Enda Kenny
Question:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if there is a corporate procurement plan in place in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48409/09]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Public Procurement Policy.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:2 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if a corporate procurement plan is in place in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3463/10]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:3 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the corporate procurement plan in place in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8818/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
The corporate procurement plan in place in my Department was developed to implement the requirements of the national procurement policy framework published by the Department of Finance. It reflects my Department's commitment to effective and efficient resource allocation and service provision as prescribed by the Public Service Management Act 1997.
Procurement of goods and services by my Department is carried out under procedures recommended by the national public procurement policy unit in the Department of Finance, which is responsible for procurement policy, national procurement guidelines and the application of EU directives. These procedures are designed to ensure appropriate competitive processes are in place to select the providers of goods and services which represent best value to the Department, taking account of a number of important criteria including cost and suitability for purpose.
The procedures in place in my Department, which vary according to the nature and level of procurement involved, require purchasers to specify accurately their requirements; to select an appropriate competitive process, whether by the seeking of quotations, by advertising, by using central purchasing facilities and centrally negotiated framework agreements or through more formal tender processes; to evaluate alternatives according to preset criteria; to agree clear contract terms; and to monitor service delivery.
What has been the level of expenditure within the Department of the Taoiseach in respect of public procurement during the past two years?
I will be obliged to obtain that detailed information for the Deputy.
I attended the forum on public procurement that was held in the Westbury Hotel last week. An official from the European Commission who was present at that forum made the point that 17% of the contracts relating to tenders for public procurement in Ireland that are advertised in the Official Journal of the European Union are awarded to non-Irish companies based in other countries. The EU average in this regard is only 1.5%. If we are serious with regard to facilitating job creation and opportunities for Irish companies, will the Taoiseach explain why 17% of contracts relating to tenders for public procurement in Ireland are awarded to non-Irish companies based in other countries? Is it his view that we are failing small business here in the context of the opportunities we can create for it to tender in respect of public procurement contracts or is it that the Government has not realised the potential for job creation that exists in this regard?
I accept that my original question in this regard relates only to the Taoiseach's Department, which is one of the smallest Departments of State. However, it is startling that 17% of the type of contracts to which I refer are awarded to companies based in other countries. As already stated, the EU average is only 1.5%. Cyprus is next nearest to Ireland in respect of this matter with a rate of 7.3%. The position in this regard is extraordinary.
I know that Ministers would be interested in Irish companies providing services and goods to Departments of State. Will the Taoiseach comment on why Ireland is way above the EU average in respect of the award of these contracts to outside companies? Something is radically wrong in this regard. It is clear the opportunity to create thousands of jobs exists.
The national public procurement operations unit was established in the Office of Public Works in April of last year on foot of a Government decision. It is taking a lead role in modernising procurement practices across the public sector. The report of the task force on the public service recommended greater use of shared services in the area of procurement. The Government recognises the scope for improved value for money through increased professionalisation and co-ordination of public sector procurement. To this end, a new national operations unit has been established within the Office of Public Works. This unit is working to leverage the public service's buying power by organising procurement of common goods and services — such as office equipment, furniture, vehicles, electricity and fuel — across the public service. Where better value for money can be obtained, the unit will further develop the e-tender system, including in the context of using e-options to allow for real-time, on-line billing.
The unit will also support a more professional approach towards public sector procurement through the provision of advice and the organisation of networks of procurement professionals. The Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Mansergh, has policy responsibility for procurement and will drive the implementation of this new unit. I understand that to date the unit has overseen savings of the order of €27 million among various Departments.
There are rules that apply in respect of procurement. People are entitled to tender for contracts. We are trying to ensure that everyone, including small businesses, will be in a position to tender and that tenders will be structured in such a way as to allow people to apply. Ultimately, the procurement rules determine the outcome of the bids. As already stated, we are trying to increase leverage across Departments and in the context of obtaining the best possible value for money, we must ensure that everyone, including Irish companies, is aware of this fact. People must be also aware that a value-for-money drive is taking place.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. It is unfortunate that, by virtue of the number of public procurement contracts awarded to non-Irish companies based in other countries, we are exporting our own business. I am well aware of the rules that apply in respect of public procurement at both EU and national level. The Taoiseach should request that the Minister of State at the Department of Finance carry out a complete audit of the rules and procedures relating to public procurement and report back to him within three months.
