Enda Kenny
Question:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the nature of the files which have been requested from his Department by the Moriarty tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14221/03]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Tribunals of Inquiry.
Enda Kenny
Question:2 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the costs which have accrued to his Department in respect of the Moriarty tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14222/03]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:3 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the costs to his Department in legal fees arising from the Moriarty tribunal; if costs have arisen for his Department from other tribunals; the amount involved; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16613/03]
Joe Higgins
Question:4 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if files have been requested from his Department by the Moriarty tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16759/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:5 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the total costs accruing to his Department from the operation of the Moriarty tribunal; if all files sought from his Department have been provided to the tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17496/03]
Trevor Sargent
Question:6 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the costs to his Department in legal fees arising from the Moriarty tribunal and other ongoing tribunals [17657/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, together.
Requests for files are required by the tribunal to be kept confidential and I am obliged to respect that requirement. My Department will continue to co-operate with the tribunals in making available any records sought.
The costs met by my Department to the end of May in respect of the Moriarty tribunal amount to €13,110,000. This includes fees paid to counsel for the tribunal and administration costs incurred to date since the establishment of the tribunal in October 1997. The only other tribunal for which my Department met the costs was the McCracken tribunal and the total cost to date of that tribunal is €6,655,763.
Will the Taoiseach confirm the number of files that have been transferred to the Moriarty tribunal at its request? What plans does the Taoiseach have to expedite the business of the tribunals given that the estimated costs in some cases for the Flood tribunal are as much as €500 million? Does the Government have a set of proposals to precipitate the process? For instance, if three judges are appointed to a tribunal, they could deal with individual modules.
This question deals with the Moriarty tribunal.
Such a proposal would accelerate the work of the Moriarty tribunal or any other tribunal. Mr. Justice Moriarty said that the tribunal has been sitting for over 18 months but not one scintilla of direct evidence has been produced yet. Will the Taoiseach expedite the matter or should there be an interim report in the public interest?
I do not have details of the number of files, but generally files are requested by the tribunal and all requests for information are dealt with on a confidential basis. I think the Deputy will understand that I must respect that.
In March 1999 my Department brought to the attention of the tribunal a number of records relating to naturalisation for investment which were among working papers on special projects in the Department from the IDA and CII. Records were delivered to the tribunal on 5 March and I dealt with them in the House at that time. There may have been other requests but that was the last one – I am subject to correction on that – that related to naturalisation for investment.
I cannot recall any recent requests, although I will check that. There were issues early in the process where the Moriarty tribunal sought information, and the Flood tribunal has also requested information.
The Government has no fixed position on the tribunals. It is still intended that the Moriarty tribunal will finish its evidence this year, as I have said previously, but that does not mean its report will be written up this year.
On the Flood tribunal, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, has today forwarded to the Clerks of the Dáil and the Seanad a letter dated 16 June from Mr. Justice Feargus Flood. In that letter, Mr. Justice Flood states that he considers himself unable to continue to act as chairperson of the tribunal. He has set out four reasons that are contained in the letter, which will be circulated to Members of each House. However, Mr. Justice Flood also stated that he does not consider himself unable to continue to act as an ordinary member of the tribunal as permitted by the relevant legislation and subject to the resolutions of the Oireachtas.
In his letter of 16 June, Mr. Justice Flood has made it clear that the duties and responsibilities of being chairman, and particularly the determination of the costs issue, will require of him "significant levels of physical and mental stamina and capacity to carry out exceptionally demanding work over an extended period of time." He also stated that his continuing to act as chairperson would impose an undue strain on him.
It is proposed in the letter that The Honourable Mr. Justice Alan Mahon, senior counsel, will be appointed as the new chairperson of the tribunal and will deal with the issue of costs. Our legislation on tribunals enables these changes of rules to occur. However, the Houses of the Oireachtas are required to pass resolutions making provision for these changes and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, then issues an amended instrument. Accordingly, the Dáil and the Seanad will have to consider the content of Mr. Justice Flood's letter because it is not just a matter for the Government as the tribunals are set up by the Houses. Indeed, Mr. Justice Flood notes in the letter that "his continued involvement in the tribunal must be a matter for the Oireachtas." That is the reason I bring this matter before the House because this letter was discussed this morning at Cabinet on the return of the Attorney General from The Hague, where he was last week when the letter arrived. I thought it appropriate that I should bring it to the floor of the House immediately.
