Enda Kenny
Question:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the costs which accrued to his Department during 2004 in respect of the Moriarty tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34100/04]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Tribunals of Inquiry.
Pat Rabbitte
Question:2 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the costs which accrued to his Department during 2004 in respect of tribunals of inquiry; the anticipated amount for 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3498/05]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:3 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the cost to his Department of the Moriarty tribunal during 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3626/05]
Trevor Sargent
Question:4 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the costs to his Department during 2004 in relation to the Moriarty tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4484/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.
The costs incurred by my Department during 2004 in respect of the Moriarty tribunal amounted to €3,607,418. The estimated costs for the tribunal for 2005 amounts to €4 million. However, provision of an additional €6.5 million has been made to cover costs such as report publication and some element of award of legal costs in the event that the tribunal completes its work in 2005. The overall estimate for 2005 is, therefore, €10,583,000.
The total costs incurred by my Department since 1997 is €18,640,000. This includes fees paid to counsel for the tribunal and administration costs incurred to date since the establishment of the tribunal. The total payment made to the legal team was €13,613,544 up to 31 December 2004.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. Last July, a member of the Government indicated to the spokesman on justice from this side of the House that the Moriarty tribunal would end in six to nine months. Unlike any other, this tribunal is a creature of the Houses of the Oireachtas. It was commissioned by the House and, as such, we have a right to know where the tribunal is at in terms of its current workload and when it is expected to finish.
To think that it was established in 1997, has now cost €18 million, and that no interim report has been produced is simply beyond belief. The Flood and Mahon tribunal has published four interim reports, the most recent one informing the nation of the current state of the tribunal in terms of workload and projected timescale. In its terms of reference, the Moriarty tribunal has the discretion to produce interim reports. This appears to be running into the sand. Perhaps some facility could be arranged to require the Moriarty tribunal either to produce an interim report to tell us where we are after a cost of €18 million, or to set a definitive date to have it wound up, when a final report can be produced. The announcement by the previous Minister for Finance about the new schedule of fees has had a bearing in this in that there appears to have been a decision to walk if they did not get the fees that applied prior to his announcement. Does the Taoiseach accept that in the context of the Moriarty tribunal the legal personnel appear to have the upper hand? Could we have an announcement on either an interim report or a conclusion to the tribunal, because it is running for nine years at a cost of €18 million and no one appears to know what is happening?
As the Deputy will be aware, I have no control over these issues. When the Minister for Finance announced the new rates, the Attorney General was requested to contact all the tribunals to come to a conclusion time from which the new rates would be applicable. The period agreed in the case of the Moriarty tribunal was 11 January 2006. It is hoped to complete the tribunal by that date. It is also the date from which the new rates will apply and, I hope, it is the date on which the tribunal will have completed its work.
Given the various issues that have arisen in recent years, such as the Army deafness claims and so on, I have comforted myself in the knowledge that it is a redistribution of wealth and can be justified on these grounds. I have greater difficulty applying that approach to my learned friends. It certainly is an extraordinary situation. Are there legal challenges, or High Court or Supreme Court judgments or actions delaying all of this? Does the Taoiseach have a prospective date when it is expected this tribunal will finish?
I am subject to correction, but I am not aware of any challenges affecting the tribunal. The Christmas period or early January was the date negotiated before the Bill was passed some months ago. It does not mean the new rates will apply from that date. If everything is not finished by that date, I do not envisage a situation where the Government will say that is it. This is the difficulty. All we can do is apply the new rates. That date was given on the basis that the work would be finished and the report presented. Presumably the hearings would have to be finished before the summer so that the report could be written. That is what I understand. It is several months since the date was negotiated and I have had no engagement with any of the teams. This is what was discussed with the Attorney General last summer.
On the specific line of questioning relating to the Taoiseach's Department and costs for the Moriarty tribunal, the information he has given us is shocking. Has he taken an overview position on the cost of the Moriarty tribunal and other tribunals in regard to all Departments? The piecemeal approach does not address the core issue of the excessive cost of legal fees for both senior and junior counsel representation at the Moriarty tribunal and all the other tribunals.
Is the Taoiseach aware of the presentation by the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to the Committee of Public Accounts relating to the mobile telephone licence to Esat Digifone?
