Vol. 575 No. 3
5 Mr. Glennon asked the Taoiseach the legal costs incurred to date by the State in regard to the Moriarty tribunal set up by order of the Oireachtas and currently running; and the estimated future liability for such costs. [23833/03]
6 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. [26173/03]
7 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the entire cost to the State of the Moriarty tribunal; the estimate for future costs to the State; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26336/03]
8 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the costs incurred by his Department in respect of the Moriarty tribunal. [28300/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive, together.
The costs met by my Department in respect of the Moriarty tribunal since its establishment in October 1997 to the end of October 2003 amount to €14,406,811. Of this amount, €10,690,167 has been paid in fees to counsel for the tribunal and €3,716,644 in administration costs. As regards estimated future liabilities for costs, it is impossible to predict what costs may be awarded and to whom by the sole member of the tribunal. The annual running cost of the tribunal is under €4 million. Future costs will depend on the duration of the tribunal.
On what basis has the estimated cost of the Moriarty tribunal risen by 183% for next year, from €3.6 million to €10.3 million for 2004? This figure must be approved by the Department of the Taoiseach on the basis of an understanding of what the projected costs might be.
Is the Taoiseach satisfied that the Moriarty tribunal continues to work within the remit given to it by the Oireachtas? What is the cost of a day's public hearings of the tribunal as against a day's hearings held in private? Arising from a number of recent newspaper articles, it appears that much of what is being conducted in public could be done in private without loss of relevant information to the public.
As the Deputy knows, the sole member must make a decision on costs. That decision is to be made this year and will apply to next year, which is why we have made provision for costs, although we do not yet know what the costs will be.
Is the Taoiseach saying the costs could be higher?
Yes, they could. It depends on who is awarded or refused costs. The position in regard to previous tribunals is that practically everyone has been awarded costs. It is on that basis that the provision has been made.
The cost difference between public and private sessions of the tribunal is irrelevant because, as Deputy Kenny pointed out, a lot of the tribunal's work is being carried out during private confidential sessions, but the rates are more or less the same. Therefore, there is no saving in that regard.
In regard to the daily rates—
They must be a lot.
Patience is a virtue.
The rate per day for each senior counsel is €500—
Sorry, Deputy.
I have only the total costs available to me. I do not have information on the per diem costs, but I can obtain it for the Deputy.
I would appreciate it if the Taoiseach could supply that information. It appears that, if every interested party must be represented in public session, the cost is running at an enormous amount per day of public session. When does the Taoiseach envisage that the Moriarty tribunal might conclude its business? The sole member has commented about the progress being made and matters being discovered. The tribunal was established to inquire into the integrity of the process and the question as to whether there was interference in respect of a licence being allocated.
This question refers specifically to costs. The issues before the tribunal are matters for the sole member rather than the Dáil.
It would be in everyone's interests if we could know the position.
I appreciate that but the Chair has ruled on a number of occasions in respect of tribunals.
Does the Taoiseach not agree that it is an obscenity that each senior counsel at the Moriarty tribunal receives a daily fee of €2,500? In the consultation paper published by the Law Reform Commission last March, it was indicated that the fee for counsel in respect of court cases was calculated in terms of the preparation work, the briefing fee and a daily fee for attendance in each court case. Is it not unacceptable that the same calculation has been applied to attendance and performance at tribunals? Court cases, in the main, last for days or weeks—
The Deputy is making a statement. A question please.
I have a number of questions. Court cases, in the main, last for days or weeks, whereas tribunals can last for years. Does the Taoiseach agree with the Law Reform Commission's expressed view that a new formula for the calculation of fees payable to senior counsel at the Moriarty and other tribunals, which recognises the fact that people have guaranteed work for an excessive period of months or even years, needs to be found and that the formula employed is wholly inapplicable? Is the Taoiseach considering introducing legislation to address the exorbitant charges that are placed against the public coffers, through the tribunals, by those offering their legal expertise?
On Deputy Kenny's question on the time involved, the answer is that I do not know. It will take as long as it takes. No estimate has been made in terms of how long the tribunal will take.
