good strategy, but most of the buildings that have been offered to it require a substantial amount of investment to bring them up to modern standards. That is one of the problems with Dublin City Council.”
“It was an eclectic place to be in and I encourage the Minister to look again not just at The Complex but at the strategy around arts infrastructure.”
“It is concerning that there is no strategy for the arts spaces infrastructure and that we do not have an arts capital fund such as the sports capital fund and at that scale to address what is happening around the country, not just in Dublin, where large and small arts venues are closing. Many of those arts centres are in buildings that are semi-derelict or in precarious rental agreements. When the money comes for development of apartments or the like they are the first to go. Given our reputation as a country that supports the arts, it is important to not just depend on local authorities but to go beyond that. The State has to step up to increase the funding available to venues such as The Complex, which hosted quite a lot of artists over the years. It was open for 18 years and had music, art and theatre under the one roof.”
“There is also the issue of the directorship. Dr. Moling Ryan is temporarily in the job as an interim director. Is there any word on when the Minister is likely to be able to fill the role permanently?”
“One of the key points that jumped out at me, given the context of other failed IT programmes, is that the report emphasised that a multiplicity of public service bodies of a similar scale to the Arts Council should be better supported from within the public sector when it comes to undertaking projects akin to the Arts Council project. There is a challenge there for the Government as a whole. The Minister is not responsible for this but I urge him to use the opportunity at Cabinet, when the report comes up, to remind all Departments that it is public money at the end of the day. There is still an IT issue in the Arts Council. The project collapsed and obviously there is a need to address the grants application system, which was using a defunct system which was held together with Sellotape, I am told.”
“Has the Minister liaised with the Department of public expenditure and reform to ensure the recommendations associated with it will also progress?”
“I welcome that there is already a set timetable in terms of the recommendations for the Arts Council and the Minister's Department but the report itself goes beyond the Department and some of it is cross-cutting. The report was commissioned by the Minister and I take the opportunity to thank Professor Brennan and her team for publishing it. It identifies a lot of issues, some of which have already been addressed in the Arts Council and some of which have already been addressed, as far as I know, in the Department. There are substantial issues in terms of the public service as a whole to ensure such debacles do not happen again in smaller public sector bodies. There are recommendations which go beyond the Department.”
“Dá réir, ba chóir dúinn a bheith cinnte nach bhfuil teacht ag an bpobal nó aon duine eile ar a leithéid. Tuigim an fáth a bhfuil muid ag dul sa treo seo agus tá súil agam go mbeidh seans againn leasuithe a chur le linn Chéim an Choiste.”
“Go minic, bíonn gardaí ag dul go dtí áiteanna ina bhfuil coireanna ag tarlú nó bíonn siad sa tóir ar dhaoine. Sa chomhthéacs sin, bheadh na ceamaraí sin ina gcosaint do ghardaí agus don phobal i gcoitinne. Arís, deirim sin i comhthéacs ina bhfuiltear ag cloí leis na rialacha ó thaobh an eolais seo a choigilt i gceart le déanamh cinnte nach bhfuil aon seans ann go dtarlódh data breach, cosúil le hOifig an Ombudsman inné ag rá go raibh an cuma air go raibh data breach ann. Tá sé sin ar cheann de na rudaí a mbíonn eagla ar dhaoine faoi, is é sin, go bhfuil an seans ann, má tá aon eagras Stáit nó aon eagras in aon chor ag coigilt na sonraí pearsanta nó íomhánna atá acu, go ndéanfaidh dreamanna, nach bhfuil aon bhaint acu leis an ábhar, iarracht an t-eolas sin a bhailiú agus a úsáid go mí-ionraic.”
“Dar ndóigh, tá sé éasca ceann de na cinn móra a aithint a bheidh An Garda Síochána ag úsáid, is é sin, na ceamaraí CCTV atá timpeall na cathrach seo. Níl siad i ngach uile áit, rud atá go maith i slí amháin ionas nach bhfuil muid ag dul síos an bhealaigh sin. Chomh maith leis sin, is iad na bodycams sampla eile den trealamh a bheidh á úsáid. Tá siad á dtriail timpeall na cathrach faoi láthair. Is gnáthnós iad sa phóilíneacht sa 21ú haois. Tá cinn eile nach bhfuil ann, áfach. D’ardaigh mé an cheist seo cúpla uair leis an Aire reatha agus leis an Aire roimhe. Cén fáth nach bhfuil dashcams i ngluaisteáin de chuid An Garda Síochána? Cloistear go rialta go mbíonn An Garda Síochána ag lorg dashcam footage ón phobal, ach níl ceamaraí sna gluaisteáin atá ag an bhfórsa.”
