Enda Kenny
Question:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he has plans to amend the code of conduct for office holders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21443/04]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Code of Conduct for Office Holders.
Trevor Sargent
Question:2 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he has plans to amend the code of conduct for office holders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26390/04]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:3 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he has plans for amendments to the code of conduct for office holders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27854/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
The code of conduct for office holders has applied since 3 July, 2003. Given the code's relatively short period of application, I have no plans to amend it.
Will the Taoiseach agree that the code of conduct should be updated and should make specific reference to the fact that politically appointed advisers should not sit on selection boards? There was quite a deal of controversy about a number of incidents in the past. Will the code of conduct be updated to take account of this?
The House cannot have a debate on the contents of the code of conduct.
I did not debate it.
The Deputy is suggesting what might be in it.
I asked the Taoiseach if he agreed it should be updated.
Just updated.
The Ceann Comhairle has had a very good run during the 17 minutes of over time but I did not say what was in the code of conduct; I asked the Taoiseach whether it would be updated.
The word "amend" is in order.
In reply to Deputy Kenny, the code is only 18 months in operation. I take Deputy Kenny's point that special advisers should not sit on interview boards for posts. I will investigate the matter. I do not know if they have done so. The Deputy quoted an example where this happened. They would not sit on an interview board for Civil Service positions. I will look at the matter.
The code of conduct was published on 4 July 2003. It does not allow the commission to impose any sanctions and I wonder if there are plans to change that. It states that the Oireachtas may impose a sanction. Given that Ministers are members of the Government, it is hardly likely that such a motion would be carried in the Dáil. If it is left to the Oireachtas to impose sanctions, is the Government serious about this code, given that the office holders are members of the majority in the House? Would it not be more realistic to allow the commission to make a judgment independently and to impose sanctions accordingly?
The code does not stand in isolation, being part of the wider ethics framework established by the Ethics in Public Office Act. Section 10(7) of the Standards in Public Office Act 2001 binds office holders to have regard to and to be guided by the code. The point raised by Deputy Sargent was foreseen and was nailed in section 10(7). Anything in the code may be taken into account and may be used in examination of a Member. If a Member is under investigation by the House or by a tribunal or court, the code may be taken into account. The wording of section 10(7) binds office holders to have regard to and to be guided by the code. In the case where the code cannot impose any new requirements which are not legislatively based, it can however be used by the commission as guidance as to whether a complaint made under section 4 of the Act should be investigated. An issue in the code, which is not tied in the legislation can be taken and used in full investigations. I have brought this to the attention of colleagues because people may not realise they are bound by an Act when strictly interpreted. According to section 10(7) one is responsible if it is in the code of conduct. A Member or his legal representative cannot simply read the Act and the code.
The Standards in Public Office Commission, which oversees implementation of the Act and guidelines has specific statutory powers to investigate and make findings in respect of failures of compliance with the Act and also the code. The penalties available to the commission are those specified in the 1995 Act which under section 24 involves making a report to a committee of the House. The code is clearly admissible in any proceedings before a court or other tribunal or a committee of the House or the Standards in Public Office Commission. It is important that Members understand this because initially people believed that the code did not have that power.
Does the code expressly forbid office holders being engaged in any other business while they are office holders? Is the Taoiseach satisfied that the terms of the code are being complied with? Is that quite distinct from office holders being in receipt of income from other sources while office holders?
The rules for the involvement of office holders in business are set down under the legislation and in the Cabinet handbook rather than in the code. There is a clear separation. They are entitled to receive income from companies, which they may own, providing they have made a clear and full declaration. One of my colleagues had a difficulty when he omitted to declare and the tribunal found against him on that basis. He should have declared the full content of shares and involvement. On that basis one can receive an income but it is clear that one cannot be involved in business under the legislation. Equally important is that the declaration must show clearly one's involvement and the means by which one is deriving an income. Also, one must declare fully any such income on an annual basis.
On the misdemeanours found to have occurred in regard to the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, and the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, which resulted in a number of calls for more clarification in the code——
That does not arise out of these questions, Deputy.
We are talking about changes to the code. Arising from those incidents——
You are talking about specific incidents.
I do not mean to talk about specific incidents. I am talking about a need for revision in the code to set out exactly what Ministers may do at election time. That call was made at the time and I understood it was being followed up. Has there been any revision of the code to make it more specific on what Ministers and Ministers of State may do at election time?