The Government today considered the contents of Mr. Justice Flood's letter and a number of issues have arisen as a result of the letter which require further clarification and in that context, the Minister, Deputy Cullen, will write this afternoon to Mr. Justice Flood. It is obvious that this House will take whatever steps are necessary, as expeditiously as possible, to ensure the correct procedures are followed and that future determinations of the tribunal are valid and legally sustainable. This will include passing amending legislation on the costs issue.
In the context of this changed set of circumstances, it may be appropriate at this time for this House, with the assistance of the tribunal, to address the short and long-term implications of this development for the operation of the tribunal. I am not a legal expert but it has been pointed out to me by many of my legal colleagues that this opens up many issues which it is probably not appropriate for me to go into now. I may not be capable of dealing with all of them because they are legal matters. As this is a matter for the Houses of the Oireachtas, I would be prepared to share my advice, which I have not yet received, with the party leaders in order that the House can make a decision on these matters.
The present state of play is that Mr. Justice Flood has dealt with all of these issues and if he does not deal with the costs, a question clearly arises. I do not want to say anymore than this. I have not had an opportunity to study all the legalities in the few hours since I have been made aware of these issues.
A second aspect is that many modules are in train. To answer Deputy Kenny's question, I understand there are something like 15 years of modules in train. There are already issues of costs that to my knowledge, the last time I checked – and I have not checked for many months – could be of the order of €50 million or €60 million. I tried to check it again in the past half hour but nobody could give me an assessment.
I thought it appropriate that I bring this matter to the House and I thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, for giving me the time to do that on this question. As soon as I came out of the Cabinet meeting, I instructed the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, to pass the letter to the Clerks, and they will be put into the public domain. However, my sense is that the House should not rush the matter but we should look at it. I would be glad to consult the leaders of the other parties. In the first instance, we have written to seek the clarifications we require. These are, I believe, similar to those the party leaders would require and I will be glad to exchange this information when we receive it. My preliminary view is that we should spend some time over the summer considering the issue.
I thank the Taoiseach for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. This is an important public issue and it is proper that the Taoiseach, as Head of Government, should bring it back to the Houses of the Oireachtas which set up the Flood tribunal in the first instance. Mr. Justice Feargus Flood is to be complimented for having the stamina to sit through an avalanche of material from a wide variety of sources and for producing an interim report of an exceptionally high standard. However, this development calls into question the legality and functions of the tribunal, as established by Dáil Éireann, in terms of its intent and future remit. Persons already interviewed before the tribunal may well challenge its findings because Mr. Justice Flood will no longer be in situ.I agree with the Taoiseach that the matter should not be rushed. In its review of the tribunal and its workings, Dáil Éireann should re-examine its remit. While nobody wants to place restrictions on finding the truth, there is a public interest requirement to have efficiency, effectiveness and response in determining it. In so far as my party can offer advice to the Government or the Taoiseach in that regard, we would be happy to do so.
It appears from some quarters as if the Flood tribunal may have assumed a remit to continue for the next 20 years and examine all sorts of decisions by local authorities throughout the State. I do not know if that was the original intent of the Oireachtas in setting up the tribunal.
We all want to stand by the truth and see no obstruction placed in the way of finding it. The Fine Gael Party will be happy to offer its support and assistance to the Government to allow the tribunal to continue to find out the truth in a speedy and cost-effective manner.
Before the Taoiseach replies, we will take comments from the three other party leaders, after which we will return to the questions before us.
I was not aware of this development. Does the Taoiseach agree that, given Mr. Justice Flood's age, the time he has applied to the position, the manner in which he was obstructed virtually at every turn and the threatened duration of the tribunal, it is understandable if he might want to be relieved of the duties and pressures of being chairman of the tribunal and seek that the House agrees to the proposition he has put to us? Is it not also the case that it would be reasonable, when doing the sums on the tribunal, to take into account that Mr. Justice Flood has made a considerable contribution on the other side of the balance sheet in terms of taxes procured for the Exchequer, arising either directly from his work or indirectly as a result of the matters into which the tribunal inquired?