“Sa chás sin, caithfear a chinntiú nach mbeimid ag dul sa treo is atá roinnt tíortha timpeall an domhain atá ag úsáid mass surveillance nó global surveillance of the society, áiteanna ina bhfuil an t-eolas sin ar fad á choigilt agus á úsáid de shíor. Feicim go bhfuil forálacha anseo a dhéanann iarracht cosaint a dhéanamh air sin. Impím ar an Aire a chinntiú leis an code of practice atá luaite nach n-úsáidfear ar an dóigh seo é agus, má tá aon tochailt déanta ar na data sets atá ag An Garda Síochána, nó a bhfuil teacht aige orthu, go scriosfar iad chomh luath agus is féidir ina dhiaidh sin, go háirithe nuair nach mbíonn aon toradh ar an tochailt sin. Luaigh an Teachta Carthy roinnt de na ceisteanna a raibh mé chun labhairt fúthu, ach tá ceisteanna eile ann. Cad iad na data sets?”
“Tá súil agam, nuair a shroicheann muid Céim an Choiste, go mbeidh níos mó leasuithe ag teacht uainn agus ó dhaoine eile le go ndéanfaidh muid cinnte má tá muid ag dul sa treo seo - tá an cuma air go bhfuil - go mbeidh pé reachtaíocht a bheidh againn foirfe, go mbeidh cosaintí ó thaobh cearta daonna de ann, agus nach mbeidh creimeadh a dhéanamh ar na cearta atá ann cheana féin. Tá muid i ndomhan iomlán difriúil ag an stad seo ná mar a bhí 20 nó 50 bliain ó shín. Ní raibh daoine ag smaoineamh ar a leithéid seo, ach amháin na daoine a bhí i roinnt de na tíortha a bhí faoi dheachtóireacht timpeall an domhain. Is ceart go n-úsáideann muid na huirlisí atá ar fáil sa domhan inniu le déanamh cinnte de go mbeidh siad siúd, atá gafa le coiriúlacht nó tar éis ionsaithe a dhéanamh ar an bpobal, gafa agus tógtha os comhair na cúirte.”
“Tá sé go maith go bhfuil an deis againn labhairt faoin Bhille ar an gCéim seo. Ar an Dara Céim, bíonn sé tábhachtach cloisteáil go díreach cad atá an tAire ag iarraidh a dhéanamh leis an reachtaíocht. Cheana féin, tá sé tar éis a rá go mbeidh leasuithe ag teacht chun cinn. Tá sé go maith go bhfuil sé sin mar chuid den phróiseas, ach tá sé ait go bhfuil sé ag fógairt leasuithe agus muid díreach ar an gCéim seo. Tá sé go maith go bhfuil sé fós ag plé leis an gcoincheap i gcoitinne agus leis na fadhbanna atá aitheanta ag An Garda Síochána, acu siúd atá gafa le cearta daonna agus ag na daoine sa Seomra seo a bheidh ag ardú ceisteanna ina leith seo.”
“The Minister knows my area and knows the need. We also have to address ridiculous situations such as that of the drug ship berthed in Cork which has cost us €12 million to date. That is €12 million that could be spent on those areas as well as CAB money and other investments. It is stupid that we are spending money where we do not need to spend it. The answer from the Revenue chair to the Public Accounts Committee was that he would do it all over again if they were in the same boat. We have to find ways to ensure that where there are ships caught in this way that we offload and get them out of our hands quickly in whatever way in order that it is not a drain on our funding and the money goes into the areas that it is needed. It is not needed in berthing fees, staffing fees and maintenance of a ship that we do not even own.”
“This is no different than most people using "carr", rather than "gluaisteán" in Irish, for car. The word the coiste téarmaíochta came up with was gluaisteán but most people do not use that. The question is how should we reflect that in law. I will not delay any further on this. I will withdraw the amendment, based on the fact that we will try to have a discussion about this in terms of terminology and legislation.”
“Often that is where we can correct mistakes that have been there over years or where people have identified problems. If we started using the Title 100 years ago, that does not mean that it was necessarily correct. One hundred years ago, there was a big debate about whether the Free State would be termed "Saorstát" or whether a republic was a saorstát. There was a big debate about the Titles because they were not common parlance. The words used for our parliamentary procedures all came from Westminster or a coiste téarmaíochta was set up to identify words that may have been used in the past, a couple of hundred years before that, and which might relate to those. They might not necessarily ever have been used in the form they are now being used in, but they were appropriated at the time.”