It is a matter for the commission in the first instance to investigate such matters when they arise. There is no point in having a commission with strong powers, as it has, if they are investigated by somebody else. Depending on a particular finding, and not wishing to mention a particular case, if any complaint is made the commission has to carry out the investigations. In the cases the Deputy mentioned, the commission made a ruling and received an apology but the commission has full powers to investigate and then make a ruling on what should happen.
In reply to Deputy Sargent, it is important to make the point that after the issue was brought to my attention highlighting requirements in the code of conduct regarding the uses of official facilities, I pointed out the ruling of the commission to all my ministerial colleagues and the restrictions that are in place. That was the first election in which this arose but those restrictions now apply.
Deputy Rabbitte asked me a question yesterday on which I had not got the note but I have it on this particular file. It concerned the matter of an adviser moving to a job, and I gave a brief answer. I got the matter checked last night. This is a matter which is covered by the Civil Service code of standards and behaviour. Deputy Rabbitte raised this issue in the House last year and I undertook at that stage to raise the point because it is valid and important in terms of clarity for the individual and so as not to imply that somebody was doing something improper. It has been clarified in the September document on the Civil Service code of standards and behaviour.
The law now states that special advisers are subject to the same restrictions as civil servants when taking up outside employment. They are now subject to this, which was not the case previously. Stated briefly, the code requires that if, within 12 months of retiring or resigning, they wish to take up a position with an outside business with which they had official dealings or an outside business that might get an unfair advantage by engaging them, they must inform the appropriate authority of that. They must take the initiative in that regard. The appropriate authority is either the Secretary General of a Department for officers below Assistant Secretary level or an outside appointments board for those at or above Assistant Secretary level. With most people, that will now be an outside appointments board and the approval by an appropriate authority to take up the position may be unconditional or conditions may be attached. They cannot just sail from one job to the other——
Within 12 months.
——and it must be conditional. If they go, conditions could be put on their leaving.
My view is that it is better to have certainty in this matter and the best way to achieve that, beyond doubt, is that they should inform the outside appointments board and then let that board decide whether conditions should be attached, rather than take the chance. At least we would have certainty then and it would avoid conflict. I had a problem myself some years ago with one of my advisers, as Deputy Rabbitte will recall, and it is better that this issue is absolutely clear and that people do this with certainty. More people will move in and out of these jobs and now it is covered in the code, as it is for the Civil Service. Unlike civil servants, however, these people can move in and out of jobs so they should take this particular action. That provides them with certainty, and in terms of the protection of the system.
Departmental Expenditure.
Enda Kenny
Question:4 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the total expenditure by his Department since January 2004; the way in which this figure compares with that provided in the Estimates; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21445/04]
Trevor Sargent
Question:5 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the way in which the expenditure by his Department since January 2004 compares with the figure provided in the Estimates; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26391/04]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:6 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the likely out-turn for his Department’s Estimate for 2004. [27855/04]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:7 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his Department’s Estimate for 2005. [27856/04]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:8 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his Department’s spending in 2004 and the way in which it compares with the Estimate allocated to it; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28842/04]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:9 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his Department’s Estimate for 2005. [28843/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 9, inclusive, together.
Expenditure by my Department up to the end of October was €21.5 million compared with a total Estimates provision of €37.5 million. While fluctuations in spending occur from month to month and some expenditures do not fall due until the end of the year, I am satisfied that overall spending by my Department for 2004 will remain within the agreed Revised Estimates for the year.
The Estimates for 2005 for my Department will be published in the Abridged Estimates Volume tomorrow. I look forward to addressing specific issues relating to the Estimates provisions when they are considered in the usual way by the Committee on Finance and the Public Service. I also look forward to responding to questions which Deputies may wish to table separately in relation to specific aspects of the work of my Department.
I do not want to know the details of the Estimates in advance of their being published but could I get a guarantee from the Taoiseach that in respect of the National Forum on Europe, he will ensure that sufficient resources will be made available to it to allow it do its job? The Taoiseach will recall that in 2001, we got things badly wrong when insufficient information was given to the electorate at large about the first Nice referendum. In terms of the decision to have a referendum on the new constitution of Europe, this will be a complex matter in the minds of many people and they are entitled to the fullest level of information available. In that sense, the National Forum on Europe has a critical role to play. Can the Taoiseach give the House an assurance that he has seen to it that sufficient resources are contained in the Estimates to be published tomorrow to allow the forum do its job thoroughly?