Deputy, we are dealing with the Moriarty tribunal. The Deputy is moving well away from the question if he is moving onto mobile telephone masts.
I appreciate that. In the particular instance, more than €1 million was expended for a brief representation to that Department in regard to that particular issue. While the €18 million is shocking, does the Taoiseach agree that it does not actually reflect the reality of the cost to the Exchequer and to taxpayers of the Moriarty tribunal and all the other tribunals?
We are dealing exclusively with the Moriarty tribunal.
Has he a holistic view and understanding of all the costs across all Departments and what can he share with the House?
There are third party costs in regard to the Moriarty tribunal. The overall assessment of these costs will not be available for some time. Up to the end of December, the total cost to the Exchequer of completed and sitting tribunals of inquiry and other public inquiries was €191.82 million.
Now you are talking.
Of this amount, €138.92 million was in respect of legal costs and €52.84 million related to other costs. The figure for legal costs includes €60.53 million in respect of third party legal costs awarded to date.
In regard to tribunals of inquiry and public inquiries which are sitting at present, the total cost to the end of December last is €154.12 million, of which €107.2 million is in respect of legal costs, and of which €35 million related to third party legal costs.
The costs accruing in respect of the Moriarty tribunal are astronomical. It is important that the House hears whether the Taoiseach believes, as he stated previously, that the completion date for this work will be January 2006. Does he still believe that completion date is achievable? He also mentioned previously that he would insist on the new fee structures for tribunal lawyers being applied. Is that still the case? Is it also still the case that no new staff are to be appointed to the Moriarty tribunal?
In the discussions between the Attorney General and the chairpersons of the various tribunals, numbering six or seven, that was the date that was agreed at that time. I have no other date. The new fees will be applicable after that date if the work is completed. That is still our understanding. I have no particular control over that. If that is achieved, the new fees will apply. It will be totally a matter for the discretion of the chairman.
What about the staff issue?
Additional staff were appointed, although I am not sure if that was in regard to the Moriarty tribunal. As the Deputy will recall, some of the tribunals indicated that they would not finish their work until 2014, 2015 or 2016. To carry out part of their work and having regard to the terms of reference that we changed, additional staff were to be made available at that time, and I understand that has happened.
Will the Taoiseach accept that the cost to his Department and to the taxpayer in the matter of the tribunals has been massively increased because for eight years he and his Government have included in their herd of sacred cows, with land speculators and developers, the elite of the barrister profession as untouchables whose greed they would not curb by putting control over their fees? Some members of the legal profession added insult to injury by becoming speculators in the infamous land deal in Stillorgan——
A question please, Deputy.
——for which they paid €32 million and for which four years later they got €85 million in a speculative gain which I brought to the Taoiseach's attention. When a few barristers who are on their feet for a few hours charge €100,000, does the Taoiseach agree it is time to call a halt and that by not doing so much earlier he is putting a heavy punishment on taxpayers?
This House set up these tribunals and we gave them terms of reference. We took on people to serve on them. At the time it was not that easy to get some people to move from their positions to take up that work. The tribunals have gone on for a long time. I believe those on the tribunals would say that under their terms of reference these were matters they had to look into and investigate, and they are doing that. We have to deal with these matters in that way and see them through.
National Archives.
Enda Kenny
Question:5 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will identify the files which were released recently by his Department under the National Archives Act 1986; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34101/04]
Enda Kenny
Question:6 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of files withheld by his Department from the National Archives in respect of 1974; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34106/04]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:7 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the number of files withheld by his Department in respect of the files transferred to the National Archives in respect of 1974; the number withheld under section 8(4)(a) of the National Archives Act 1986; the number withheld under section 8(4)(b); the number withheld under section 8(4)(c); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34259/04]
Trevor Sargent
Question:8 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the number of files withheld by his Department from the National Archives in respect of 1974; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34616/04]
Joe Higgins
Question:9 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the number of files withheld by his Department from the National Archives in respect of 1974; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2797/05]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:10 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number of files withheld by his Department from the National Archives in respect of 1974; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3643/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 10, inclusive, together.
