I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I wish to share my time with Deputy Roche.
Courts (Supplemental Provisions) (Amendment) Bill, 2000: Second Stage.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
The purpose of this Bill may be stated briefly. It is to provide that a judge of the High Court, Judge Feargus Flood, who was appointed to the Bench on 1 October 1991, will qualify for a full pension of one-half of salary when he reaches the retirement age on 9 July next, notwithstanding the fact that he will not have the full 15 years service which is required for full pension entitlements.
The new provision applies only to the High Court and to only one judge of that court. The question of extending this new provision to the other serving judges of the High Court does not arise.
The House will be aware that Judge Flood has been engaged on a whole-time basis since November 1997 as chairman and sole member of the tribunal of inquiry into certain planning matters, the Flood tribunal. Judge Flood has agreed, in the public interest, to remain in this position after his retirement as a judge at age 72. It is impossible to say at this stage how long this tribunal will last but it is anticipated that his services will be required for a considerable time.
All sides of the House will agree that the tribunal has carried out its work in an exemplary manner and that its contribution has been invaluable in trying to arrive at the truth concerning the matters set out in the terms of reference. The chairman's role has been particularly onerous. Since the tribunal began its work almost three years ago, it has sifted through an enormous amount of written material and spent many days hearing evidence from witnesses. To date, over 200 people have been interviewed by the tribunal in this regard and hundreds more have been spoken to or communicated with by members of the legal team. The tribunal has received a huge number of documents and files from various planning authorities, Departments and financial institutions within the State.
All this has been carried out under the stewardship of the Honourable Mr. Justice Feargus Flood, for which he deserves our thanks. However, sometimes it behoves the State to recognise in a more practical way the efforts that individuals have made and continue to make in public affairs. I believe that this is one such case.
On a more general level, I am sure it is widely accepted that in considering appointments to the Judiciary, the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board and the Government should have open to it the widest possible field of selection. In many instances, acceptance of such appointments, and I must be blunt here, means that the people involved accept large reductions in current income. This has not deterred distinguished legal practitioners from accepting judicial appointments and they have served the State well. In the area of pensions, because they have taken up duty on the Bench relatively late in their careers, some of these judges have not accrued the necessary years service required to receive the maximum pension entitlements.
In the case which is the subject of this legislation, the judge in question is just over six years short of the necessary 15 years' service which would entitle him to a full pension. He has, in the interests of completing the work of the tribunal efficiently and effectively, agreed, at the request of the Government, to continue on as chairman until the work is completed. A commitment such as this should be acknowledged in a tangible way.
In money terms, the Bill provides that Judge Flood's current pension entitlement will increase by more than £20,000 per annum, up to £45,715. His retirement lump sum will increase by a little more than £64,000, up to £317,145, all based on current salary. These payments will be made immediately on the judge's retirement on 9 July next. His total remuneration, that is, pension and salary will continue at the level of that of a High Court judge for the duration of his chairmanship of the tribunal.
As I mentioned earlier, the Bill has been brought before the House to deal with an individual case and other judges are not involved. This adjustment is well deserved and as such I commend the Bill to the House.
This is an important Bill which highlights something about tribunals. It is unlikely that the aim of the Bill, which illustrates a vulnerable aspect of the current tribunal process, will be opposed by anyone in the House.
On the Flood tribunal and its sole member, it is fair to say that over the past three years the tribunal has not always attracted positive public statements. For a time many critics suggested that the tribunal was lost and should be brought to an end. Thankfully, the critical attitudes are far less prevalent nowadays. The value of this and other tribunals and the very significant service they are doing for the State has recently become clear.
However, the Bill illustrates a vulnerable aspect of the tribunal process as Mr. Justice Flood was due to retire next month. If he were to step down at that stage before the tribunal has completed its work, the work of the tribunal would be brought to an end. God forbid, if he were to be incapacitated, the tribunal would collapse. The word "tribunal" suggests more than one member. The point I wish to put to the Minister and the House is whether setting up tribunals which have a sole member is wise. Most of the tribunals which have been set up in the recent past were anticipated to have a relatively short span. However, tribunals can drag on and it is a little bit like a computer programme, that is, one can go behind something but one does not know where it stops. Henceforth, it would be wise to consider multiple membership of tribunals. In fact, I would go a step further. As some Members of the House will be aware, I have long been of the view that we need some type of fully formed standing ethics commission to handle much of the work currently being handled by the tribunals.