"Yes" is the answer to the question. Deputy Kenny has raised this matter. For this year we did that. At this stage, as we go into the last six weeks of the year, the National Forum for Europe is below profile. Obviously, next year's expenditure will be heavier and the Department of Foreign Affairs also has an allocation because it will publish a more detailed booklet. Already, it has had a good run on the current booklet and I understand it will do more of those. It has gone into the community and I welcome the good take-up on that by the public. That is helpful to community organisations and schools in particular. I am assured, both by the chairman, whom I met recently, and the Department that matters are in order but I agree with Deputy Kenny that we have to provide adequate resources to ensure people have the information and that it is explained properly to them.
Can the Taoiseach assure the House that the forum will be able to move around the country? An important element of its work is that it becomes involved in local radio stations in community locations throughout the country so that school children, young people and the public in general can have an opportunity to hear the debates on the proposed constitution from the forum's perspective.
Yes. When the chairman came to see me as part of the Estimates process and other matters he made the point that that is the intention of the forum. He also said, and I support this, that when the forum travels around the country it should also engage with other organisations — the IFA, the ICMSA, the chambers of commerce and political parties. The forum will pay the cost of holding the function but it will also involve other organisations to try to get a wider audience in their travels.
I agree the National Forum on Europe must be given the necessary resources to provide the comprehensive information required to allow people to make up their minds. Has the allocation for the operation of the forum been increased given that the 2004 Estimate increased by 25% compared to 2003? Can the Taoiseach provide an absolute or estimated figure for 2005? The allocation for consultancy services decreased by 33% between 2003 and 2004. Is there a reason or explanation for the greater need for consultancy services in 2003?
Is the Deputy referring to consultancy services for the National Forum on Europe or the Department's overall allocation for such services?
The allocation for the National Forum on Europe increased by 25% between 2003 and 2004.
The overall figure allocated to the National Forum on Europe was €1,151,000. At the end of October the profile figure was €847,000 and the forum had spent approximately €600,000, although some outstanding bills remain. It submitted a figure for public relations of, I believe, €49,500.
I hope I understood the Deputy's question on consultancy services correctly. Expenditure on such services in my Department as of October 2004 was approximately €62,200. This relates mainly to the implementation of the employee opinion survey for 2004. Expenditure on the Presidency includes €72,286.34 on consultancy services and €36,653.65 was spent on public relations. In addition, some programmes under the Vote also contain expenditure on consultancy. The Information Society Commission expended €907,000 on consultancy services and €45,563 on public relations. The National Forum on Europe expended €47,780 on public relations. Under the e-Cabinet initiative expenditure on consultancy was €8,546.82, while nothing was spent on PR.
What is the final cost of the EU Presidency?
The total estimated cost from all Departments and agencies in relation to the Presidency is estimated to be in the region of €60 million. This includes the costs of official meetings, travel abroad, hospitality in Ireland, security arrangements, cultural presentations in Ireland and Europe, information services and the Presidency website. I understand the final cost is close to the estimated cost.
Does the Taoiseach expect the full 2004 allocation of €50,000 for the National Forum on Peace and Reconciliation to be expended by the year's end? Will a further amount be included in the Estimates for 2005? Does the Taoiseach envisage that the forum will be reactivated in the future?
The National Forum on Europe was allocated €922,000 in 2004. Was this allocation drawn down in full? What are the Taoiseach's plans for the forum in 2005? Will it be reactivated, specifically with regard to the debate on the new EU constitution?
I note that a substantial sum of €1.67 million was allocated for 2004 for what are called the information society and e-Cabinet initiatives. Will the Taoiseach indicate the practical benefits to taxpayers of this expenditure?
With regard to the National Forum on Peace and Reconciliation, we have kept a provision for this purpose each year and will continue to do so because administrative costs always arise. The allocated figures have not been large but we will, if necessary, make further provision in the Department's Vote, even if we do not have a full Estimate.
The National Forum on Europe has an allocation of €1,151,000, of which approximately €600,000 has been spent. It appears the full figure for 2004 will not be expended. As I implied, however, additional costs will arise in 2005 because of the impending referendum in terms of information, sessions and ongoing work. There will, therefore, be a full year cost for this purpose.
With regard to the Information Society Commission, actual expenditure has not been as high as the figure in the Estimate. Approximately €348,000 had been expended by the end of October so it appears the final figure will be under profile. Most of the commission's beneficial work is in promoting the information society in the community and carrying out various surveys. It has launched a number of schemes, including the information society days in community centres and public libraries, and done research which is used widely in schools and elsewhere. All members of the board of the Information Society Commission work without payment — I believe they do not even get mileage costs. The costs incurred are, therefore, from research, surveys and the commission's work in the community.