I raised the matter of public procurement with the OECD a couple of weeks ago. It is clear that there are massive savings to be made. It is also clear that problems subsequently arise in the context of keeping down such savings. I recently met an inspector at a meat factory who informed me that he cannot obtain a box of biros but that if his computer breaks down, someone will be sent from Dublin to fix it regardless of the cost involved.
The Taoiseach and I are aware that cartels have been operating in the area of public procurement for a long period. Some county managers appointed procurement officers within their local authorities and a number of them have seen to it that substantial savings — be these in respect of electricity costs, payments for machinery or whatever — were made within a short time. There would be a real value in the Taoiseach informing the Minister of State at the Department of Finance that an audit should be carried out. Every Department should have, through its own public procurement network, the capacity to make savings for the taxpayer while still obtaining real value for money. If the Taoiseach does anything in this regard, it should be to set down the standard and issue an instruction to the Minister of State that he should provide, within three months, a report relating to a complete audit of the public procurement rules — EU and national — that apply in this country.
We all want Irish companies to do well. Such companies are quite prepared to step up to the mark if they get the opportunity to do so. I have met the owners of many of the small firms, particularly those operating in the area of printing, etc., who indicated that they cannot even avail of the opportunity to tender as a result of the complexities of the system and the costs involved. It appears that, year after year, contracts are awarded to the same companies. That may well be happening on a strictly competitive basis, which is fine. However, there is real potential for small and larger businesses to avail of the massive opportunities that exist in the context of job creation, the provision of services and obtaining value for money. The Taoiseach would do the country a useful service if he were to demand a complete audit and an overhaul of the way public procurement contracts are awarded.
In recent weeks I held meetings with the Minister of State at the Department of Finance who has responsibility for the Office of Public Works at which we discussed the issue of procurement. The main aim of national policy on procurement is to achieve value for money while also having regard to probity and accountability. While price is very important in determining value for money outcomes in procurement and for certain categories of purchases in particular, it is not the only variable that needs to be considered. Value for money also encompasses non-cost factors. When making purchases of goods or services consideration should be given to whether they are fit for the purpose for which they are intended, whether the goods or services provided are of sufficient quality and whether the level of service or support provided meets the requirements.
There are other issues that should be also considered, including whole-of-life and transaction costs associated with acquiring, using, holding, maintaining and disposing of the goods or service. Value for money in procurement is, therefore, the optimum combination of whole-life-costs and-or price, where appropriate, and quality or fitness for purpose to meet the user's requirements.
The increasing complexity and importance of purchasing decisions by public bodies is leading to a need for a more strategic focus and improved management of the public procurement process. Effective and efficient procurement policy, procedures and practices by public bodies can have a significant impact on the accountability and value for money aspects of the purchase of goods and services by the State. The potential for real savings from more effective procurement policies and practices is significant. Achieving savings is important as it frees up resources which can be redirected to the provision of services within organisations.
Departments are required and expected to include procurement management reform as one of the key strategic priorities and aims in their statements of strategy or other key strategic documents. They are also expected to develop appropriate corporate procurement plans. On foot of the production of the latter, they are further expected to develop plans in respect of significant purchases.
The national public procurement policy requires each Department to prepare plans when making significant purchases of goods and services. These are purchases which have been identified by the purchasing body as being of high relative expenditure and or where securing supply can be difficult or is critical to the operation of the public body. Significant purchases can be characterised as those that represent the majority of a purchasing body's spend; they are generally complex in terms of demand and supply; and individually they can have a significant impact on a purchasing body's operation.
We are in the process of ensuring that all Departments are not simply acting individually but are pulling together where asked to by the OPW to ensure we get the best possible value for money for specific items. Categories targeted this year include advertising, clothing and footwear for Garda Síochána and Defence Force uniforms, energy, electricity, gas, liquid bulk fuels, liquified petroleum gas, fuel charge cards, IT consumables, office supplies, stationery, office equipment, printing and transport. All of this is being done.