The evaluating of files for release to the National Archives is carried out by designated officials in my Department. I have no role in that process. It is normal, as files are processed for release each year, that some are certified by the appropriate official for retention on the grounds set forth in the Act. I am informed that the number of files certified in this way in respect of the January 2005 release was nine. In all, a total of 675 files or file parts were transferred to the National Archives by my Department to be released for public inspection on 1 January 2005.
Of the nine files retained, five were retained under section 8(4)(a) of the Act and four were retained under section 8(4)(b) and (c) of the Act. It is the responsibility of the statutorily designated officials to determine the particular subsection in accordance with which files are certified for retention.
The Taoiseach will be aware that section (8)(4)(a), (b) and (c) of the 1986 Act allows an official in the Department of the Taoiseach to certify that files should not be sent to the National Archives if sending them would be contrary to the public interest, if it would or might constitute a breach of statutory duty or it might cause danger or distress to persons living on the grounds that they might contain information about individuals or would or might be likely to lead to an action for damages for defamation.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform recently announced that he will allow researchers to examine files in his Department which had been previously unavailable. Does the Taoiseach propose to put in place a similar facility that would allow professional researchers to make an objective and measured assessment of the files that have been withheld by his Department?
He gave some details of the files that have been withheld under section 8(4). Will these files be held indefinitely, are they ever likely to be seen or is the position being constantly reviewed such that professional researchers might, with the passing of time, be able to have access to them on release? Will the Taoiseach expand on the nature of those files and identify the issues that are covered in them that caused them to be not available under the National Archives Act?
The last part of the Deputy's question is outside the subject of the question before us.
The Deputy is right in that my colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, is in the process of establishing a working group to advise his Department on that matter. The reason is that a large number of files have been withdrawn or held in that Department. Many of them relate to personal files and other matters. A similar position does not obtain in my Department.
In regard to files relating to Northern Ireland, a total of 92 files were released to the National Archives and no files were withheld. Some 63 files were released without abstractions, or partial abstractions were made on 105 documents and 27 entire documents were abstracted. I am informed that abstractions were made in the majority of documents under section 8(4)(b) and (c) and three documents under section 8(4)(c). The abstractions related to information given in confidence, including security information and information about individuals which might be likely to defamation claims.
While it is not a matter for me, these are the kinds of issues in respect of which information would never be released. Names would be removed for those reasons. The normal files held for historical reasons in my Department are, as I understand it, always released. The only information withheld are names mentioned or the name of a person who gave information to the Taoiseach of the day or the Department of the day.
In the matter of the Omagh atrocity and the Omagh families looking for the transcripts of a recent court case, I raised recently with the Taoiseach that this Act could be invoked by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to cause the transcripts concerned to be made available to the families, transcripts that, as matters stand, are not otherwise accessible. I thank the Taoiseach for replying to me. I know that he has been preoccupied with other matters and may not have had an opportunity to look at this, but I am bound to say that the reply I got from him did not really address the net point I raised. I sent back a more detailed explanation of what I suggest could be a useful route. This could assist the Omagh families to get their hands on the transcripts that are essential to the civil compensation case they are initiating. Has the Taoiseach had the opportunity to examine the suggestion that under the relevant section of this Act, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is enabled to cause the transcripts concerned to be transferred to the National Archives where they can be accessed?
I received Deputy Rabbitte's letter on this matter and I contacted the Attorney General's office on Thursday or Friday. A reply should be on its way to the Deputy. I looked at the letter carefully and its core point is that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform can direct the registrar of the Special Criminal Court to release the transcripts of that court prepared for an appeal where the appeal is still pending. I was told, subject to confirmation in writing so this may change and I ask the Deputy to forgive me if it does, that notwithstanding the fact that the Special Criminal Court's function is now spent, the judicial process as a whole is not spent given that appeals are pending. The Attorney General's office advises me that the National Archives Act does not bestow a power on the Minister to authorise the transfer of transcripts of the Special Criminal Court prepared for appeal to the National Archives when the appeal is pending for administrative reasons. I have asked the office to ensure that is the position.
What progress has been made in finding the missing Garda Síochána and Department of Justice files from the 1974 Dublin and Monaghan bombings?
That does not arise out of these questions.
My question specifically refers to 1974 and that is why I am asking it.
