Enda Kenny
Question:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the arrangements in place in his Department for providing assistance to certain independent Members of Dáil Éireann; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46601/08]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Government Arrangements.
Eamon Gilmore
Question:2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the procedures in place within his Department for providing assistance to certain independent Members of Dáil Éireann; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3150/09]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:3 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the estimated cost of arrangements in his Department to provide assistance to Government supporting independent Deputies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7056/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
There are political agreements with individual Independent Deputies which my predecessor entered into as Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party. I have confirmed to those Deputies concerned that I will continue to implement those agreements. The House is aware such arrangements have existed for more than 11 years. The House is also aware of the decision taken by Deputy McGrath to withdraw from his agreement.
The agreements are confidential but are, as always, based on the programme for Government which incorporates the national development plan, approved Government programmes and annual Estimates for capital and current expenditure. I have continued the practice whereby a staff member in my office assists the Government Chief Whip's office in its work in liasing with these Deputies. This official meets these Deputies on a regular basis and arranges to keep them briefed on issues as they arise. The official dealing with the Deputies is an assistant principal and he assists the Chief Whip in this matter.
Why is it necessary to have public servants dealing with particular Independent Deputies? Several of these Deputies have said they have programmes worked out, written agreements or business with the Government. We have never seen these but I assume that just as the national development programme was predicated on a 4% growth increase in the economy these programmes, whatever they are, or however valid or invalid they may be, will have changed also in light of the current financial circumstances.
Has the public servant who deals with these Independent Deputies looked at the programme that was drafted with the Government? Has this changed in the light of changed economic circumstances? Is there any relevance in wasting public time and public money dealing with programmes that have changed utterly, as everything else has changed? Will the Taoiseach comment, from that perspective?
Are these facilities now being extended to the latest acquisition in the Independent ranks, Deputy Behan? Will somebody from the Government Whip's office or a public servant, deal with his new status?
I do not think so. He is semi-detached.
There are no arrangements with Deputy Joe Behan. Deputy Kenny should not make a mountain out of a molehill. There are political agreements and on that basis they are confidential. They are obviously based on the programme for Government. Part of that programme sets out that all programmes and policies are predicated on trying to maintain order in our public finances in order that they are sustainable and that we may be able to finance them on an ongoing basis.
All these Deputies are elected Members of this House. They are entitled, if they wish, to offer support to the Government of the day and are entitled also, if they wish, to come to their own arrangements with that Government. Obviously, the commitments entered into are predicated in the same way as the commitments the Government itself enters into, namely, on the basis of available resources and priorities we can establish and work on. Clearly not every area of policy can be covered for them, no more than for the Government.
I respect the fact they are elected to the House and the people from their respective constituencies are entitled to make their choices; that is absolutely understood. However, the Taoiseach has a majority which includes the Fianna Fáil Party, the Minister for Health and Children and the Green Party, so he does not need to backed up by having public moneys extended to Independent Deputies. The national development programme contains 500 different projects from Malin down to Cork and from Donegal to Wexford and somewhere in between are bits and pieces for these Independent Deputies. The House has never seen these. The national development programme will not be implemented in the way it was written; it cannot be because that is no longer a realistic prospect. All I am asking the Taoiseach is whether these secret documents have been examined by the person from the Whip's office or is it some Fatima-like business that we can never find out whether these fit into the national development programme, whether they are going to be reprioritised outside the national development programme or are these Independent Deputies entitled to go back to their constituents and say, "I have a secret deal here, I cannot tell you about it but you will know when it happens"? This is ridiculous.
I am amused at the Deputy's fixation with the political arrangements which others have with the Government. It is their entitlement to support the Government if they wish. The fact they are not interested in supporting the Deputy's party——
This is taxpayers' money.
The fact they are not interested in supporting the Deputy's party is his problem and not my problem. From my point of view I welcome as much support——
A few of them are getting sense.
Sorry, lads, I welcome as much support——
Deputy Finian McGrath has the same right to ask questions as anyone else.
——as possible in this House on any vote——
Saint Paul.