I support the Bill and wish to put on the record my admiration as a citizen of this State for the work the tribunal is doing. Painful though it may be, in the medium and longer term the entire machinery of State will be greatly serviced by the wrong doings being highlighted and effective action ultimately being taken. It would not be possible to make such progress without a good and effective tribunal.
(Mayo): I welcome and support the granting of a full pension entitlement to Mr. Justice Fergus Flood. The Flood tribunal deserves to be commended for its diligent handling of its affairs, including the manner in which it has overcome the determined court challenges to its powers, the calculated attempts by vested and frightened interests to derail it, the scepticism of certain sections of the general public and the media, the manner in which it has stuck doggedly to its task of digging deep into the murky world of payments in respect of planning and rezoning and for bringing to the surface facts more frightening than we expected even in our worst nightmares.
At a glance the increase of £21,360 in the judge's pension, coupled with the lump sum increase of £64,081, seems generous. However, in the context of the public service that Mr. Justice Flood and his team are rendering, it represents extremely good value for money. Generous as the amounts provided for in the legislation may seem, they pale into insignificance by comparison with the financial killings made by the property speculators and their political accomplices now under investigation. It is obvious that tribunals of inquiry are destined to remain part of the political landscape for some time.
There was a public mood of disaffection in the wake of the inane, inconclusive and hugely costly Hamilton beef tribunal. Thankfully, the tribunal of inquiry process was salvaged and rehabilitated by the report of the McCracken tribunal into payments to Charles Haughey and Deputy Michael Lowry. The report was brief, delivered in straightforward unadorned language and its recommendations were clear and to the point. Both the Moriarty tribunal and the Flood tribunal are instruments of the Oireachtas, established by the Oireachtas and commissioned to report back to us. We wish Mr. Justice Flood and his team continued success in their work and we await anxiously the fruits of their deliberations. I support the Bill.
Like other Members, I will contribute briefly to this debate. On behalf of the Labour Party, I welcome the Bill and indicate to the Minister and the House that we will support it. It is important that we take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the tribunals in doing a painful and difficult task for this country. It is painful because it has consequences for public confidence in the administration of public systems and in politics and public affairs generally. Like many of the revealing investigations in recent years, it is a necessary cathartic event that will allow people in the longer term to renew their confidence and know that anyone who holds public office or has authority will have it at the behest of the people, in the name of the people, for the good of the people and not for personal gain.
As other Members have said, there was a degree of scepticism, concern and a concerted attempt by many to undermine the work of this tribunal and to disparage the work of Mr. Justice Flood in particular. That went on for a very long time. I, together with others, issued statements of support that it was important that the painstaking work of gathering evidence be allowed to take place without interference. That has finally proven to be a worthy and appropriate path to follow. Mr. Justice Flood has recently won very broad approval from across the media and community generally.
He is about to reach the normal retirement age of 72 years for High Court judges. To take on the job of correlating vast volumes of data and information, to put in order a tribunal of inquiry that by its very terms of reference is broad, far-reaching and complicated is a daunting task. However, for it to be done in a way that is obviously bearing fruit and for him to get behind what we believe to be impenetrable positions of some of the witnesses who have come before it, is a great testament to the painstaking research engaged in by the sole member of the tribunal and his legal team to date.
The figures mentioned in the Bill in relation to remuneration sound large but, when put in context, if Mr. Justice Flood was not the presiding officer and sole member of the tribunal but was instead a representative lawyer at the tribunal, the sums of money he would earn would be many times the amounts of money now being provided to pay him. There is an anomaly that those who argue for their clients will be paid substantially more than the person responsible for sifting the evidence, ordering the tribunal and steering a course to a conclusion that gets to the truth. I have no reluctance in supporting the remuneration package but, notwithstanding legal independence, we need to re-examine the costs accrued to the taxpayer from legal fees. Whatever cap we have put on them, they are still out of kilter with people's expectation of remuneration for work done.