To answer a previous question, my Department incurs operating expenditure across a range of goods and services such as travel, staff training and development, telecommunications, office equipment, maintenance of premises, information technology, library costs, consultancy, printing and other incidental costs. On average, these costs are approximately €3 million each year.
On the previous occasion that these questions were addressed I asked the Taoiseach whether a policy was in place or would be put in place that would favour the allocation of contracts for the provision of goods or services from Irish manufacturers where possible. In his reply, the Taoiseach indicated, as he repeated today, that for goods and services over a particular value we are obliged to put the contract out to tender to notify all competitors throughout the European Union. However, on that occasion the Taoiseach stated, "I am always of the view that if there is very little in the difference, one should give it to an Irish firm, although that must be legal and appropriate." Is there a policy in place or will one be put in place to ensure where possible that an Irish source is given the opportunity to provide goods or services in line with the Taoiseach's stated reply? Has he built on the view he expressed on the previous occasion over the interim period? Can it be the practice where the value of the goods required is under whatever value is the current guideline for wider EU notification that Irish-made products and Irish-provided services, on the basis of their being of high standard and good value, will be preferred in all such situations in a serious effort to help retain existing jobs and create new jobs throughout all of those service providers and manufacturers?
The development of small and medium-sized enterprises is very important to the national economy and it is recognised that public procurement can be an important source of business for them. The national public procurement policy unit in the Department of Finance promotes policies which facilitate SME participation in public procurement and the national public procurement operations unit established in 2009 will act as a centre of excellence for the provision of procurement advice and implementation of procurement policy in line with best practice and Government initiatives, including improved access to public procurement opportunities for SMEs.
A number of practical provisions are in place to ensure that SMEs can access public procurement opportunities. These include the existing guidelines to contracting authorities which require that they encourage new businesses to apply for smaller public contracts and establish a track record which can enable them to progress to competing for larger contracts. In establishing frameworks for the supply of goods and services, contracting authorities are asked to consider how proposed arrangements will impact on SMEs. In these situations, while total demand may be aggregated requirements will generally be drawn down in small lots, in many cases following mini competitions. In selecting participants, authorities are asked to ensure that where smaller enterprises can meet requirements or compete for particular lots, the terms of the framework should facilitate their inclusion. It is pointed out that there will be instances where flexibility and an ability to respond speedily to requirements will place such enterprises in a particularly favourable position to participate and compete effectively. Under public procurement rules, pre-qualification criteria must be proportionate and relevant to the needs of the contract. Contracting authorities must be careful to avoid setting unnecessarily high requirements in pre-qualifying tenders for public contracts which may act as a deterrent to SMEs.
The public procurement website, www.etenders.gov.ie, is a national resource available to contracting authorities and suppliers which increases transparency and greatly facilitates access to public sector contracts. While current guidelines require contracting parties to advertise contracts with estimated values of more than €50,000 for supplies and service contracts on this website, this threshold is not absolute and a recent survey showed that some authorities advertised contracts ranging from €10,000 upwards as standard practice. It is generally recognised that advertising of these opportunities promotes SME participation. By registering as a supplier on this site, other facilities are available to potential suppliers, including e-mail alerts to suppliers when notices of interest to them have been published and a facility to secure online submission of tenders by suppliers which can simplify the tendering process and associated expense for smaller suppliers.
Contracting authorities are strongly encouraged to communicate long-term purchasing plans to the market as early as possible by publishing what are known as "prior information notices" on the website. These minimise the barriers for SMEs associated with timelines involved in tendering processes by giving smaller businesses time to react and prepare for the tender process with regard to developing partnerships with other smaller companies and identifying innovative solutions or sub-contracting opportunities with larger companies.
The Buying Innovation ten-step guide, published by the procurement innovation group established by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, highlights the role that SMEs can play in smart and innovative procurement. Creative ideas for new and innovative solutions and products can come from small and medium enterprises. Contracting authorities can promote their participation by encouraging joint bids from SMEs, affording sub-contracting opportunities or, where appropriate and practical without compromising efficiency and value for money, dividing contracts into lots. Contracting authorities can also encourage new and innovative solutions by indicating in tender documents that they are prepared to accept variants to the specification where appropriate.