——and there are occasions when the Opposition votes for something and other occasions when it does not and that is the way it works. The bottom line is——
The Taoiseach has a majority and a whip on his own crowd.
The position is very simple; there are people who support this Government on the basis of understandings they have entered into. We work through that process and that programme as best we can with those Deputies. We are all practising politicians and we all know that in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, it will not be possible to implement every aspect of policy but priorities can be established and if we all act in good faith, progress can be made as it has been. The fact that at the end of the day those Independent Deputies will be able to show a bit more than Deputy Kenny can show in the course of this Dáil, is his problem.
This party supported the guarantee for the banks under the conditions which we made clear, namely that the banking system is very necessary in order to keep business and commerce flowing through the country and we made no bones about that. Is the Taoiseach saying now that because a person happens to be an Independent Deputy or removes himself or herself to the Independent rank, that person can get more from the Government than groups that support the Government in the national interest?
No.
That is what he is saying.
I am not saying that.
He is saying that. He is saying that because these people up in these august benches——
That is what the Deputy is saying; I am not saying that at all.
——support the Government they have a special deal with somebody from the Whip's office. I am not looking for anything special from the Taoiseach, I am merely making the point that the Fine Gael Party supported the bank guarantee scheme on the basis of keeping commerce and business flowing throughout the country——
So did I.
——but the Taoiseach has different standards. Just because these people support him occasionally, he has a secret deal that is locked away in some vault and is examined occasionally by the person from the Whip's office. Nobody knows anything about this, about its cost or whatever else but that public official is wasting time and money dealing with secret documents about a deal that some people in this House have. This House is supposed to be about openness and transparency. Why does the Taoiseach not tell the House what is in these deals and satisfy our fixations about the secret negotiations that Deputy Finian McGrath and Deputy Healy-Rae have had with the Government? It is not going to change the world, believe you me.
Sweetheart deals.
It will change a lot more than what Deputy Kenny will be able to change from those benches, I can assure him, on the basis that they support the Government.
(Interruptions).
They have been in a position——
What about Deputy Finian McGrath's €250 million?
——to see improvements in those areas which they sought and they will continue to make representations regardless of whether they still support the Government.
What about the man beside the Taoiseach, the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe and the special needs classes?
Being an open-minded Deputy, I will listen attentively to any proposal on the basis of its intrinsic merit. In fact, I have helped out a few of Deputy Kenny's own party from time to time——
It is a pity the Taoiseach did not listen in the past couple of years.
——when representations were received. I am very open to helping others.
(Interruptions).
The question from this side of the House is not who chooses to support the Government on any particular vote; it is the price to be paid by the taxpayer for that vote. That is the issue we are trying to get to the heart of. The Minister for Finance last night invited the Opposition parties to open the books and look at them, to make decisions for the economic well-being and future of our country. Would it not be in the same spirit that the commitments made to the Independent Deputies, which obviously have a cost because some of them are claiming tens of millions, would not be part of that scrutiny? I ask the Taoiseach specifically whether the individual commitments which will cost the taxpayer money, made to the Independents for their vote, will be part of the overview, since he and the Minister for Finance have said everything is on the table.
As I made clear in a previous response, there are conditions attaching to political agreements with Independents just as there are for the programme for Government itself. All commitments are predicated on the availability of resources, both those the Government has prioritised——
Are we allowed to know what they are when we are overviewing everything?
It is not in the same spirit that this will happen. The idea that those would be central to solving the scale of the problem is an irrelevance.
Is everything on the table or not?
I am trying to answer the Deputy's question. What is not on the table is the ability of the Opposition to renegotiate agreements which Independents have entered into with the Government. Were the Deputy in my position and I in his, would he suggest that this was a tenable proposition? Absolutely not. Let us get real here.
The Taoiseach is telling the Dáil that in the current economic crisis, everything, vaccine for children, special needs assistants, everything is on the table, but not the deal that his Government has worked out with Independent Deputies to support this Government. Not only is this not on the table, we are not even to know what it is. Is that what the Taoiseach is telling the House?
