Vol. 548 No. 5
9 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the purposes for which the ?1.27 million allocated in his Department's Estimate for 2002 under the heading of Tribunal of Inquiry (Dunnes Payments) will be applied; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1471/02]
10 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach the projected costs to his Department relating to the Moriarty tribunal in 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4485/02]
11 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach the projected cost to his Department in relation to the Moriarty tribunal. [5730/02]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 to 11, inclusive, together.
The €1.27 million allocated in my Department's Estimate for 2002 under the heading of Tribunal of Inquiry (Dunnes Payments) is set aside for parties granted representation before the tribunal but who have not yet claimed these costs.
The projected cost of the Moriarty tribunal to my Department in 2002 is €6,349,000.
What was that figure?
€6,349,000.
I thought the Taoiseach said €6,000 million.
Why is money still outstanding in respect of the tribunal inquiring into Dunnes payments? What is the reason for its retention in the Estimates of the Department of the Taoiseach? If those involved do not want the money, surely the Department does not have to pay it.
The two remaining parties have not indicated that they do not want the money and the delay simply results from the fact that they have not put in a final claim for the costs to which they are entitled. They were granted representation so they are legally entitled to make a claim.
Do the outstanding legal costs arising from the Dunnes payments inquiry relate to witnesses who were called and had legal representation, but are not claiming their costs, or to lawyers who are too busy with their work to file their bills and collect their costs?
As I have said, most of the relevant parties have claimed their costs since the tribunal ended. The two remaining claimants are an individual and a company. The figure I gave is a provisional guesstimate and I cannot say with certainty that the two parties are owed that exact amount of money. My Department is of the view it is more likely than not that the costs will be sought.
Is it not incumbent on the two parties, in the interests of everybody, to file a claim for the moneys to which they are entitled? It is important they do so if the Taoiseach's Department is to be administered efficiently. Is there not a mechanism whereby the right to claim is forfeited if a claim is not made within a certain period of time?
Six years.
There is such a period under the Statute of Limitations. As I have stated before, a long period elapsed before many claims were made and we are down to just two now.
Does the figure of €1.27 million refer to two people?
That is the guess.
Has the Taoiseach received any indication as to when Mr. Justice Moriarty will complete his work and when a report will be produced?
I have not received such an indication. When drawing up Estimates for 2002, my Department thought it was prudent to set aside moneys to cover possible costs, including printing and legal fees, in the event of the tribunal completing its work this year. My Department has made the best possible administrative guess, but it has received no information to give it an idea when the tribunal will cease.
(Dublin West): Can I ask the Taoiseach if he or his Department has made an effort to curb the fees demanded by legal advocates who have worked at the Moriarty tribunal and other inquiries, in order to save taxpayers' money? The Taoiseach was quite brutal in his dealings with secondary teachers who sought what many people considered to be a quite justifiable pay rise, given the difficult job they do. Can the Taoiseach confirm that sections of the legal profession can nominate any fees they wish and that neither he nor his Department has opposed this? What has the Taoiseach to say about the apparent possibility for sections of the legal profession to name any amount they wish and to get it without any objection? Does he think this is a rip-off of the taxpayer who funds these inquiries?
The setting of fees for counsel is a matter for the Office of the Attorney General. There are strict Department of Finance guidelines for this area which the Attorney General follows. It is not the case that anyone can get anything. There is a procedure for certifying counsel fees. An invoice would first have to be cleared by the eminent judge of the relevant tribunal. One cannot lodge any claim willy-nilly as there are strict guidelines. On the other hand, if counsels wish to improve their positions there is a process whereby they have to put their case in train for increased fees. There is a process.
I will allow a brief question from Deputy Joe Higgins.
(Dublin West): Does the Taoiseach agree that a situation whereby the Attorney General decides on these issues smacks of an old boys' club?
That is a separate question. We are rambling away from the—
(Dublin West): My question relates to costs.
The Deputy should be brief.
(Dublin West): I was going to be brief. Given that the Attorney General, or attorneys general, are part of the legal establish ment, does this situation not smack of the legal establishment looking after itself? Why do we not have an independent monitoring body to set fees which is reasonable from the point of view of taxpayers, rather than people being allowed to name any fee they want and the Taoiseach going along with it?