For certain requirements, contracting authorities may need access to technical knowledge to research the market for solutions, draw up specifications and evaluate proposals. It is important that contracting authorities consult with the market before tendering as it enables them to understand and identify new developments in the marketplace and what types of companies, including new SMEs, can provide solutions.
SMEs are acknowledged as key suppliers of eco-innovation, as many are engaged in developing and providing specialist and innovative green products and services. Encouraging sub-contracting is an important aspect of securing the best possible solution for contracting authorities. It also benefits larger companies by enabling them to strike up collaborative partnerships with small innovative firms engaged in cutting edge technology. As can be seen, a real effort is being made to ensure that SMEs can participate and be given adequate prior notice.
I acknowledge that the Taoiseach's reply supports that. I wish to follow on from what Deputy Kenny requested. Perhaps an exercise should be undertaken at this point to evaluate the success of what the Taoiseach has just read into the record. I have no doubt we are all on the same page in what we want to achieve in terms of small and medium enterprises. It is in all our interests that we know exactly how successful or otherwise this approach and endeavour has been. Will the Taoiseach agree to initiate an evaluation of the success of the measures about which he has just informed us; to carry out a study of all the various procurement opportunities that have presented over a given period of 12 months, two years or three years; to do a comparative study as to how successful that has been; and to learn from the exercise where this can be either tweaked or better marketed in terms of Irish small and medium enterprises in order that we can maximise the potential for all of those either in manufacturing or in service provision? I appeal to the Taoiseach to do that because it is not enough just to rest on the stated intent. We need to know how successful it has been. I believe we collectively want to ensure that it is the most successful that it can be.
The unit we set up in the Office of Public Works, which will be 12 months in existence in April, has been pulling together and avoiding the silo effect of having individual departmental public procurement operations. There is a need to co-ordinate and pull together in order to leverage on behalf of the taxpayer the best possible value for money. Savings have been identified and that will continue. When one is seeking greater value for money, trying to get one's tender prices down and to effect savings, that means tenderers have to meet those requirements. In some cases new tenderers come from outside and put in a better tender. In an ideal world all of the jobs would go to Irish firms based on the rules but in the context of how tendering works it is not possible to guarantee that. Dividing up the contracts into lots and implementing the practical measures I have outlined greatly facilitates smaller companies to work together with similar companies to put in joint bids. There is huge flexibility. The e-tender system and the availability of that unit is a resource for Irish companies which they can contact directly and be apprised of the requirements and how they might be able to better improve their success rate if they have been unsuccessful in terms of securing the work they are seeking out.
Strengthening remedies are available to candidates who feel their rights have been infringed in the award of public contracts to improve the opportunities for unsuccessful tenderers to challenge unlawful awards and increase the possible penalties on contracting authorities for making such awards. In the case of contracts awarded in a serious breach of the rules the courts are given powers to annul the contract by declaring it ineffective. There is a strong requirement to ensure that the tendering documentation itself is correct in the first instance to avoid subsequent legal challenge and to ensure that the job is done right. As Deputy Ó Caoláin indicated, there is keen competition and people are advised in many instances as to why they have not been successful and where they may have been placed in the overall tendering process after the decision is made.
What about an evaluation review?
The new office will complete its first 12 months in April. It is part of the office's statement of strategy that it will outline to various finance committees how it is operating. The issue can be further examined and scrutinised in that context.
During Leaders' Questions the Taoiseach challenged me and Deputy Kenny to name one measure on which we support the Government. I wish to start with public procurement. The Labour Party supports the recommendations that are contained in the McCarthy report on public procurement. Those recommendations are not insignificant. The McCarthy report proposes that there could be a reduction of approximately €300 million in public procurement in a full year if certain measures are taken and that they could be achieved by 2012. The Labour Party is on record as saying that those are good recommendations, that they should be supported and that we support them.