No, that is not what the Taoiseach is telling the House, as the Deputy well knows. The Taoiseach has made it clear what the position is with regard to those agreements, the same as agreements with other parties in our own Government. As a former Minister who also negotiated with me on an agreement, the Deputy will know that all commitments are predicated on the financial provisions which confirm that resources have to be available——
The Taoiseach is deliberately misleading the Dáil.
I am not. Deputies who support the Government are entitled to continue to pursue the priorities they have identified with the Government in good faith and the Government is obliged, in good faith, reciprocally, to progress those as best it can in the context of the overall framework we are trying to work to. That is simply a political arrangement, a political understanding that permeates all agreements, whether it be at local council level about positions during the tenure of office of a particular administration or indeed in the national Parliament. These are the normal arrangements that people obtain in order to support a Government. If the Deputy is in the position at any time in the future, where his party requires some support from Independents, he will undertake that legitimate exercise as well and it will be an exercise in accountability because at the end of the day, the people will make their minds up as to what they believe is the right thing to do in the future.
May I put a final question?
The last one.
The Taoiseach is deliberately avoiding the core issue which is that in any negotiation for a programme for Government, in any bilateral agreement between parties to form a Government, the agreement is published and the people know and can make a judgment on it. The problem with the arrangements that the Government has with the Independents is that they are secret. The Taoiseach says they are not to be disclosed yet there is a cost involvement, a cost which many of them are declaring at local level to be tens of millions. In the current climate, does the Taoiseach accept that it is unacceptable to have secret agreements that will cost God knows how much money to the taxpayer, that cannot be part of the overall scrutiny known to the people? I am simply asking if those deals should be published in the interests of transparency.
No, they do not require publication now. Those agreements were reached with the individuals concerned on the basis of and subject to the conditions I have outlined. Therefore, of course the taxpayers' interests are kept in mind by the Government in respect of delivering on all priorities, whether those mentioned in the programme for Government between parties or indeed any arrangements entered into with individual Deputies, the requirements for which are subject to the same criteria as applies to anyone else.
The Deputy refers to the fact that Deputies in their constituencies speak about the outcomes they are having. Any Deputy who supports developments in his or her constituency, whether in Government or in Opposition, is never too slow, no more than the Deputy, to demonstrate the influence he or she would claim to have had as regards making representations. That is entirely legitimate and above board, and we should not expect anything different from anyone else.
Will the Taoiseach not accept that there is a fundamental difference between a negotiated programme for Government with other parties and the arrangements that are in place with Independent Deputies? The programme for Government is an open transparent document that the public and all parties have the opportunity to peruse, address and criticise as required. The other arrangement is something that is under the counter and nobody has the opportunity to shed any light on it.
I am sure the Taoiseach is aware that there is no argument against Independent Deputies supporting and being part of the formulation of a programme for Government. A critical point, however, will he not accept, is that this is above board, on top of the table and is open and transparent for all to see? Will he not accept, too, that there is a real question here as regards the appropriateness of such arrangements, where the advantage is understood to be cast in the direction of specific constituencies as against the wider interest, which a programme for Government is intended to address, not only on a regional or local but on a national basis? The absence of detail affords these Independent Deputies the opportunity to put their flag on the pole in regard to all matters pertaining to development, infrastructural progress, etc., within their respective constituencies.
I noted in the course of Deputy Kenny's opening remarks the Ceann Comhairle's clear understanding of all that was being addressed in the course of these questions, particularly because of the situation pertaining to an Independent Deputy within his constituency. Can the Taoiseach not accept that the correct procedure for the future is that these matters are part of a negotiated programme for Government, to be conducted in the context of something that will be published and that he will undertake to put an end to what is ultimately the reduction of the democratic process to a lottery system on the basis that an Independent Deputy will have the chance to pursue particular interests and causes, if the figures turn up to his or her advantage?
I am asking the Taoiseach whether he accepts that this is a good time to put down a marker for best practice with regard to appropriately addressing these matters into the future, and to be specific. I know from what Deputy Finian McGrath, beside me, has indicated in the past that he was not parochial in all the matters he sought in terms of his specific engagement with the emerging Government in 2007.
This is a very long question.
