My colleagues have asked me to start. I have given the committee a copy of my draft remarks but I will kick off by quoting the Chief Justice who said in a ruling of the Supreme Court yesterday that tribunals perform a unique role in Irish public life and derive their authority and existence from resolutions of the Oireachtas. I will focus on the tribunal for which we had primary responsibility and which had most implications for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, and the justice family of agencies generally. This was the tribunal of inquiry into allegations concerning gardaí of the Donegal division, the Morris tribunal.
The tribunal was established in April 2002 by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The Honourable Mr. Justice Frederick Morris, former President of the High Court, was appointed as chairman and sole member. The terms of reference were focused on allegations of wrongdoing on the part of various members of the force in the Donegal division. These included allegations of false imprisonment, harassment, planting of explosives and firearms and corruption.
The tribunal heard 650 days of oral testimony from over 800 witnesses and produced a total of eight comprehensive reports over the six and a half years of its existence. It uncovered incidents of Garda misbehaviour, negligence and mismanagement in the Donegal division which were deeply disturbing and which called for a strong and effective response. The tribunal was able to draw on and examine a thorough internal Garda inquiry and investigation, the findings of which were substantially vindicated by the subsequent work of the tribunal.
A key element of the State's response to the tremendous work done by the tribunal was the Garda Síochána Act 2005. That Act represents the single biggest reform of the Garda Síochána since its establishment. The reports of the Morris tribunal greatly influenced the reforms in the Garda Síochána Act and related regulations. A number of provisions of the Act were specifically designed to address failures identified, such as: the establishment of an ombudsman commission to replace the Garda Síochána Complaints Board; the establishment of the Garda Inspectorate as a source of independent and expert advice for the Minister; a statutory requirement on members to account for their actions on duty without delay; new streamlined discipline procedures which are now in place; the Garda Commissioner, with the consent of the Government, has a power to dismiss a member of the Garda, sergeant or inspector rank in certain circumstances; the introduction of whistle blowers regulations; a new system of promotions has been put in place to provide for greater input from persons outside the force; greater use of civilian expertise; and the recruitment of members from religious and ethnic minorities.
A feature of the Morris tribunal is that there have been some real and tangible consequences arising from its findings. Of 64 members criticised to differing degrees by the tribunal, six have been dismissed, two have resigned, 35 have retired, one was medically discharged, three have been transferred or disciplined; in seven cases disciplinary proceedings have been initiated; and in a further ten cases it was found that no disciplinary action was warranted.
The Morris tribunal has completed its work and reported on all aspects of its terms of reference. Its documentation has been archived in accordance with the instructions of its chairman, its offices are now closed and arrangements are in place for the redistribution of IT and office equipment. The committee might be interested to note that the public hearing room, with its state-of-the-art facilities, is currently being used by the Courts Service as the venue for a significant large-scale civil case which is expected to run until the autumn.
The cost of the tribunal from April 2002 to end April 2009 was almost €50 million. This is made up of administration costs amounting to €17.1 million, legal fees for the tribunal totalling €10.48 million and third party legal fees paid to date amounting to €22.06 million. These breakdowns are very much in line with the projections in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report.
The final overall cost of the tribunal to the Department is expected to be in the region of €70 million. The remaining expenditure, expected to be about €20 million, all relating to third party costs yet to be claimed, will fall to be paid over the coming two to three years. This overall estimation is slightly less than that projected in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report but the difference can largely be accounted for by the fact that his report also includes the cost of the tribunal to other public bodies, such as the provision of accommodation for the tribunal by the Office of Public Works, which are not borne on the justice, equality and law reform Vote.
I turn now to the Comptroller and Auditor General's report itself, and to those aspects of it directly related to the Morris tribunal. Overall, the report was not critical about the manner in which the administrative affairs were handled. There was a small number of issues identified, but in the context of an operation lasting over six years and costing €50 million so far, those issues are relatively minor in nature and I can provide detailed explanations to the committee as appropriate. Indeed, I take this opportunity to publicly thank Mr. Justice Morris for the efficient and effective manner in which he discharged his function. History will show he did a magnificent job and we are greatly indebted to him for the way he fulfilled his demanding task.