I wish to ask the Taoiseach a couple of questions about how he is implementing the recommendations. The McCarthy report recommended that a panel of experts should be formed to drive the professionalisation of procurement. Has that panel of experts been established and will the Taoiseach indicate to the House who is on it? Second, the McCarthy report recommended that reforms should be extended into supply chain management and inventory control in all public authorities. Has that been done?
Third, the McCarthy report recommended that a number of Departments, including Health and Children, Education and Science, Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should be required to review current arrangements in detail and to submit to Government no later than the end of 2009 a detailed statement of reforms they propose in supply chain management and inventory control in all public authorities in their sectors to deliver aggregate savings building up to €300 million in a full year by 2012. Has that been done? Could the Taoiseach inform the House whether the Departments produced the reports by 2009, which I presume they must have by now, and what is the total estimate of savings?
The Deputy should direct his detailed questions on public procurement to the Minister of State at the Department of Finance with special responsibility for the Office of Public Works. I do not deal with that area. I just sought to be helpful in terms of broadening out the question beyond my Department's procurement plan, which was the question asked. I am sure we can get the details and forward them to the Deputy. A question to the Office of Public Works would give the details sought by Deputy Gilmore. Reforms and improvements to internal procurement systems and processes are taking place. We are working on a range of areas to improve procurement. That is why we set up the office in the first place. A question addressed to the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, will help to bring the Deputy up to date on all those issues.
With respect, one of the questions I asked was about reports that were to have been brought to Government by a number of Departments by the end of 2009. To the best of my knowledge the Minister of State with special responsibility for the Office of Public Works does not attend Cabinet meetings so I am asking the Taoiseach whether those reports on public procurement recommended by the McCarthy report from a number of line Departments by the end of 2009 were brought to Government. Has that happened? I imagine the Taoiseach would remember that, as the amount of money involved is significant. Mr. McCarthy suggested there was a potential for savings of €300 million in a full year. Have the line Departments brought those reports to Government?
Has the Taoiseach heard anything about the panel of experts the McCarthy report recommended should be established to assist Government in professionalising public procurement? Has the matter come up at Cabinet meetings? Has the Taoiseach heard anything about the panel or does he know whether it has been established?
The McCarthy report contained a number of recommendations. I am pleased to hear the Labour Party supports some of them. They provide the background against which budgetary decisions were taken this year and they will continue to be considered in the context of any further work that is to be done. Specifically on the matters raised by the Deputy, I do not recall a discussion on procurement plans being brought forward by individual Departments. I will have to check whether they were sent to the Department of Finance directly. I will revert to the Deputy.
It is great for the Taoiseach to issue challenges in a fit of bluster, and to challenge Deputy Kenny——
Deputy Gilmore challenges me all the time. What is his problem?
There is no problem. The Taoiseach is well able to look after himself, he is not exactly a shrinking violet.
Thanks.
He does not need to do an assertiveness course. He will not have to go to a FÁS training centre looking for help.
Does Deputy Gilmore have a question on procurement?
The Taoiseach is welcome to throw out the challenge but what will he do when it is taken up?
The Deputy does not want me to challenge him at all.
I have pointed out an area where savings can be made that are not insignificant.
The Deputy's party has not supported a single budgetary measure that we have brought forward.
Recommendations in this area were set out in a report commissioned by the Government and would save €300 million. I have asked the Taoiseach simple questions about what he has done to implement those recommendations, but he cannot answer them. The ideas Mr. McCarthy put forward on the professionalisation of public procurement, including combined purchasing, inventory control and so on, seem perfectly sensible. He identified €300 million in savings, a not insignificant sum in bad times. All I want to know is whether the Taoiseach is doing anything to implement these recommendations. He asked earlier for me to name one measure on which I support the Government. I have pointed out that changes in public procurement, as recommended in the McCarthy report, will yield €300 million in savings. What is the Taoiseach doing to implement those changes?
The Deputy is scraping the barrel.
The basic point I am making is that we have set up a centralised office and it is proceeding with its work. I cannot give the Deputy the detail of where that is at because it is outside the ambit of this question, but I have sought to provide him with an indication of the practical steps that are being taken to improve SME participation, for example. In regard to the other issues he raised, I will have to get back to him on those.