Regarding one of the matters he has indicated, I have asked the Taoiseach previously, as a result of Deputy McGrath's disengagement from support for Government whether there were downsides with regard to any of the particular areas that he keenly addressed in the course of his negotiations with Government. I am concerned with one in particular, namely, the proposed national centre for cystic fibrosis at St. Vincent's Hospital, where 34 isolation bed units were committed to and only nine have been delivered.
Question Time cannot be utilised to impart information. The purpose of Question Time is to seek information. That is the name of the game.
Can the Taoiseach say with absolute certainty that the additional 25 isolation beds in the national centre for cystic fibrosis at that hospital which is of concern to everyone, will indeed proceed and be delivered by this Government?
Other Members are offering as well. There are a number of questions there for the Taoiseach.
It is not just a number of questions, a number of tomes were brought forward by Deputy Ó Caoláin. I want, first, to thank him for advising us how to negotiate a programme for Government. If he does not mind, we shall take our own advice in that regard.
This is the old game, again.
No, it is not.
Why does the Taoiseach not answer the question?
I am answering the question. The Deputy asked me a question.
I asked the Taoiseach a number of questions.
Let me answer the question.
Please do.
The first question Deputy Ó Caoláin asked was why we did not, as part of our overall negotiation programme, negotiate with the Independents when we were agreeing our programme for Government. With all due respect, my answer to him is that we shall decide how to negotiate our programme for Government. The second point is that we decided to negotiate a programme for Government with the parties in Government. My predecessor then spoke to those Deputies who had indicated an interest in discussing with him the possibility of their providing support to the Government on the basis of certain arrangements or agreements between him and those Dáil Members. This is how that support was achieved——
The Taoiseach did not have to accept those arrangements.
On the change of Administration, when I became Taoiseach, having been Minister for Finance, I indicated I would continue to implement those arrangements with Deputies on the basis of their continuing support, which was the understanding they had on entering into the agreement in the first place.
South Kerry is safe.
As regards south Kerry, without referring to the Ceann Comhairle, the people there have indicated their level of support for Fianna Fáil candidates and our party in the last election——
That is diminishing at the moment.
——and made it very clear that they associated much of the progress and development with our party, in Government——
Including the hospital in Kenmare.
—— while retaining confidence in the Independent Deputy concerned. I am glad to see all of them back in the House. That was the outcome there and the people made a decision in relation to that matter.
The next question asked by the Deputy was about why I was not being transparent, but I am being transparent with him. The confidentiality of the agreements will be respected. The arrangements are conditionally based on the same criteria that apply to the implementation of any other programme for Government or any part thereof.
What about public moneys?
I understand the Deputy's curiosity. I know he would, perhaps, like to see a leather bound copy, but one is not available.
Just to get the matter absolutely correct, I am not at all happy with the Taoiseach's proposal to continue the current arrangement — and that will come as no surprise to him.
No, I am nor surprised.
I also note with regret his failure to accept——
It becomes the Deputy.
The Taoiseach should at least allow me to respond
Let us move on with Question Time.
I note with regret his failure to accept the very reasoned arguments presented by Deputy Howlin and myself to the effect that there is a fundamental difference between the arrangement arising out of the engagement with political parties in the formulation of a programme for Government and the secret under the desk agreements made with Independent Deputies. This is wrong and will the Taoiseach not accept that this distorts the democratic process?
It does not.
It most certainly does. However, to focus in on what the Taoiseach did not answer, in regard to the question I posed on a most important issue, the national centre for cystic fibrosis at St. Vincent's Hospital, many people in every constituency in the country are anxiously awaiting the roll-out of the full commitment to 34 isolation beds, and we have only seen nine so far.
That is a matter for the Minister for Health and Children.
Is the Taoiseach prepared to commit this morning to the complete roll-out of that centre, and within what timeframe?