I am conscious of the view expressed by the Law Reform Commission. The Minister for Finance and the Attorney General have given the commission's paper careful consideration to see if its recommendations could be incorporated into the workings of current or future tribunals. If tribunals remain in place for a long period, substantial costs are incurred by the Exchequer.
The other side of that argument, which is put forward by those concerned, is that people who participate in tribunals are obliged to remain away from their practices and private work. If they are involved with a tribunal for a number of years, it takes a corresponding period for them to restore their private practice. If we want the best people to participate as counsel at the tribunals, this is the cost that must be paid. It is generally accepted that those involved at the tribunals are experienced individuals. If these people were involved in normal practice, they would earn these or perhaps even higher rates of pay. That is what we are told and that is the factual position.
What about the proposed legislation to address the issue of the serious—
Aside from the Law Reform Commission consultation paper on public inquiries, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has brought investigation legislation before the House, it is on Second Stage, which deals with running the tribunals in a different way. This is designed to ensure there is a faster and more extensive way to deal with these issues. The Oireachtas made provision that the terms of reference on these matters would be open and, until the tribunals have concluded all the business under their remits, that is the way they will proceed.
Does the Taoiseach believe we are getting value for money from the tribunals? Does he agree that the terms of reference of the Moriarty tribunal should be changed to include Cement Roadstone? This is a vital area, which needs to be investigated.
That does not arise. The Chair has ruled on many occasions in regard to the tribunals.
The first question is valid.
The House has agreed terms of reference for the various tribunals – we are discussing the Moriarty tribunal. They must undertake their work and report back to the House. That is the task we have given them. We must resource them and await the reports ultimately.
My question specifically related to the Bill published by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform last summer. He left everyone in the House and outside under the impression it would be speedily enacted. I do not see it anywhere on the schedule. Has the Government changed its mind about the contents or the efficacy of the Bill or is the Government rethinking it? Are there circumstances where the Government would move to foreshorten the Moriarty tribunal or any of the other tribunals? For example, in respect of the planning tribunal, one hears about filing cabinets full of allegations from Donegal, Meath, Cork, Galway and Leitrim. There must be 30 years' work in that.
The Deputy is moving away from the Moriarty tribunal, to which the questions refer.
I agree with you this time, a Cheann Comhairle. The Taoiseach gets the gist of what I am seeking to ask him. Will opportunities be presented to the House when interim reports from the tribunals are made to the House? Does the Taoiseach foresee circumstances where the Government will put a recommendation to the Oireachtas in respect of any of the tribunals or does he envisage, for example, that the Moriarty tribunal will move on from Dublin in due course around the rest of the coastline? Where will this end?
Perhaps the Deputy could table a question to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on those issues.
It is not the Government's intention that this legislation will replace the work currently going on but we still want to have it passed because, in line with any new investigation or examination, we see the legislation as the more effective way of doing it. That is our view and I hope it is passed soon. It is well worth passing the legislation. I do not want it to be seen as taking over the role of the Moriarty tribunal.
With regard to the second question, it is my view, for what it is worth, that there are aspects of the tribunals which we clearly had in mind in this House at the time tribunals were set up and subsequently. There are various modules which have to be investigated, some of which have been completed while others have yet to be carried out. I believe we must complete that process before we reflect on it.
On Deputy Rabbitte's question as to whether we should move forward to further issues which the Oireachtas had not contemplated, I believe we should come to a collective view on the matter at that stage. I am anxious that elements which were matters of public controversy and where various allegations were made should be completed. However, as to whether we should go on ad nauseaminto other new and more current areas, that was not the wish of the House. I believe those aspects should be looked at afresh when we come to the end of the process. Otherwise, I agree with the Deputy that the process might still be continuing in 15 years' time. That was certainly not the wish of the House in 1997 and 1998 when we dealt with these issues. We should look at the situation again at the end of the phases relating to major issues.
The lead question is one from a Fianna Fáil backbencher – something as rare as the cry of the corncrake on a summer evening.
Has the Deputy a question?