The Deputy is not listening to me. The fees are set and negotiated by the Department of Finance. If someone wishes to change the position it is for the Department of Finance to do so. The new fee is initially certified by the relevant judge – in this case Mr. Justice Moriarty. The tribunal registrar then certifies the fee and passes it to the finance unit in the relevant Department. The Attorney General also certifies the fee which is based on the fees which are set out. The Attorney General is certifying what has been negotiated and what is fulfilling the Department of Finance's directive.
As a former Minister for Finance, does the Taoiseach share my experience that there is no negotiation regarding fees and that, in effect, the Attorney General comes into the office of the Minister for Finance and says, "This is the amount of money we have to pay"? Deputy Higgins alluded to the fact that, in effect, this is squared down in the Law Library.
In light of the fortunes which have been made recently, does the Taoiseach agree that perhaps we should start to apply the same tendering procedures to legal fees which apply in all Departments regarding consultants whereby people would be invited to submit bids which could be subjected to some kind of external scrutiny? In light of the extraordinary costs and the fact that we are carrying €1.27 million on account for two people who may or may not lodge claims, does the Taoiseach further agree that it is time the Competition Authority was asked to look at the manner in which fees are set? The current situation comprises a triangle between a judge who, in most cases, is a former senior counsel, an Attorney General, who usually has to be a senior counsel, and current senior counsels, three of whom square off and decide the rate of pay on a per diem basis. Does the Taoiseach agree that there is no tendering process for this extraordinary level of remuneration in contrast to the provision of professional services under tender in every other sphere of Government activity?
There is some truth in the Deputy's comments and I know the procedure. However, the Deputy knows that the situation is not that easy in cases involving the State. There is no negotiation, but that is because the market can pay a higher rate than Departments. The situation has not changed in the 15 years I have been observing it. There is a rate set by the Department of Finance which has to be followed.
The rate is fixed by the Attorney General.
Yes, but they work on the basis of a rate.
It is a "think of a number" rate.
The rate is €1,700 per day.
The rate is 1,700 guineas per day.
No, I think it is €1,700.
Does the Taoiseach agree that there is no tendering process?
No, there is not.
Successive Ministers for Finance are informed by the Attorney General of the day of the rate which has to be paid. There is no way of testing this: the word of the Attorney General must be taken.
The Department of Finance does not sign anything. The Deputy knows the Department of Finance fights as hard in terms of the overall fees because in all of these inquiries and investigations there tends to be a longer period and a shorter period and the costs mount. This has always been the case, no matter which tribunal or funding issue is involved. However, in many cases the Department and the Attorney General, who are trying to negotiate the counsel, have experienced difficulties in getting the people the Government wants, even at those rates. It is not the case that people are queuing up. This happens all the time and it makes the whole thing quite difficult.
(Dublin West): Maybe we should train some more barristers.
There is a huge number already.
There is a thousand—
There is a huge number of them but there are not many who have a reputation on this issue and they are the people who gain it. I do not want to give the impression that the guidelines are not being followed and that anything is paid. Admittedly, it is a high market area and there are a limited number of people at the top.
There is no market.
There is.
Does the Taoiseach intend to introduce amending legislation to the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, and if so, will it apply to Moriarty and other existing tribunals?
That is a separate question.
As far as the issue of personnel is concerned, a short amendment is required. Is Deputy Noonan referring to Donegal?
No.
The Deputy must be referring to the existing tribunals.
Will the proposals made in connection with Donegal apply retrospectively to other tribunals?
The terms of reference of the Donegal tribunal should relate to that tribunal alone, as far as I know.
I must point out to the Taoiseach that in the UK the problem of outrageous costs for barristers has been overcome by having high-level barristers on the staff of the Civil Service. This has been done, for example, for the Scott inquiry. A scandal is now emerging because so many counsel are getting 9,000 guineas per week or 1,800 guineas per day – I do not know what that is in euro – for their services. It is evident that there is no incentive for them to finish in any great hurry. Consideration should now be given to the idea, suggested at the Committee of Public Accounts, of having on the staff of the AG's office enough barristers – call them deputy attorneys general – to look after the State's interests in these cases.
The offices of the Attorney General and the Minister for Finance are constantly trying to ensure we have sufficient legal representation to keep a control on costs. They have been trying to do this for the last ten years.