As the Ceann Comhairle has indicated, that is outside the remit of this question. However, as a former Minister for Health, I am very proud of my association with the Cystic Fibrosis Association of Ireland. I was glad to have been associated with ensuring that a team was trained in Newcastle-upon-Tyne at the time to ensure that a lung and heart transplant team could, inter alia, be made available in this country for cystic fibrosis sufferers. That procedure is available here now as a result of the priority I was in a position to afford it then, and working on the work of predecessors who were trying to move along that project at the time. I recall also attending an annual meeting of Cystic Fibrosis Association of Ireland in Kilkenny when I was Minister at which I had a long discussion with its representatives on those issues and was in a position to progress them.
On the specific matter regarding a national centre, I am glad to note that the beginning has happened in terms of nine beds being available. I cannot give an indication to the Deputy this morning what further progress can be made in that area but the availability of resources is now critical, as our previous discussion during Leaders' Questions confirmed. A question to the Minister for Health and Children on the up to date position would be the best way of imparting accurate and up to date information on that question.
In his reply to my colleague, Deputy Howlin, the Taoiseach suggested that, for example, if something was being announced in one's constituency we could all claim to have contributed in some way to it being announced but I put it to him that it is bad for the body politic to have those secret agreements. If the Taoiseach's colleague the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, were to announce the building of a school in south Kerry, for example, Deputy Healy-Rae could produce his secret document and say "I got this. It is in my secret document".
He would not.
That would give him an advantage over everybody else in south Kerry in terms of taking credit for that announcement.
That is a grave injustice to the Deputy.
The Minister, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, is only announcing cutbacks, not schools.
I suggest this third secret of Fatima is causing damage to the body politic and the Taoiseach might consider publishing it.
(Interruptions).
The official concerned who is dealing with the Independents who support the Government is now down from four to two, presumably, in terms of his or her workload.
It is diminishing by the day.
What is the allocation of time that official uses with the Independents and has it been reduced by half recently? Also, is it part of the agreement that the special research allowance the Independents have would not be audited?
The Deputy can take up the question of the allowances with the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. That is not an issue with which I deal. On the question of allocation of time, there is a contact person in my Department for them to deal with if they wish to deal with that person directly, in addition to the Chief Whip.
Is that the hotline?
It is an arrangement that does not require an allocation of time motion or anything else. It is a simple enough sort of arrangement.
Does Jackie have that number?
Does that person have other specific duties and has the Taoiseach given any indication to that person as to the amount of time he or she should spend on dealing with the issues raised by the Independents?
Only whatever time is necessary consistent with dealing with these representations, as they would be dealt with for the Deputy or anybody else.
(Interruptions).
The allowance paid to the Independents in lieu of a party leader's allowance, for which they do not have to account, is a matter for the Minister for Finance, not the commission. Is that not correct?
That is a point of information.
I do not know.
Tribunals of Inquiry.
Enda Kenny
Question:4 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the cost which accrued to his Department in respect of the Moriarty tribunal during 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46602/08]
Enda Kenny
Question:5 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the procedures in place in his Department for dealing with requests for files and information by tribunals of inquiry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46603/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:6 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the costs accruing to date to his Department arising from the work of the Moriarty tribunal; if an estimate is available of the expected final costs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3151/09]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:7 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the cost to his Department to date of the Moriarty tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7057/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:8 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the costs accruing to his Department arising from the Moriarty tribunal at latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7462/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:9 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the action he will take arising from the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Special Report No. 63 on tribunal costs in relation to those tribunals for which his Department has responsibility; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7463/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:10 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will confirm that as a result of a typing error the senior counsel daily refresher fee paid to lawyers at the Moriarty tribunal was set at a rate of €2,500 rather than the agreed rate of €2,250; the additional costs accruing to his Department as a result of the error; if the error occurred within his Department; if no effort was made to correct the error; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7464/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 10, inclusive, together.
The total cost incurred by my Department in respect of the Moriarty tribunal since 1997 up to 31 January 2009 was €34.91 million. For 2008 the figure was €4.01 million. The recently published Comptroller and Auditor General report estimates that, including third party costs, the final cost will be in the region of €100 million, although the report emphasises that this figure is subject to many caveats and contingencies.