Tribunals of Inquiry.
Enda Kenny
Question:10 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the costs which have accrued to date to his Department in respect of the Moriarty tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21448/04]
Trevor Sargent
Question:11 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the entire cost to the State to date for the Moriarty tribunal; the estimate for future costs to the State; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22482/04]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:12 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the total cost to date accruing to his Department arising from the Moriarty tribunal; if he has received an indication regarding the likely date for conclusion of hearings by the tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23382/04]
Joe Higgins
Question:13 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the total cost to his Department relating to the Moriarty tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24149/04]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:14 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the total cost to his Department and the State of the Moriarty tribunal to date; the projected future cost; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28844/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 to 14, inclusive, together.
The costs met by my Department to end October in respect of the Moriarty tribunal amount to €17,844,522. This includes fees paid to counsel for the tribunal and administration costs incurred to date since the establishment of the tribunal in October 1997. Total payment to the legal team is €13,302,609 to end October 2004.
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. The tribunal is due to conclude by January 2006.
I thank the Taoiseach for informing us that the Moriarty tribunal has cost €17.8 million to date. Later, the House will discuss an amendment to the terms of reference of the Tribunal to Inquire into Certain Planning Matters and Payments. This tribunal, as the Taoiseach is well aware, has produced four interim reports, some of which were best-sellers as members of the public wished to know their findings as soon as possible. Why has there been no interim report from the Moriarty tribunal? It has been sitting for some years at the cost of over €17 million, yet people are confused about where it is heading. Legal fees for senior counsel, set at €2,500 per day, are now to be trimmed to €900 per day under new arrangements. Is the Taoiseach happy that the Moriarty tribunal will conclude in the time stated?
Over the summer the former Minister for Finance put in considerable work to bring conclusion dates to all the tribunals and introduce a new regime of fees, which work the Attorney General is continuing. With effect from 1 September last, the cost of all legal representation, including third parties, at newly established tribunals of inquiry, or other forms of inquiry, will be paid by way of a set fee payable for the entirety of the tribunal. The calculation of daily fees will not be based on this fee. This new fee structure will take up from when a new tribunal is appointed. With the Ferns and the Lourdes hospital inquiries and the Barr, Moriarty, Morris and Mahon tribunals, we have decided to come to realistic fixed dates of completion. This is based on detailed discussions and we can hold them to these dates. Whether the reports can be finished and the new fee structure introduced, I hope we can hold it both to the final report and to the fee structure.
I simply cannot answer the question on interim reports. The costs I gave for the Moriarty tribunal do not include future liabilities, such as costs awarded. Fees are mostly to the tribunal. However, the tribunal is in its eighth year and while I do not want to say that the costs may be high, it is a matter of concern. We have tried to get a firm fix on the Mahon tribunal. This is the first real attempt since the commencement of these inquiries to bring finality to them. It is an attempt to reach an understanding of what is required without undue interference. We want to introduce realistic deadlines to ensure we are not in a never-never position with costs and ongoing work. The date marked in for the completion of the Moriarty tribunal is 11 January 2006.
In June 2003 the Taoiseach told the House that he expected public hearings to end by December 2003 and a report to be written then.
I was wrong.
I take it matters have been severely revised in the interim. At the time, the Green Party was also looking for an investigation to include matters concerning Glending, County Wicklow. In the meantime, reports have circulated that a deal has been done for reduced fees for tribunal lawyers. Are additional lawyers proposed for the Moriarty tribunal? Have there been any developments in this regard, considering much of the attention in the recent past has focused on the Mahon tribunal?
The completion date for the Moriarty tribunal is 11 January 2006 and it is September 2006 for the Morris tribunal. There are enough staff on the Mahon tribunal to bring it to its finality by March 2007. However, the final report has to be written. As Deputy Kenny said, the tribunal has published interim reports and will continue to do so. No new staff will be appointed to the Moriarty tribunal. The effective date for the introduction of the new structure to the remaining tribunals and inquiries will be determined by the Government following communication between the Attorney General and the chairpersons of each tribunal of inquiry. We will be working to the dates he has agreed in these discussions.
The former Minister for Finance received many headlines when he threw many shapes on this matter and announced to the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis that he would do the devil and all to reduce tribunal lawyers' fees. However, no tribunal lawyer's fees will be affected during the duration of any of the existing tribunals as the new provisions will not be brought into existence until their conclusion. After the beef tribunal, there was an informal understanding in the House that there would be no more tribunals. However, that changed for a variety of reasons. If there were another tribunal into a matter of public interest next year, would the new schedule of fees apply?