Will the Minister explain the remuneration available to him? He said that these payments will be made immediately on the judge's retirement on 9 July and that his total remuneration – pension and salary – will continue at the level of a High Court judge for the duration of his chairmanship of the tribunal. Does that mean that he will be paid a reduced salary and brought up by virtue of the pension to which he is entitled? The Bill only provides for pension and not for salary. What salary will be paid and how will it be paid when he will not be a High Court judge having reached retirement age? How is it proposed that the total sum will reach the level of a High Court judge for the duration of his stewardship of the tribunal?
I support the Bill and I wish the tribunal well. I hope it will not take as long as the Minister envisages when he talks about the broad terms of reference, and that a conclusion can be reached more swiftly. Whatever time is required, however, must be granted.
Deputy Roche touched upon issues which have been the subject of debate in the Committee on Members' Interests. While many of us had a similar outlook on standing ethics committees, most of us, having investigated a standing ethics committee in another jurisdiction, changed our views. We visited New South Wales and examined the Independent Commission Against Corruption – ICAC – a permanent standing committee. The results of that committee were anything but startling. The degree of corruption uncovered was limited and the suspicion its existence caused was disproportionate. It had an enormous budget and a huge permanent staff and to justify those it had to uncover corruption. It was involved in all sorts of investigations of dubious public value.
The Starr committee in the USA proved that bodies with an open chequebook, open investigative powers and no set remit do not prove to be as valuable as we would like. We need a structure which can be called into being when there is work to be done rather than setting up an elaborate, well resourced structure which sets out like a witch finder.
The Deputy made a valuable suggestion about multiple member tribunals. The Tribunal of Inquiries Act did not envision sole member tribunals but they have been the norm to date. We have not suffered from that approach but it would be worth considering multiple members when a tribunal is being given a very broad remit, although I hope we will not need any more tribunals. The initiative taken by the Committee on Public Accounts in taking an investigative role upon itself, and the granting of compellability powers to committees, will change the dynamic of this House and it will no longer be dependent on external agencies to investigate matters of difficulty. If we change our own procedures to bring about more openness and accountability, the need for external tribunals will be abated. The responses given by the Minister for Finance in the House today, however, were the antithesis of the transparency one would hope to achieve and I regret that was the case.
The Labour Party supports this Bill and wishes the judge well. I hope we can have a conclusion to his deliberations that will put a framework in place to renew public confidence in the administration of this State.
This Bill is essential as Mr. Justice Flood approaches retirement age. Introducing it to regularise the situation is important and the Fine Gael Party supports it. Everyone agrees that the work of Mr. Justice Flood has been vital and he has helped uncover serious corruption in planning in Dublin and further afield. The tribunal has taken a long time because the work required a great deal of research and investigation. The achievements so far and those still to come are something for which Mr. Justice Flood and the entire team attached to the tribunal deserve our congratulations.
Tribunals will be part and parcel of life and, although they might take different forms, human nature dictates they will continue. On page 241 of "Meanwhile Back at the Ranch" by Fintan O'Toole, in a chapter entitled "Democracy", there is a quotation of a statement made by Mr. Justice Liam Hamilton during the beef tribunal.
He stated:
I think that if the questions that were asked in the Dáil were answered in the way they are answered here, there would be no necessity for this inquiry and an awful lot of money and time would have been saved.
I refer to Mr. Justice Hamilton's comments, because during the period in question Mr. Barry Desmond, Mr. Pat O'Malley and Deputies Des O'Malley, Dukes, John Bruton and others tabled questions but they were not furnished with sufficient information or encountered difficulties in obtaining replies. The Members of this House are responsible for making Standing Orders and—
While I have no difficulty with Deputy Enright making a passing reference to these matters, he is wandering away from the content of this limited Bill—
I am not.
—which deals specifically with the improved pension arrangements for Mr. Justice Flood.