The Taoiseach appeared to indicate that Mr. Justice Flood has proposed that he not be seised of the cost issue and that this be passed to the new chairman in due course. Is that correct? Will Mr. Justice Flood make a second interim report before the baton is handed over?
I agree with Deputy Kenny and with what the Taoiseach has said about the need to reflect on this. We are all a great deal wiser now and had less grey hair when these tribunals were established. There are 15 year modules already in train, and we have not yet got to Donegal, Cork, Kerry or Galway—
Or Mayo.
—or Mayo. Given what has recently happened in Loughrea, there is no reason, on the same logic that caused Dublin to be examined, not to consider Loughrea and other places. On that estimate Deputy English will be on the pension by the time it concludes. This clearly requires consideration.
What is the status of the speeches made by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform about alternative systems of inquiry? Are legislative proposals likely to emerge soon? The public is asking if it is not feasible for persons other than top-flight senior counsel to do the preliminary work and establish whether a prima facie case lies in any instance. The public is also asking why skilled senior counsel, whose purpose is to present evidence in a courtroom, are carrying out this preliminary inquiry work.
Is the Taoiseach saying that it is feasible for the Houses of the Oireachtas to intervene and cause some of the outstanding modules to be done more efficiently through an alternative mechanism? Is it not the case that persons whose names have already been mentioned at any of these tribunals would presumably have cause for action if they were not given their day in court? Some of them may not want to have their day in court, but that is a different issue. Where modules have been opened or where evidence has been adduced that would seem to reflect adversely on a person's reputation, presumably these persons would have a grievance if they were not given the opportunity to vindicate their good name. Is the Taoiseach saying it is within the capacity of the House to intervene on foot of either Mr. Justice Flood's letter or a second interim report to see if the runaway horse can be brought under control in terms of future exposure to the Exchequer?
Regarding the Flood tribunal and indeed the Moriarty tribunal—
I am taking comment from the leaders on the Flood tribunal only.
I appreciate that you have given latitude in that regard. I thank Mr. Justice Flood for the work he has done. In the interim report and in his patience and tenacity in light of the rebellions he faced from the witness box, he has shown how a tribunal can be dealt with effectively, even if it is a frustrating experience for him. It brings to mind the election slogan "Much done, more to do". On the future operation of the Flood tribunal, will the changing of the chair be factored into, for example, the terms of the commission of investigation Bill to provide for that eventuality? This may not be the only time we have to countenance this situation. It is, therefore, important to be prepared for it. Does the Government intend to await the conclusion of the full term of the tribunal before moving to introduce legislation to remove the greed factor which has landed the country with the cost of these tribunals in the first place? Will the law be changed to remove, for example, the high profiteering factor of rezoning as will be proposed by the Green Party in Private Members' business later today?
Does the Government intend to act before the conclusion of the Flood tribunal to allow court cases to be heard, as mentioned by Deputy Rabbitte? Not only will Deputy English be drawing a pension by that time but, more seriously, quite a number of witnesses may be dead and we will be wondering what would have been their evidence and the outcome of the tribunal. It will be unsatis factory for those who may pass on, as well as their relatives, if the matter is not concluded speedily. Will the Government act now rather than wait interminably for the tribunals to conclude?
I note the Taoiseach's remarks on Mr. Justice Flood and the Flood tribunal. This again invites a focus on the exorbitant and unacceptable rates, of the order of €2,500 per day, that certain tribunal counsel are drawing. Does the Taoiseach not recognise that while there is undoubted public concern at the duration of tribunals, the real focus of public concern is their exorbitant cost arising from the exorbitant fees demanded and received by lawyers and legal firms taking part in the process? Will the Taoiseach use this opportunity, heralded by Mr. Justice Flood's indication to him, to introduce legislation to properly regulate the fees of legal advisers up to counsel level who are involved in tribunals? It is imperative that this be done. I am concerned that in recent times a spin has been employed – I do not know whether it comes from Government circles – that the tribunals, in their plurality, might very well be drawn to an early cessation. There is much to be inquired into, and these are important vehicles for getting to the truth, not only in regard to the focus of the Flood and Moriarty tribunals, but on matters of malpractice in a raft of areas from health to planning that have occurred and continue to take place within our society. Will the Taoiseach indicate whether he intends to introduce legislation to regulate the fees being paid to the legal participants?