“Maybe in the future that can be looked at but it not just this legislation as there is a load of legislation where words, which are not in common practice - they might be correct - make it difficult for people to understand our legislation in Irish or in English. The legislation is sometimes gobbledygook and it is even more gobbledygook if a Title is put on it that can be totally misconstrued. In this case, I believe that is one of those. The vast majority of Irish speakers would not have a clue what it meant other than presuming that it is a toilet Bill. It is not and we know that. We know what we are discussing. It would be good if that can be taken on board when people are looking at miscellaneous provisions Bills and stuff like that.”
“That would be a useful engagement in terms of parliamentary language. There has been a campaign over the years called plain English. We should have the same for Irish, where we make our legislation as accessible to the public as possible. Where there are words that have double meanings we should put in a different word. That has implications obviously in law. We have to make sure that the word can stand up and that we specify in legislation what it was previously known as and so on. In the future especially, we will be able to address issues like that because everything will be available on computer. The line between this year's and next year's legislation will be a lot easier than pulling down different bits off the shelf.”
“We have done it with other words that were common at one stage, such as the Aliens Act. We do not call people aliens anymore. If it has been pointed out that this is not a word in common parlance or is no longer used, we should change it. To do so would not take away from the Bill. We need to change the Title to something that is more accessible and also does not give a double meaning.”
“Seomra ar leith i dteach nó i bhfoirgneamh, nó both beag ar leith i suíomh oscailte, ar féidir le daoine dul chuig an leithreas ann Sin na mínithe ar leithreas. Má lorgaíonn tú an focal "leithreasa", ní ann dó, ach tá leithreasú, leithghabháil agus leithreas - "funds set aside" nó "leithreasaí buiséid". The point I made before was that, in some ways, people say it is a piss-take but it is not. It is not in common parlance. Part of producing a dictionary is trying to ensure the words being used are being used correctly. That is why I have said, not just in this amendment but in the past, that it should be the "Acht Leithghabhála 2025". In the past, when I raised this, it has been said that this is the tradition and we will keep using the words, but words go out of fashion.”
“I move amendment No. 3: In page 4, line 26, after “citied” to insert “as Acht Leithghabhála 2025 or, in the English language,”. Only this week, we had President Catherine Connolly launch a multilingual dictionary. It was a fantastic day. We now have a groundbreaking new dictionary that is accessible online. When the Minister was the Minister with responsibility for the Gaeltacht, he part-funded the research into this through Foras na Gaeilge. I do not think anybody is critical of that but when you look up the meaning of "leithreas" in the dictionary online, through foclóir.ie , it states: 1. Babhla mór a bhfuil suíochán air a bhfuil poll ann, a bhíonn nasctha le córas uisce. Úsáideann tú an leithreas nuair a bhíonn do mhún nó do chac le déanamh agat. 2.”
“I will leave it at that but I hope I will not be arguing with the Minister in the last days before Christmas next year. However, I will continue to do this until, at some stage, some oversight is had beyond a Minister nodding to the Comptroller and Auditor General saying, "Everything is fine, don't worry about it. I have no receipts but that is the way it is."”
“When committees are formed, they are specifically informed of what Vote they are responsible for. This Vote does not appear in any of the committees' remits. That is the problem. The Minister or whoever else can say the Minister has no responsibility to the Dáil on this matter, and that is correct, but Ministers also have no responsibility to any committee on this matter and, technically, no committee can take on this issue because it is one of those strange ones. In some ways, it has to go to Cabinet or somebody else has to raise the flag about it. It is a minor issue if we need to have a fund, slush fund or whatever else to assist. The security of the State is not dependent on €2 million, so it is in some ways meaningless if that is what it is.”
“He might audit it but it is not ever accounted for and his reports go through every other detail with a fine-tooth comb. However, the Comptroller and Auditor General is unable to print any information regarding this expenditure. We have had issues before the public accounts committee involving hundreds of thousands of euro, whereas this Vote amounts to €2 million every year. There is no outrun, which used to be the case in the past, there is no return of funding and there is no demand for a Revised Estimate in the middle of the year. How come, very conveniently every year, €2 million is asked for and spent?”