I appreciate that. My point is that the Bill relates to Mr. Justice Fergus Flood and similar Bills may be introduced in the House on foot of the appointment of other judges. The inquiries to which I refer are essential and the sooner the House examines ways to amend Standing Orders to allow questions to be asked and answered accurately, the better. By high lighting this issue, I am seeking to ensure that the Ceann Comhairle and his staff are authorised and given the requisite powers under Standing Orders to compel Ministers to provide true and accurate answers to parliamentary questions. If Ministers are obliged to prove that the replies they give are accurate, we will ensure that further tribunals will not be necessary.
I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for allowing me a degree of latitude in respect of the comments I made on this important matter. I regret that the point made by Mr. Justice Liam Hamilton has not yet been addressed by the House. I hope we will have the courage to ensure that it is addressed because it will save us the trouble of establishing further tribunals and committees.
I congratulate Mr. Justice Flood on the job he is doing at the tribunal. It is important that he be allowed to remain in his position after his retirement as a judge and that he receives proper recompense. It is appropriate that we are debating this Bill this evening, particularly given that a great deal of the business of the House today was devoted to discussing judges.
Mr. Justice Flood will receive a large sum of money on foot of the enactment of the Bill. This House does great work in catering for the interests of people in every section of society, with the exception of Deputies, Ministers and Senators. We are afraid to make provision for ourselves. I earn between £38,000 and £39,000 per year but Mr. Justice Flood will receive a pension of £45,715 per year. As Deputies, we rely on the people to pay our salaries. If matters had come to a head earlier today and a general election had been called, we might have been facing an interview board of our peers in the near future.
The Deputy is wandering away from the substance of the Bill.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle is not the only one concerned about the Deputy's wandering.
I agree with Deputy Enright, the Committee of Public Accounts should deal with matters such as those currently under investigation at the tribunals. The House should give the necessary powers to that committee and to the Ceann Comhairle's office, which also has a part to play in this area. We should not be too eager to relinquish our powers.
The Committee of Public Accounts, which was responsible for carrying out the inquiry into DIRT, must be given additional resources. If that committee had access to the resources Mr. Justice Flood had at his disposal, the necessary staff, etc., and was given legal powers to compel witnesses to appear, results would be forthcoming. People believed that the Flood tribunal would be nothing more than a talking shop, that it would incur major costs and that it would not achieve results. Those people have been proved wrong and I compliment Mr. Justice Flood and his staff on the wonderful job they are doing.
I do not believe the Flood tribunal will be obliged to remain in place for much longer because the people who were trying to hinder and belittle it by refusing to give evidence are now aware that Mr. Justice Flood will not allow further delays. Anyone who tries to hinder the tribunal can be brought before the courts. In my opinion the tribunal's work will proceed apace because those who come before it will be aware that if they are asked a question they must provide an answer. If it is discovered that they are telling lies, they will be dealt with by the courts and they could be imprisoned.
Mr. Justice Flood has done a good job on behalf of the State and its people. I welcome the fact that his pension will be increased and that he will be allowed to remain in his position after his retirement as a judge because it is important that the tribunal be allowed to conclude its work. It is also important that taxpayers can see that the system works, in the form of this tribunal. When the current inquiries reach their conclusions, I hope there will not be a need to establish further tribunals.
Those involved with the inquiry process, particularly politicians, have learned lessons from it because they might be obliged to answer in 20 years time for something which might happen now. A number of politicians who appeared before the Flood tribunal believed that because they had left public life they would not be called to account for their actions. However, these people will be obliged to pay the penalty. I do not know what will be the nature of the penalties they will incur, that is for the law to decide.
I compliment Mr. Justice Flood on the job he has done. However, it is time we gave the Committee of Public Accounts the resources, funding and staff it requires to allow it to carry out future inquiries. There is no doubt that there will be a need to hold inquiries in the future into bribery, the planning process, decisions taken by Ministers and other matters.
I am amazed that Mr. Justice Flood will be paid a pension of £45,715. It is not popular to say so but if, in the past, politicians had been paid proper wages and adequately reimbursed in respect of the expenses they incurred, there would probably have been no need to establish the tribunals.
I thank Deputies for their constructive contributions. The Bill is short and contains only two sections, the intent of which is specific. We should focus our attention solely on that intent. We are discussing a unique situation where a judge, instead of retiring in the normal way, has agreed in the public interest, to continue to chair a very important tribunal of inquiry.