A Cheann Comhairle—
Only the leaders of the parties may contribute on this question.
I have rights too. This is Taoiseach's question time. I have a question on the Order Paper.
The Taoiseach has intervened to bring information to the House. It is traditional and a long-standing precedent that the leaders of the parties are entitled to respond. As soon as the Taoiseach concludes we will return to Questions Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive.
I will not be long.
It is wrong to make fish of some and fowl of others. It is despicable.
Deputy, if I allow you to intervene there is nothing to stop me from allowing other Deputies to intervene likewise.
I will be brief. I considered it appropriate to bring this matter to the attention of the House very quickly. I agree with the points made by Deputy Kenny and that we must look carefully at this.
Will the Taoiseach please speak up? It is difficult to hear him.
Sorry.
The Taoiseach's hearing is not great at times.
The Deputy is right on that – sometimes. I agree with the points made by Deputy Kenny and need not rehearse them. Matters need to be looked at carefully.
The tribunal legislation enables changes in roles to occur, but the Houses of the Oireachtas are required to pass resolutions making provisions for these changes. That comes about by an amended instrument. I am advised that is the position. Mr. Justice Flood made that point.
If it was the case that Mr. Justice Flood was not dealing with a cost issue I am advised we would have to pass amending legislation to deal with it because he is the justice who heard all those issues. A sizeable amount of money is involved. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has provided the figures. The legal costs to date amount to €26 million, which excludes costs for those claiming costs, which come to very substantial amounts of money.
Like everybody else, I commend Mr. Justice Flood for all the work he has done from the outset. In reply to Deputy Rabbitte, many times it fell to me to give him full co-operation, and we did that. At all times I made sure that the Government provided full co-operation in these matters. I have answered the Deputy's question on costs.
Is the Taoiseach indicating that Mr. Justice Flood has proposed that he will not hear costs and that legislation will be required to facilitate a new chairman hearing the costs?
That is so. There are difficulties with that, but I do not wish to go into them. However, it would take legislation. It could also give rise to further issues by people, but we will not go into that now. It raises legal questions.
There are no indications in these proposals of an interim report up to Mr. Justice Flood's change of position. That does not arise in this suggestion. For that and some other reasons, the Government has sought clarification on those points and when we get it I will make the party leaders aware of it.
Deputies Kenny, Rabbitte and Sargent asked me about the commission investigation Bill. I answered questions about the legislation in the past few weeks. It was to be ready during the summer recess and, if I recall, was to be circulated in July and taken in the autumn. The legislation will not apply to existing tribunals but will deal with new cases that arise. There have been no conversations whatsoever about any of the mod ules of any of the tribunals. There are approximately eight tribunals or inquiries, such as the Laffoy Commission. They are to finish their deliberations and the legislation will only apply to new ones.
Deputy Rabbitte's point is salient. I am not sure about the legalities in the way the tribunals work in terms of those who have been named or have made submissions, even though these may have occurred some years ago. People incurred considerable costs in making their legal submissions and defences to the tribunal as did the tribunal itself in dealing with matters to date. How can one take them out and place them before another investigative system? I have long held the view, which does not arise from the events of today, that it must be possible to deal with some of these issues individually through judges, or by some other means. Difficulties arise when people attempt to remember what happened 15 years ago. If one waits another 15 years to investigate them, the witnesses may not even be about. It becomes a fairly difficult position to be frank.
I do not know about the legality of taking on issues which have been raised in a tribunal. It has been the view for a considerable amount of time – it is my information, but I am not sure if it is correct – that the modules in place may be there for in excess of seven years and I have heard people suggest up to 15 years. Nobody has said less than seven years. Members can take it that in 2010 we will be dealing with modules which are there presently. Deputy Rabbitte asked if I would agree to propose taking some of those modules to deal with them under some other system, which seems eminently sensible. We began to address some of these issues regarding 1997 and they have moved a long way since.