“There might be some logic to having one in the middle of the Civil War, from the Free State and Cumann na nGaedheal point of view, but there did not seem to be a logic to it in the years thereafter. However, those who gave out about this fund in the early 1920s embraced it thereafter, even though questions have been asked by Members on different sides of the House. I am not opposed to this Vote. The issue I have is with the accountability end of it. If the Minister is willing, he should schedule a debate on it in committee and I will do the same. I will ask my party's representative on the Committee of Public Accounts or the public expenditure committee about this. The Minister said the Comptroller and Auditor General audits this Vote, but it does not jump out in any of the C and AG's reports.”
“In the past, we did not have a security committee. When the committee was being set up in this Dáil term, the idea most people had was it would look at issues such as internal and external threats to the State, as security committees elsewhere do. In the past, it was also said this allocation was money for informers. If that was the case, it would sit with An Garda Síochána, which would have to account for and manage it. It was said it was money to obtain information, but it does not define it beyond that. I am not going to labour this point much longer, but debates in the past looked at whether it was appropriate to have a fund in times when there was no longer an emergency.”
“I would welcome the debate because it is the only Vote that is specific and set apart. It does not fall under the Garda Síochána Vote, the Defence Forces Vote, as you would presume, or even the Minister for justice's Vote. It falls specifically under finance or, of late, public expenditure, which begs the question as to who stands over this expenditure. It has not increased in recent years. It is €2 million. As I said, in the bigger scheme of things, it is not a huge amount of money. If the Minister came in here next year and increased it fivefold, there would still be no accountability for that other than at the Cabinet. Somebody would have to go to the Cabinet and explain or just say, "Sorry, hard luck, it is common not to ask questions about this", and that would be it. That is what is being asked of us here.”
“However, even in Westminster there is a security committee that MI5 and MI6 are responsible to and they are held accountable in terms of funding. The amount in 1927 was £4,000 but the amount in 1922-1923 was £220,000. That is the figure that was voted and £118,000 was spent. We can guess what that was because that was the year in which the State was executing republicans as part of the Civil War. In 1923, the amount dropped to £50,000 and it continued to drop. In recent years, it has increased and in more recent years it has stayed at €2 million without going up or down in any shape or form. The question is: when will this Vote be before the Dáil or a committee so that somebody has to give even a vague account and say what it is for rather than what is happening now where it is even more secretive than before?”
“The Minister who is responsible for the requisition is required, at the end of the financial year, to give a certificate in the following form: [This does not happen now so far as I know.] "I hereby certify that the amount actually expended by me or under my direction for secret service in the year ended ----- was so much and that the balance in my hands on the 31st day of March was so much, and I further solemnly declare that the interests of the public service required that the payments should be made out of the Service Fund and that they were properly so made." That is the form of certificate that used to be issued and was the exact same form issued by the British secret service since 1888 when its secret service was set up in London after the IRB attacked its offices. We still continue the British tradition.”
“Ernest Blythe stated that, "The purposes of the Secret Service Vote are the obtaining of information which is requisite for the security of the country and which cannot be obtained openly." That is exactly what has been said to me in recent years. He continued that: The amounts are paid out on the order of the Minister for Finance at the request of another Minister.”
“Given that a new security committee was set up, I would have thought that this would have been one of the areas that would have fallen to it, that it would have said the €2 million was agreed, that it would take the Minister at his word and that it was happy the €2 million was spent appropriately, or not. That would have been up to the members to discuss. Gay Mitchell, when he was foreign affairs Minister, asked that the Irish secret service should be monitored by a committee of the Oireachtas. It is going back over the years. If you go back to 1922, that is when the funding started. In 1927, it was £6,700. It was not a huge sum but if you look at the figures and the account of that, Mr.”
“I did a bit of digging and it has been practice in the past, just not recent practice, to divulge what this money is for. In 2009, it was said that the purpose of the secret service Vote was to retain the information which was necessary for the security of this country and that given the sensitivity associated with a Vote of this nature, information relating to its operation is not made public. I am not looking for a breakdown but somebody has to be accountable. It is the same as An Garda Síochána, which has an Accounting Officer. There is no Accounting Officer here.”
“One of them was to ask both the Ministers for Finance and public expenditure the funding allocated to Vote 15, which in the past was Vote 22. Since 2011 the money is returned to the Exchequer each year. They are simple things. Normally, under housekeeping rules, you have to account for the money spent. The last time I got any kind of substantial answer was when Brian Cowen held the position of Minister for Finance. He listed all of the amounts of funding given and the outrun. Nowadays, €2 million is spent and there is no accountability. He said in a reply to me in 2005 that the allocation for the secret service - Vote 12 - for the years in question was set out in a table and that it was not the practice to divulge information or explanations relating to expenditure on this Vote.”