Deputy Rabbitte is correct in surmising that the new fee structure will not become effective until the dates of completion. The existing fee structure will exist until these dates are reached. Then it is a matter of consultation between the Attorney General and the chairpersons of the tribunals. However, if a tribunal went beyond these dates, we would argue that the new fee structure must apply. From 1 September 2004, the costs of all legal representation, including third party's, at newly established tribunals of inquiry, or other forms of inquiry, will be paid by way of a set fee payable for the entirety of the tribunal. The new schedule of fees will become effective as and from September for any new tribunal.
When the Taoiseach says that the legal fees in the Moriarty tribunal have surpassed €13 million, will he acknowledge that his Government made a major error in allowing certain barristers to name any fee, no matter how exorbitant, they wished? Tribunals now make more millionaires than they investigate. Is it not obscene that certain barristers can name €5,000 to €10,000 as a price for a few hours' work? Does the Taoiseach understand the anger and resentment among taxpayers and ordinary workers in having to fund these demands? Does he understand how the 1,300 Aer Lingus workers, soon to be forced out of their jobs, feel about this squandering of public moneys?
Does the Deputy have a question related to the five questions to the Taoiseach?
Why does the Government not change the regime for charging barristers to a realistic level to match that at which ordinary people must survive? Is the Taoiseach concerned that the changes to the Mahon tribunal may mean that the Fitzwilton payment of €30,000 to Mr. Burke will not be properly investigated?
These questions deal specifically with the Moriarty tribunal. I suggest the Deputy submit a question on the Mahon tribunal.
In reply to Deputy Higgins, yes this is using up significant resources. There is no doubt about that. I do not think any of us believed in 1997 when the House agreed the terms of reference that we would still be here debating these issues as we head into 2005. At that time we took very senior and eminent people from the Bench and the Bar to undertake this work. We made the arrangements at the time and must wait until the tribunal concludes before we can end those arrangements. We have changed some of the arrangements, and that is the reason for this debate. The set fee to be paid to a senior counsel will be based on the annual salary of a High Court judge plus 15% in respect of a pension contribution, with related payments to other legal staff, including barristers and solicitors.
The specific annual remuneration packages have been negotiated on this basis for senior and junior counsel and solicitors. The Minister for Finance set out those figures recently. Having signalled his intention to curb the spiralling costs of tribunals, assuming that the awards of third party legal costs in ongoing tribunals is in line with such awards made in completed tribunals, the legal costs will be met by the taxpayer for all tribunals and inquiries, which could come to a figure of over €440 million by the end of this year.
We must look at the future position. The new measures will drastically reduce the legal costs of new tribunals and inquiries, and those of existing tribunals and inquiries from a future date. It is not possible to quantify the extent of the savings as it will depend on the operative date and ultimate duration in the case of existing tribunals and inquiries, and the legal representation employed by the new tribunals, but the new rates represent less than 40% of the maximum current rates paid to tribunals. While I acknowledge Deputy Joe Higgins's point, the present position remains, but in the future the position will be very different. This indicates the potential savings that will arise from the new position compared to the present one. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who has legislative responsibility for this area, will introduce the necessary enabling legislation.
The Taoiseach is letting the big barristers off in the same way that he let the big property developers and speculators off.
Over €4 million was allocated to the Taoiseach's Department for the cost of tribunals in 2004. With the anticipated change in lawyers' fees and the review of the basis for future tribunals, does the Taoiseach anticipate that this sum will decrease significantly in 2005? Has the Taoiseach seriously considered what format he favours for inquiries into matters of public concern in the future, as against the experience of the tribunals, which have been running for several years?
The answer to the first question is "No", because most of the fees under the new regime will not kick in until 2006. It will be effectively 2007 before fees are reduced. If anything, the costs will spiral for the next few years because the third party claims in the Moriarty tribunal, for example, have not been decided. When that happens it will dramatically escalate the fees for the next three or four years, to judge by some of the other tribunals for which we are still paying because the figures are not forwarded very quickly.
To answer the second question, the new fees negotiated will take effect from the stated end dates and will apply to new tribunals and inquiries. The basis for those will be the new investigative arrangements on which we passed legislation. That will be far more streamlined and effective, involving more voluntary participation but allowing for the right to call witnesses and proceed in a legal way. I hope that system will be more efficient, speedier and cost-effective. That will apply to all new arrangements. We must go through the process for the next few years before the position is changed. Certainly in 2005, 2006, 2007 and probably 2008 the fees will be high.