Just when we thought questioning Fianna Fáil backbenchers were extinct, one has croaked up, for whatever reason.
The incredible level of fees paid to barristers at the Moriarty and other tribunals has been raised previously in the Dáil. I recall pointing out that the tribunals were creating more millionaires than they were investigating, on occasions. What has the Taoiseach done, since then, to cut down the costs of legal fees at the Moriarty tribunal? Especially in the context of recent days, when both the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance have been quite shrill in demanding that the most humble civil servants have to produce quite substantial productivity for their benchmarking awards, what benchmarking has been or is being applied to the legal teams at the tribunal? Everyone agrees, quite clearly, that alleged corruption has to be investigated very thoroughly. Does the Taoiseach agree, however, that the tribunals have become so leadránach and expensive that, unfortunately, the upshot may be to bring the concept of such investigations into disrepute among hard pressed taxpayers?
That matter does not arise out of Questions Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive.
It does, in the sense that there is a key issue as to what the Taoiseach is prepared to do to ensure effective and swift investigations and conclusions at a minimum reasonable cost to the taxpayers. That is not what is currently happening.
I usually answer questions from Fianna Fáil backbenchers almost every day, including written questions. There is nothing special in that regard.
On Deputy Kenny's earlier question, the figure is €2,500per diemfor a senior counsel and €2,000 for a junior counsel. The daily rate for research allowance for seniors is €571 and, for juniors, €381.
Is there a figure for the average cost per day?
On the issues raised by Deputy Joe Higgins, if I were to recommend any action concerning the tribunals or involve myself in any way, I know what the Deputy and others would say. That is the reality of the position. I have referred to how they can be looked at ultimately when we get through a particular phase of the work, otherwise they will go on forever. On the matter of legislation in regard to future tribunals, the proposals put before the House would at least simplify the work.
On the question of the cost involved, why has the Government not moved to update the legislation to enable inquiry by parliamentary committee? There is the example of the DIRT inquiry, but that facility is disabled for the future as a result of the decision in the Abbeylara case. Surely, in terms of contributing to more—
That matter does not arise out of these four questions.
I respectfully submit that the net point we are addressing is the cost involved.
The Deputy will note these are statistical questions.
No, that is entirely too restrictive. The net point is the cost involved.
These are statistical questions about the costs relating to the Moriarty tribunal.
These are not statistical questions in that people want to know—
The Chair has been rather lenient on these questions. We have spent a long time on them and we have gone outside the remit of the questions.
The time spent on them is not as long as the tribunals.
If the Deputy has a brief question, we will hear him.
The net point here is cost. That is the point we are trying to address.
The net point of the questions is the cost incurred to date by the State.
I know, but the point of Deputy Kenny's question is to put on the floor of the Dáil what the cost to date is so that we can raise this kind of question.
Yes.
I put it to the Taoiseach that there is probably a requirement for a number of alternative approaches to inquire into alleged wrongdoing and that some, not all, of that can be done by parliamentary committee.
The questions refer specifically to the Moriarty tribunal.
I appreciate that entirely.
The Deputy should confine his question to the Moriarty tribunal.
In the context of the Moriarty tribunal, does the Taoiseach consider that alternative methods of inquiry are desirable to bring about more efficient and speedy conclusions to matters of public interest that ought to be inquired into? In that respect, does he agree it is time, one year or longer after the decision in the Abbeylara case, the Government brought forward amending legislation to enable inquiry by parliamentary committee to continue?
There are legal issues around doing that. A certain amount of work can still happen, but the Deputy is aware of the difficulties regarding all these investigations. The Government published a committee of investigations Bill, which we believe would be a more speedy and effective way of dealing with these issues. As to whether we can get around some of the issues, such as those that arose in the Abbeylara case, the mini-CTC signalling project or other such issues, I am not certain we would be able to satisfactorily deal with the legal issues. However, we are satisfied that the committee of investigations Bill could be used to provide for committees of the House to deal with such cases.