That may be but the question refers to the number of files from the National Archives, not their content. It is not appropriate to raise the contents of files in these questions.
I will not refer to the content but the Taoiseach understands that if I am inquiring about the number of files, I obviously have an interest in this matter.
That may well be but we must stay within the rules of the House.
I will not mention the contents, I respect the Chair's ruling, but the Taoiseach can reply as he sees fit.
I asked almost a year ago about the problems in the National Archives office which are preventing the transfer of files. The Department of Health and Children has not sent anything for the 30 year deadline on confidentiality since 1993. Given that the Taoiseach takes his responsibility for the National Archives seriously, does he envisage historians such as John Bowman having thin pickings when it comes to the archives on the basis that a number of organisations subject to the National Archives Act cannot transfer their records? This matter is becoming serious. The Taoiseach stated in his previous reply that he is keeping the matter under review. What review has taken place since March 2004 and is any action planned?
There is regular dialogue between the historians and the authorised officials in my Department and they have worked out the basis for passing files. There is no problem but I will check it because this arose before.
I do not have the information on the 1974 files. I will check and contact the Deputy about this.
On the 1974 files, the Taoiseach said that no files relating to the North of Ireland were withheld. Is it the case that as the Dublin and Monaghan bombings took place in this State, files from 1974 may have been withheld on that or any of the matters under investigation by Mr. Justice Barron?
I have already ruled those questions out of order for Deputy Sargent.
I am only asking about numbers, which is what we are talking about.
It is not appropriate to discuss the content of the files under these questions.
I have not done that, I am asking a specific question about the numbers in response to what the Taoiseach said himself, regarding files relevant to the North of Ireland, which invites the clarification I seek.
That question has been asked by Deputy Sargent and the Taoiseach has answered.
Is it the case that there may have been between 1972 and 1974 files relevant to the interests of Mr. Justice Barron that may not have been open to public scrutiny? Is it the case that the subject matter of files withheld is never disclosed?
There were 92 files related to Northern Ireland released to the National Archives and no files were withheld. Some documents were abstracted but no file was withheld. In my Department, very few files are certified for retention — there were only nine in 2004, five in 2003, five in 2002, 13 in 2001, 12 in 2000 and none in 1999. The numbers are small.
I do not have the information here but I have answered the question before. Deputy Ó Caoláin is correct, on some of them the subject matter is not published because it often contains the name of an individual. If the subject matter is given the person is identifiable. Some of those files related to a Mr. X or Ms Y so for that reason the subject matter was not published. Where the subject matter is general, it is published. That is the call that the designated officers make.
Decentralisation Programme.
Enda Kenny
Question:11 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of staff of his Department who have applied to be relocated outside Dublin under the Government’s decentralisation programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34102/04]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:12 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the number of staff in his Department, broken down by grade, who have applied to relocate under the Government’s decentralisation programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3499/05]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:13 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number of staff in his Department who have applied for relocation outside Dublin under the decentralisation programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3644/05]
Trevor Sargent
Question:14 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the number of his staff who have applied to relocate outside Dublin under the decentralisation programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4485/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11 to 14, inclusive, together.
A total of 45 staff from my Department have applied through the central applications facility to relocate under the decentralisation programme, an increase of one since the expiry of the initial period for priority applications on 7 September 2004. Broken down by grade, there are seven assistant principals, nine administrative officers, four higher executive officers, 12 executive officers, two staff officers, ten clerical officers and one general operative.
Since the last occasion on which these questions were asked, significant events have taken place. Will the Taoiseach indicate if he has made any appointment to the chairmanship of the Government decentralisation implementation committee in view of the resignation of Mr. Phil Flynn arising from his association with a person under investigation by the Criminal Assets Bureau in respect of his involvement with a finance company? Will the Taoiseach confirm that there are no restrictions on the promotion of civil servants in Dublin? Queries I have received indicate that when civil servants in Dublin sign up for promotion it must be on the basis that they are prepared to relocate outside Dublin. Does the Taoiseach agree that this is contradictory, given the voluntary nature of the decentralisation programme, under which the former Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy, said 10,000 civil servants would be relocated within three years? Can the Taoiseach confirm that promotions are not contingent upon agreement to relocate to a different part of the country?