As regards the fees paid to counsel, fees for senior counsel at the Moriarty tribunal were set in 1997 when the tribunal was established. In early 2001, tribunal senior counsel sought an increase in their fees and negotiations about an increase went on for some time. Taking all factors into account, it was considered that an increased fee was appropriate and a rate of €2,500 per day was agreed with senior counsel and notified to them by my Department by letter in June 2002.
A few weeks afterwards, in view of the setting of the fee of €2,250 per day for senior counsel at other tribunals, it was realised that the Moriarty senior counsel rate had been agreed at a higher figure. The higher figure arose from a misunderstanding between my Department and those setting the fees in the Department of Finance and the Attorney General's office. The fee for Moriarty senior counsel was reviewed again. My Department considered that, in view of the particular circumstances of the Moriarty tribunal, the fee for its senior counsel was appropriate and should remain at €2,500 and, following advice from the Attorney General, this was sanctioned by the Department of Finance on a personal basis. Tribunal senior counsel were informed by my Department by letter in August 2002 that the rate of €2,500 was an error arising from a misunderstanding between my Department and those setting fees but that, as an exceptional measure in the circumstances, the €2,500 rate notified to them in June had been sanctioned to stand on a strictly personal basis. The fee has not been increased since. As a consequence of the overall position as regards fees at the tribunal, the cost of the present full team of the Moriarty tribunal is €645 per day less than if rates paid at other tribunals were to apply.
As regards the recent Comptroller and Auditor General report about tribunals, the report made no specific recommendations in relation to the Moriarty tribunal. The main recommendations in the report cover areas that have been considered and are being provided for, as appropriate, in the Tribunals of Inquiry Bill 2005, which is currently on Committee Stage in this House.
As regards requests for files, from time to time there have been requests to my Department for files and information from various tribunals. My Department has co-operated fully with all such requests and will continue to do so in the future.
Normally, requests from tribunals are received by the Secretary General of my Department and assigned by him to the appropriate departmental officials. Appropriate replies subsequently issue when the requests have been considered and any relevant information or files have been identified.
All inquiries to my Department from tribunals and all replies by my Department to tribunals are dealt with on a highly confidential basis as required by the tribunals themselves.
The Taoiseach is aware that the normal practice for tribunals is to use lawyers from the Chief State Solicitor's office and the highest salary level for those is €85,000. Can the Taoiseach confirm that for the past four years the Moriarty tribunal has ignored that arrangement and engaged a solicitor from a private practice? Will he further confirm that the fees of €1,000 per day are now in excess of €1.2 million for the past four years? Will the Taoiseach tell me the reason that was justified and sanctioned by his Department when the tradition is to use persons from the Chief State Solicitor's office?
The Moriarty tribunal report was expected to be published before now but the indications are that there may be further public hearings. Does the Taoiseach agree that if lawyers are to be brought back in the event of public sittings, that should only apply for those sittings and not on an indefinite basis? There were only three sittings in 2008 — one in March and two in May. There was one in 2009, a surprise sitting, where proceedings were immediately adjourned, according to a report in The Irish Times of 30 January, to allow a date to be arranged for an organised hearing. In a quotation from that report the Minister for Finance has apparently told the Departments to which the tribunals report to contact the tribunals and tell them that once public hearings are concluded, the legal staff associated with the public hearings should no longer be paid. The Moriarty tribunal has furnished its public hearings for some time now but it appears that it still has its full complement of staff. Is that the case? As the Taoiseach is aware, senior barristers are paid up to €2,750 per day and the Moriarty tribunal may complete its hearings by the end of the year.
In respect of the matter the Taoiseach mentioned, namely, a particular approval given on a personal basis by the Department of the Finance and the Department of the Taoiseach, what were the circumstances that applied in that case? Also, on the issue the Taoiseach mentioned, the overpayment to the senior counsel where he is being paid a daily refresher of €2,500 instead of €2,250 due to a typing error in the Department of the Taoiseach in 2002, what arrangements have been made to recover that payment? The total payments added up to more than €1 million. Were arrangements made to recover that?