More generally, there are recommendations and suggestions in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report relating to the manner in which tribunals should be established and how they should operate. These recommendations are, for the most part, being provided for in the Tribunals of Inquiry Bill 2005. This Bill, which is now ready for Report and Final Stages in Dáil Éireann, comprehensively reforms the legislation relating to the public investigation of matters of urgent public importance and draws extensively from the Law Reform Commission's 2005 report on the law relating to tribunals. It is worth noting that on this issue, the Law Reform Commission, the Department and the Comptroller and Auditor General effectively came to the same conclusions.
I would like to turn briefly to the main provisions of the tribunals Bill itself and outline some key features of it to the committee and how they address the concerns expressed in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. It calls for the terms of reference of a tribunal to be tightly drawn and that new lines of inquiry should be limited. The Bill, in sections 6 and 7, clarifies the process for setting and amending terms of reference of a tribunal and section 21 provides that a tribunal shall not inquire into a relevant matter unless it is satisfied that the cost and duration of that inquiry is justified by the importance of the facts likely to be established.
The Comptroller and Auditor General's report suggests that a tribunal should be required to provide a formal public statement of estimated costs, timescales and milestones at all key stages — the Bill provides in section 8 that soon after its establishment, a tribunal will be required to produce a statement of estimated costs, including anticipated third party costs, and duration of the tribunal which must be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. Section 9 of the Bill provides that a new statement must be prepared where it becomes clear that the old statement is no longer appropriate.
The Comptroller and Auditor General's report suggests that there is scope for improvement of practice and procedure in the gathering of evidence. The Bill, in sections 22 and 23, provides for a tribunal to establish rules on the receipt of evidence including a provision regarding "reading-in" of evidence already available in written form and not disputed.
A focus of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report is on the question of legal representation and how costs in this area could be curtailed either by joint representation, capping legal fees payable or limiting the extent of oral hearings. The Bill, at sections 28 and 29, clarifies the situation with regard to the granting of legal representation before a tribunal. A relevant person must apply for representation and the tribunal will only grant the application where the person's legal or constitutional rights are likely to be significantly affected by the proceedings. In addition, the tribunal will state its opinion as to the number of representatives to be retained by a person and the modules or parts of its work at which the person should be represented, and it can also provide for persons with similar interests to be represented jointly. I should say that Mr. Justice Morris did that all the way through in his work.
The Comptroller and Auditor General's report states there is a need to clarify the circumstances in which a tribunal may award costs, and where a person contributes to the duration of hearings by the provision of false or misleading information or fails to co-operate, costs should be awarded to the Exchequer against that person. Sections 44 to 51, inclusive, of the Bill provide detailed arrangements for dealing with costs. Co-operation with the tribunal remains the key determinant for an award of costs and a tribunal may also award costs against a person to the benefit of the Exchequer in the circumstances suggested by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
The Comptroller and Auditor General's report suggests there might be scope for economies if much of the work currently done by counsel at tribunals was to be carried out by paralegal, research or other expert staff; if there was a move away from the "exclusive attention" basis of hiring counsel and if there was a scheme of pre-determined fee rates. The Bill, at section 5, provides for tendering for the selection of legal, administrative and support staff, including solicitors and counsel. Section 20 provides for the appointment of experts and research assistants, section 26 provides for the appointment of investigators and section 51 provides for regulations governing the maximum amounts payable to counsel and solicitors. Mr. Justice Morris adopted that approach and hired civilians for specialist tasks rather than using counsel in all of these roles.
These are just some of the key provisions of the Bill which relate to the suggestions contained in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on tribunals. The Bill broadly addresses the issues raised in the report and its measures will have a positive impact on the effective operation of public inquiries in the future. It is subject to amendment and amendments are in gestation but I cannot comment on them as they have to be approved by Government and will have to be debated in the House. I hope what I have said is of assistance to the committee and responds to the points in the report before us.