The question refers specifically to the Department of the Taoiseach.
This refers to the Taoiseach's Department.
It does not arise for my Department because it is not moving, but there is no truth in what the Deputy suggests.
On the question of names, it is a matter for the Minister for Finance to bring names to the Government. Given the enormous amount of work going on, it is important that a new chairperson is appointed. I have discussed the issue but not the replacement. The Minister for Finance will move on this very shortly.
On that point, has the Taoiseach had any direct discussions with Mr. Phil Flynn either immediately prior to his resignation or since?
That does not arise out of the four questions.
The answer to the question is probably "no" and it would take approximately five seconds to answer.
No.
Does the Taoiseach believe the resignation has any adverse implications for the implementation programme, given the circumstances surrounding it?
The question must refer specifically to the Department of the Taoiseach.
Does the Taoiseach believe the resignation of the chairman of the implementation committee, in circumstances in which he felt obliged to resign, has had any adverse implications for his Department?
From the point of view of my Department, the chairman, to his credit, put in a significant amount of his time. He has many commitments but he was dedicated to moving this forward. He is obviously a loss to the group. However, there are other good and dedicated people on the group. They include the Chairman of the Office of Public Works; the Secretary General, PSMD, of the Department of Finance; a chartered surveyor; an outside private sector managing director; a former chairman of the Revenue Commissioners. The resignation is a distraction and it is necessary to fill the position and move on. The process of engaging with the advisory committee, my Department and others has been well organised. It would be better if difficulties did not arise, but they did and we must now move on.
Can the Taoiseach tell the House who now sits on the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Decentralisation? Has a review been carried out, given what I would describe as the revised estimate, the downward revision, which resulted from the failure to secure sufficient interest among civil servants? The figures are clearly lower than initially anticipated by the Government.
This question refers specifically to the Department of the Taoiseach. General questions should be directed to the line Minister, the Minister for Finance.
Earlier the Ceann Comhairle stopped me on the Esat Digifone mobile licence as if he had better information. I did not respond then that the Moriarty tribunal had dealt with this. My question relates——
Discussion on the Moriarty tribunal is not appropriate. The Deputy knows the ruling.
The Ceann Comhairle saw fit to interrupt me when he did not know what he was talking about. My question relates to the Department of the Taoiseach. It is becoming extremely tedious to be constantly interrupted.
The Chair never interrupts. The Chair intervenes when necessary.
My question is whether or not a review has taken place as a result of the revised estimate of the numbers prepared to relocate.
There is no review. The work of preparation actively continues. There are priority areas for the first stage. There will be a second report later in the spring. While anticipated numbers have not been achieved in early rounds, there are more than enough to go on with. Perhaps it will be prioritised over a longer period, but work continues.
Is a report made to a Cabinet sub-committee?
Reports are made to the entire Cabinet as this issue affects practically all Ministers. A Cabinet committee meets when necessary but a monthly report is made to the full Cabinet.
Will the Taoiseach indicate when the new chairman of the implementation group will take up the position following the resignation of Mr. Phil Flynn? Given the Taoiseach's earlier reply, on what basis does he state that there is no pressure on civil servants to accept decentralisation before they apply for promotion? The decentralisation programme was introduced as a voluntary scheme. This seems to be contrary to the spirit of the scheme.
This question refers specifically to the Department of the Taoiseach.
It does. I hope the Taoiseach will be able to respond.
Is the Taoiseach aware that IMPACT has published very worrying figures which indicate that quite a number of skilled positions will be unfilled if the decentralisation of a number of Departments — I am not sure whether the Department of the Taoiseach is one of them——
The question refers specifically to the Taoiseach's Department.
Will the Taoiseach take a note of that and say whether that problem will be addressed?
We cannot create a precedent where Members can ask the Taoiseach general questions.
I am not trying to create a precedent. I am asking about the decentralisation programme within the constraints set down.
That is a matter for the Minister for Finance.
Is the Taoiseach aware of that worrying development? Is there any indication that wages and costs for people who remain in Dublin will be assessed as an additional cost, given that they are voluntarily not being decentralised.
The system is a voluntary one. It is being implemented on a voluntary basis. That is the spirit of it and that is how it operates.