I agree with the Deputy's point, that we could deal with these issues more speedily and complete a report on them. The proceedings of tribunals are not proven legal fact. They can be challenged in court and they do not prove a case for prosecution. Such issues could be addressed by the committee of investigations Bill. As to whether that would satisfy the House and members of the public, I do not know. If many of the issues that arise now and in the future were to require full judicial tribunals, with the staff and the necessary resources involved to make them effective, that would be an expensive way of going forward. We should pass this Bill and examine the issues involved after we have gone through the main aspects of the tribunals. In the case of the Moriarty tribunal, I believe it will be finished sooner because it will not drag on while others may.
I welcome the Taoiseach's confirmation of the figures I outlined earlier. In his initial response he indicated the overall cost of the Moriarty tribunal to his Department. However, is it not the case that these costs are multiplied several times when we take account of the other tribunals taking place and that we are looking at a colossal overall figure?
On legislation, the Taoiseach referred to reform of the process of the tribunals. Will legislation now be considered by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to address the cost of the conduct of tribunals? Will the Taoiseach advise whether the Government is considering introducing legislation to address the issue of legal costs generally? Will he use the opportunity of Ireland's Presidency of the EU to have this matter addressed, not just in Ireland, but across the Union?
While Members have inquired if we can find a more speedy, efficient and cost effective way of dealing with these issues, I do not want to say anything about any of the current tribunals.
In examining future reforms, we must remember that, over the past number of years, we have had much experience of these issues. This has not just been since 1997 but previously with the beef tribunal and other inquiries. We know the costs involved. Even at Oireachtas committees, such as the DIRT, Abbeylara and mini-CTC inquiries, counsel were present. Members argue that these committees come to conclusions more quickly and that the Bill should lead to that.
Tribunals are established by the House and we cannot now raise these issues as if we did not support the existing tribunals. The Oireachtas established these with huge support and broad terms of reference. However, in many cases, vague terms of reference have allowed for extensions. I will not get into the rights and wrongs and whether it is necessary to investigate all the matters raised to the nth degree in every part of the country. That will become a matter of opinion as time goes on. The House could examine this option. While I am not opposed to that happening, I am opposed to short-circuiting some aspects of the tribunals because this would create many problems and much cynicism. It will be a different process for future tribunals and inquiries.
I am interested in the Taoiseach's reply in respect of the costs per legal representative at the tribunal. However, I want to know the average cost of a day's public hearing as against a private one. I understand that, at a public hearing, up to 20 to 30 legal personnel can be present in the tribunal hall. A recent newspaper article on the Moriarty tribunal pointed out that the evidence given in public session contained a myriad of intricate commercial strategies and details within one of the companies. However, this had nothing to do directly with the issue at the central focus of the tribunal.
In the interests of the Taoiseach's Department as sponsor for costs, the cost per day might be an interesting figure to produce. A more interesting analysis would be whether it is necessary for the tribunal to deal with all that material in public when it just could be dealt with more cheaply and effectively in private.
I take the Deputy's point that it is difficult to deal with these matters without somebody assuming a criticism is being made. I merely gave the State costs while Deputy Kenny's question was on the costs of the legal teams.
A substantial number of people can be involved. A recent newspaper article stated that, in another tribunal, an argument centred around whether a £2,500 donation had been given while 11 people were present who would have each earned that amount for the day. I do not know whether that is right or wrong. The Deputy can take it that the cost per day for some of these issues is only a fraction of the costs. Considering the overall legal costs from private senior counsel, junior counsel, legal teams and back-up staff on a number of these issues that are cross-company, this would only be a small fraction of the cost. I have heard a figure, which I will not repeat on record, as I have no reason to know whether it is right. If one were to take the figure of the legal issues around this tribunal, what I am reading out today would not be a very significant amount of it.
The Deputy should remember what I said in my reply regarding future liabilities, even though we are many years into it, I do not have a prediction of what costs may be awarded. The Deputy knows from the debate we held here just before summer that that is an enormous legal issue. I do not want to get into any conclusion on that, because it is not my position or my right to do so. The eminent sole member will have to deal with this issue, but it is clear that will be a very substantial amount of resources.