There are not arrangements made to recover it as it is not necessary. As I said, the fee was agreed in June 2002 and the Attorney General's advice on the matter concluded that it would be inappropriate to withdraw the higher rate of fee which had been formally notified. He advised that the tribunal lawyers should be notified that the €2,500 rate had been notified in error but that in all the circumstances, approval was given to its payment. My Department notified the tribunal senior counsel by letter in August 2002 that the rate of €2,500 was an error arising from a misunderstanding between my Department and those setting fees but that, as an exceptional measure in the circumstances, the €2,500 rate notified to them in June had been sanctioned to stand on a strictly personal basis.
It was largesse.
It was left at the higher rate.
Yes. That was the agreed fee based on that notification and advice from the Attorney General.
Can we have the figure of the extra payments made to the person concerned as a result of the typing error?
It is not down to a typing error. I explained in my reply that there was a misunderstanding between the Department of the Taoiseach and the tribunal——
Did it cost €1 million?
——in stating the fee was to be €2,500 rather than €2,250. When this came to the attention of the Department, it sought the advice of the Attorney General and based the decision on the need for people to be involved in what is regarded as the highly complex work of the Moriarty tribunal.
They went for the big sum.
It was decided that a rate of €2,500 per day for that work was appropriate in the circumstances, on a personal basis.
The figure is more than €1 million.
No. The Comptroller and Auditor General made no recommendation is his report for a requirement for repayment because the fee was agreed.
There should be.
There was no overpayment on the basis that it was an agreed fee. I explained the circumstances, in an honest way, as to how the situation arose and the Attorney General's advice was sought.
Did the person involved not offer to give the money back?
If the fee was agreed, why did the Department need the advice of the Attorney General?
I explained that in August 2002 it was an agreed fee. The Comptroller and Auditor General has not made a recommendation on the matter because he accepts it was an agreed fee. I want to make a substantive point on the costs of these matters. The Moriarty tribunal——
The error in overpayment has cost €1 million.
Deputy Kenny is asking what is the context.
The purpose of these questions is not to engage in argument but simply to impart the information available on the file. That is what I am doing.
Let the Taoiseach finish.
I am making the point that this error cost €1 million.
It is not very satisfactory.
Let the Taoiseach finish.
That is the way to run a business.
The legal team of the Moriarty tribunal consists of three senior counsel, two junior counsel, one legal researcher and one solicitor. It is a significantly smaller legal team than, for example, the Mahon tribunal, which has a legal team comprising 21 people, whereas the Moriarty tribunal has seven.
Does the Taoiseach believe they are paid too much?
Never mind that now. Let the Taoiseach finish.
The cost of the Moriarty tribunal legal team is €645 less than the equivalent cost of the Mahon tribunal.
Why is that?
It is due to the fact that when one takes into account the fee structure available to the tribunal, in terms of senior and junior counsel and legal assistants, it works out at €645 less. That point should be made. The fees are agreed by the Department of Finance with legal counsel, on the advice of the Attorney General. Those are the rates which are payable and which have been agreed.
That was in the good times. What about the bad times? What are the fees in bad times?
We have very little time left so there should be no interruptions if at all possible.
We are trying to help.
Regarding this error in the payment of fees to two senior counsel, can the Taoiseach clarify when the agreement was made between his Department and the tribunal on the fee of €2,500 per day? When did it come to his Department's attention that it should, in fact, have been €2,250 per day? What is the normal situation when an overpayment is made? If, for example, a civil servant receives on overpayment in their salary, is it not recouped? If a social welfare recipient receives an overpayment of social welfare and an error is made by the Department, is the money recouped?
The same applies to ourselves.
Why is the money in this particular case not recouped?
What exactly is going on in the Moriarty tribunal? There has been no report. We have heard there may or may not be additional public hearings. Apparently there is a draft report somewhere. When, and by what means, is it going to come to an end and publish a report?
The Moriarty tribunal was set up in 1997. In early 2001, tribunal senior counsel sought a substantial increase in their fees and negotiations went on for some time, as I outlined in my initial reply. It was considered an increased fee was appropriate and, in due course, that was agreed. A rate of €2,500 per day was agreed with senior counsel and notified to them by the Department of the Taoiseach by letter in June 2002. The negotiations to decide whether to give an increased fee went on for 18 months.