All those aspects have to be looked at, but the immediate issue is the way in which we deal with matters raised by Mr. Justice Flood. I acknowledge that he has put in six extraordinary years of work leading up to his interim report of last year. He has investigated many cases. The costs issue has been outstanding for some time and Members will be aware that there has been pressure in this regard from a number of people. People are agreed that we should look at all of these aspects and take legal advice to try to determine a course of action. The House will have to deal with it. My sense is that we must take time to reflect on these issues when we receive the full information. When there is dialogue between the Houses of the Oireachtas through the attorney and the Clerks of the Houses who dealt with the tribunal from the outset we will discover if it is possible to come to an agreement on the circumstances in which it is appropriate for us to assist the tribunal and to take it forward. I will keep party leaders updated regarding any matters which arise. Having listened to the legal arguments put to me, it is not my view that I should charge into the House this week or next week to try to resolve these issues. That does not appear to me to be the right thing to do.
In the course of my earlier contribution, I asked if the Taoiseach would clarify for the House whether or not the Government was responsible for the spin which has been operating in the media.
That does not arise from Questions Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive.
I am talking about the Moriarty tribunal. The matter does arise.
It does not arise from the six questions asked.
My point concerns the Moriarty tribunal. My Question No. 3 relates to the legal fees arising from the Moriarty tribunal and if, a Cheann Comhairle, you allow me to finish my original sentence, it will be apparent that my point fits 100%. I ask again if the Taoiseach will clarify that the recent media spin which suggests tribunals will be wound up prematurely due to legal costs has no basis in the Government's position. Can the Taoiseach tell the House his opinion of the source of such suggestions in the media in recent weeks? Does the Taoiseach agree that it is imperative that the work of the tribunals continue, including the Moriarty tribunal which has been addressing the existence of a golden circle of politics and business for a considerable amount of time? Does the Taoiseach agree that stricter legislation is needed to curtail the legal costs that accrue to the legal advisers involved in the tribunals? Does he accept that there must be proper regulation of the fees being claimed and that this is a major concern for the public? Will the Taoiseach undertake to introduce legislation to regulate these fees now and for the future?
Three other Deputies submitted questions so I will call them before calling on the Taoiseach to reply.
Does the Taoiseach agree that it should be accepted as a principle that the corruption that was allegedly evident where big business and politics intersected—
Sorry, Deputy, that does not arise out of the six questions before the House. I ask the three Deputies to be brief and to confine themselves to the six questions. The Chair is trying to facilitate Deputies who have submitted questions. The alternative for the Chair is to conclude questions at 3.15 p.m.
With respect, a Cheann Comhairle, the six questions are about the Moriarty tribunal. Did that tribunal concern—
The Deputy should read the questions.
—somebody stealing from a sweet shop? The Taoiseach's Question Time is three quarters of an hour but the Chair gave 20 minutes to statements. I do not have a problem with that but it is not provided for in the procedure. However, I am being restricted from putting my questions to the Taoiseach—
The Deputy must ask a question appropriate to the six questions.
Ask a relevant question.
I am being restricted due to time and other factors—
The Deputy is not being restricted except in so far as he must confine himself to questions arising out of the six questions submitted to the Taoiseach.
I only had one sentence out of my mouth and it was about the questions. The Taoiseach has made statements that have serious implications for the future of tribunals. My first question to the Taoiseach would have been asked by now if the Chair had not interrupted me. Does the Taoiseach accept the first principle that alleged corruption at the interface of business and politics must be investigated? That is the reason there was huge support for the establishment of proper investigations. Does he agree that something has gone seriously wrong when the story moves from millionaires being investigated by the Moriarty tribunal to the creation of new millionaires as a result of the fees being paid by the Moriarty tribunal? This is what needs to be examined. Why did the Government not move long ago on the scale of barristers' fees and provide for the ordinary remuneration with which the rest of us live?