The provisions apply only to one judge of the High Court and there is no question of their applying to any other serving judges of that court. It is also important to point out that it is impossible to say at this stage how long the tribunal's deliberations will last. No one seems to know, but I estimate that the tribunal could be in place for a number of years. However, It can certainly be stated that it is likely to remain in operation for a considerable period.
Accordingly, Mr. Justice Flood has demonstrated great commitment in agreeing to oversee the completion of this work in the interests of continuity. The tribunal team has carried out its core work in a very effective way. While being involved in various types of litigation, it has assiduously followed the main lines of inquiry, in modular form, aimed at moving the process forward as efficiently as possible.
I am sure the House will agree that the chairman's role has been crucial. Since the tribunal began its work almost three years ago, it has sifted through an enormous amount of written material and spent many days hearing evidence from witnesses. This work has been carried out under the stewardship of the honourable Mr. Justice Flood and his team and they deserve our thanks. The Bill before the House is the Government's practical response to an individual effort and a personal commitment on the part of Mr. Justice Flood in respect of an important area of public affairs. The State can be justly proud of the contribution the Judiciary has made and continues to make in terms of its day to day work on the Bench and in the inquiries and tribunals which, regrettably, are now part of the process of trying to arrive at the truth in certain matters of public concern.
On the specific issue of pensions, the reality is that many judges take up duty on the Bench relatively late in their careers with the result that some of them do not accrue the number of years' service required to receive the maximum pension entitlements under the judicial pensions scheme. It is sometimes forgotten that people who serve on the Bench would have been much wealthier had they remained at the Bar. Their income at the Bar when they reach the stage of eminence at which they would be entitled to be appointed as High Court or Supreme Court judges would be far higher than what they would receive as High Court or Supreme Court judges. This fact is often overlooked and should be acknowledged.
In the particular case which is the subject of this legislation, the judge in question is just over six years short of the necessary 15 years' service which would entitle him to a full pension. He has agreed, at the request of the Government, to continue as chairman of the tribunal until its work is completed and this should be responded to in a realistic manner. This Bill is being introduced to deal with an individual case and does not affect other judges. The arrangements provided for in the Bill are well deserved and I commend the Bill to the House.
In reply to Deputy Howlin's query on how the income will be made up while Mr. Justice Flood is chairman of the tribunal, Mr. Justice Flood will receive his pension of £45,715 for each year he continues to serve as chairman of the tribunal, in addition to which he will receive a top-up income of £45,750 to bring his income up to the equivalent level of a High Court judge. His total annual income, therefore, will be £91,430 for his tenure as chairman of the tribunal.
On a point of clarification, what legal basis exists to pay that top-up income?
The legal basis is provided for in this legislation. Mr. Justice Flood is six and a half years short—
That is the pension element; it is the balance about which I am curious.
The pension element is £45,715, the amount to which Mr. Justice Flood would be entitled had he the full 15 years' service. From 9 July, he will be deemed to have that service and will be entitled to a pension of £45,715. However, as he will continue to chair the tribunal, he will receive an additional amount on top of that pension which will bring him up to the level of payment he would receive were he a serving High Court judge.
Perhaps this matter would be more appropriate to Committee Stage.
I understand the Department of the Environment and Local Government will top-up the pension to the salary level of a High Court judge.
Mr. Justice Flood will be in receipt of the same salary as a High Court judge from 9 July.
Yes, effectively he will be in receipt of the same salary he received as a High Court judge. However, when he retires at the conclusion of this tribunal, which could be in a number of years, he will receive a full pension as if he had the required 15 years' service.
The provisions outlined in this Bill relate exclusively to pensions and I am curious as to where the remaining portion of the remuneration is coming from.
Perhaps we could leave that matter until we come to debate the sections.
The top-up payment is coming from the Department of the Environment and Local Government by way of a consultancy payment. Mr. Justice Flood will receive a pension of £45,715 which will be topped up to bring him up to the equivalent salary of a High Court judge, namely, £91,430. When he concludes his work at the tribunal, he will receive the salary he would have received had he the full 15 years' service.
I thank Deputies for their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.