A number of weeks later, in view of the setting of a fee of €2,250 per day for senior counsel at other tribunals, it was realised the Moriarty senior counsel rate had been agreed at a higher figure. It was an agreed figure. It was not the case that a figure was agreed and then overpayments were made. The figure of €2,500 was an agreed figure and not designated by the Comptroller and Auditor General as an overpayment. He made no recommendation in his annual report on the need, or, in his opinion, the necessity for changing that arrangement because he accepts the fee of €2,500 was agreed.
When, a number of weeks later, the fee of €2,250 per day for senior counsel in other tribunals was set, it was realised the rate set for Moriarty senior counsel had been agreed at a higher figure. The higher figure arose from a misunderstanding between my Department and those setting the fees. There was an understanding in my Department that the fee was to be €2,500 per day and an understanding from those who set the fees that it was to be €2,250 per day. My Department had notified senior counsel that the agreed rate was €2,500 per day.
In view of the particular circumstances which pertained in the Moriarty tribunal, which is doing specialised and complex work, it was considered that the fee for its senior counsel was appropriate and should remain at €2,500 per day. This decision was made following the advice of the Attorney General and was sanctioned by the Department of Finance. The issue was examined again in August when it came up again and people noted the fee was €2,250 per day in the Mahon tribunal and €2,500 per day in the Moriarty tribunal.
The issue was re-examined and the figure of €2,500 per day was confirmed as the set fee for the Moriarty tribunal in the circumstances.
What about looking at it again?
Regarding the cost of the Moriarty tribunal and the way it operates, it has a different modus operandi from other tribunals as it keeps the need for witnesses to appear and public hearings, and the associated costs, to a minimum. It is doing things quite differently under its sole member. It has been quite effective and has been doing detailed and complex work to get to the bottom of matters for many years. It is to the credit of the sole member that he has an arrangement in place which is mindful of the fact that he wants to conduct those proceedings as cost effectively as possible. The size of his team compares very favourably with the size of other teams in other tribunals.
Part of the background to the issue is also the importance of trying to keep the same personnel in place, given the amount of work which had been done, rather than the possibility of bringing in new personnel should people leave on the basis that the fee had not been examined since 1997. All of those considerations came into play. My Department has been very open, honest and straightforward in explaining the miscommunication which took place between those who set the fee and the circumstances in which information on it was conveyed to the Moriarty tribunal. It has stood over the fact that it was an agreed fee and confirmed that when it saw a discrepancy between the Moriarty tribunal and other tribunals, it sought the advice of the Attorney General. In all circumstances, he gave the advice he did and that gives a full explanation of the situation.
The Moriarty tribunal is now in its 12th year. Can the Taoiseach be more definite on whether further sittings will take place? Does he accept there is real concern at the continued time expended on this tribunal and the overall cost of its sittings?
With regard to costs, I understand Mr. Denis O'Brien took two judicial reviews, which went all the way to the Supreme Court, both of which were unsuccessful and, as a result, he owes the tribunal in excess of €610,000 plus interest. Will the Taoiseach indicate whether those moneys have been recovered or whether they are being proactively pursued if they have not yet been paid? What position has he taken on the recommendations of the Comptroller and Auditor General on matters directly pertaining to this and other tribunals regarding the curtailment of costs? Has he given particular attention to the recommendations regarding fees involved in engaging counsel and other senior legal opinion?
As I stated in my original remarks, many of the Comptroller and Auditor General's recommendations have been incorporated into the Tribunals of Inquiry Bill 2005, Committee Stage of which is before the House. Many of the recommendations will be made operational.
With regard to the tribunal's work, I understand from the tribunal that further public sittings will commence at the end of the March, which the sole member anticipates is likely to be completed by the end of April or the beginning of May. On completion of those sittings, the sole member hopes to produce his report within a period of some months. I understand from the sole member that when public sittings are conclusively completed, the role of his legal team is likely to diminish.
What about my question on the outstanding sum due from Mr. O'Brien for his judicial reviews?
I am sure the sole member is dealing with the matter.