Why is it not possible to deal in a much shorter amount of time with the evidence submitted, to provide an opportunity for rebuttal by those who might be implicated and to draw conclusions? This happens in ordinary courts every day. Why does a tribunal require years? Is it not clear that new structures for investigating allegations of corruption in public life must be established which will respect natural justice but where every witness arriving at the investigation does not need half the Law Library in tow, dropping invoices as they go? That is what is needed in this situation.
Is a date of proposed resignation from the chairmanship outlined in the letter to be circulated from Mr. Justice Flood? Does the Taoiseach agree that it is important to protect the State's interest in terms of any prospective recoupment of fees? If that were to be put at risk by Mr. Justice Flood's early departure, it is a factor which would weigh heavily with the House. He ought to—
Deputy, we are dealing with the Moriarty tribunal at this stage.
In the light of the costs, which are well-known, involving the three barristers in the Moriarty tribunal having received more than €8 million to date, and the projections for the present tribunals running to over €500 million, is the Government satisfied that it is dealing adequately with the inflated cost issue? This is particularly important for the commission of investigation Bill, which the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform told us would be published before the summer recess. Wherein lies the delay in publication of the Bill?
In the light of files requested and that area of questioning, does the Taoiseach recall the request from the Green Party that an auxiliary judge be appointed to the Moriarty tribunal? We requested this in January to allow for an investigation into the Glending controversy in Wicklow. Does the Taoiseach appreciate that Mr. Justice Moriarty would have a difficulty in this regard and that it is important that somebody without an interest in Glending would investigate the matter? Would he therefore acknowledge that the appointment of an auxiliary judge is warranted and has he had any further opportunity to discuss or reflect on that matter?
In response to Deputy Ó Caoláin, I do not consider there are any grounds on which matters that are under investigation should not be investigated. Neither the Government nor anyone else holds that view. These matters have been under investigation for six years and investigations are ongoing and will continue. On Mr. Justice Moriarty's report, I said at the outset that my latest information is that the public hearings will end towards the end of the year and then, presumably, the report will have to be written. I do not see any reason whatsoever why there should be any change in that tribunal. For that matter, I would not have thought there was any change in any of the other tribunals. The only reason I raised the matter is because it was being raised by the chairman, who was formerly a sole member; we were asked to change that to three members, which we did some time ago.
Deputy Sargent asked about the commission of investigation Bill which is almost ready. It was to be published in early July, which is next week, and it is on target and will be available for examination over the summer. As I have stated before, the fees payable to legal staff at the tribunal have remained unchanged since 1997. It was not envisaged then that the tribunals would sit for such a long time and during the five year period from 1997 to last year, the rates generally increased significantly in the legal profession and the legal staff to the tribunals have been pressing for an increase to reflect this. When the Morris tribunal was being set up last year, the fees negotiated by the Office of the Attorney General office reflected the rates prevailing at that time and the outcome provided a basis for an adjustment of the fees of staff in the existing tribunals. In the case of the Moriarty tribunal, adjustments were agreed last August and operated from 24 May 2002.
In normal litigation, barristers are paid by way of a brief fee, a one-off lump sum for preparation of the case, reading documents, reading the brief, and a refresher per diem for each day. At tribunals, a brief fee is paid to reflect the extensive reading in and the reading of material documentation, and a per diem refresher is paid in respect of sitting and non-sitting days. The per diem rate reflects the work done on the tribunals on the sitting days but also the work done on non-sitting days during the private investigation stages which is crucial to the work of the tribunals.
A great deal of preliminary investigative work has been carried out in respect of the tribunals and that is why these issues become costly. It is also a fact – and the barristers have argued this – that similar to Members when they are away from their own work for a period, private practice effectively disappears. If barristers are away from the Bar for a few years, it takes time to re-establish their practice.
Obviously, they will not carry out that work if they are not remunerated for it. That argument has been put forward and accepted. I know that we would be criticised in the House if we did not pay the rates to get the senior people whom we had. It is perhaps unfortunate that we have had so many tribunals over the last five years, with so many people caught up in them. It has cost a great deal of money. However, one must pay those rates to get the individuals involved, for they would command that kind of remuneration in private practice if they were not on tribunals. That is the case that has been put for the last five or six years.
The auxiliary judge question was not answered.