I am aware of a small company that cannot even tender in Ireland but has succeeded in winning business from the British Government. That business is allowing it to survive. This would suggest there are differences in the public procurement arrangements that pertain in Britain as compared with those in place in this State. Has the Government examined those differences? This company is clearly at a total disadvantage when it comes to winning business in Ireland. I understand that in some cases, particularly in the area of information technology, public procurement in this State is monopolised by a small number of companies——
That level of detail is not contemplated by the scope of the question.
It is a pertinent point. Has the Government looked at the difference between arrangements in the United Kingdom and in this State? Has the Taoiseach any data on how well Irish companies are doing abroad? Some 70% of our business goes abroad but several Irish companies are doing work for other governments throughout Europe. Are there any data to compare and contrast what Irish companies are losing on the one hand and perhaps gaining on the other?
The Deputy makes a fair point. When there are open public procurement rules in all countries, there will be occasions where non-nationals in the various jurisdictions obtain work. That is the case in a range of areas. I do not have the exact detail to hand on that but I accept the point the Deputy has made. In regard to Irish companies who are successful elsewhere but find themselves unable to be successful at home, that is a concern we all share. As I said, direct contact with the national procurement unit is advised and promoted so that businesses will have a clear view of the situation and how their tendering applications can be improved.
It should be borne in mind that larger countries tender to a far greater extent for goods and services than is the case here. It may be the case that some Irish companies are winning tenders abroad because there are a greater number of outlets and opportunities and the number of contracts are perhaps more varied and more suitable. However, I take the Deputy's point. I too am aware of companies that are doing business abroad but have not been successful in doing similar business at home. That is a matter of disappointment and concern. For any business seeking business abroad, the first question asked of its representatives is what it is getting at home for its service or goods. A company that is not getting the business at home is presumably at a disadvantage when its representatives go to the United States or wherever to drum up business. The purpose of the establishment of the national procurement unit is to facilitate businesses to the greatest extent possible, and consistent with legal requirements, to tender for work. Public sector work is increasingly important in the context of decreased private sector activity.
I was told in response to a parliamentary question I submitted some time ago that there are 2,500 people who have six to 12 months to run in their apprenticeships. There could be an opportunity, as part of the establishment of new procurement processes, for local authority and Government procurements to facilitate those people. They cannot find work at home and because they cannot complete their apprenticeships and obtain full certification, they cannot seek work abroad.
I understand FÁS is seeking to arrange placements for apprentices through the institutes of technology and so on. I am aware that there are people who require to complete their apprenticeship in certain trades but cannot find a placement. Anything that can be done to assist them will be considered.
Tribunals of Inquiry.
Enda Kenny
Question:4 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the cost that accrued to his Department in respect of the Moriarty tribunal during 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48411/09]
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. [48412/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:6 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the cost accruing to date to his Department arising from the work of the Moriarty tribunal up to the end of 2009; if an estimate is available of the expected final costs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1466/10]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:7 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if there is a projected total and final cost to his Department of the Moriarty tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3464/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 7, inclusive, together.
The cost of the Moriarty tribunal to my Department in 2008 was €4.01 million. The total expenditure for my Department from the establishment of the tribunal in September 1997 to 31 December 2009 was €38.27 million. The sole member of the tribunal, Mr. Justice Moriarty, has not yet addressed third-party costs. Until that is done, we cannot estimate the overall cost of the tribunal with any accuracy. The tribunal secretariat has on many occasions over the years told my Department that any attempt by the tribunal to quantify third-party costs would lead to conclusions being drawn and suppositions being made which could infringe the rights of witnesses and impinge on the independence of the tribunal. The Comptroller and Auditor General's Special Report on Tribunals of Inquiry, in attempting to establish some estimate of the overall cost of the Moriarty tribunal, gave various ranges for third-party costs but stressed that the figures were subject to many caveats and contingencies.
From time to time there have been requests to my Department for files and information from various tribunals. The Department has co-operated fully with all such requests and will continue to do so in the future. Normally such requests are received by the Secretary General of my Department and assigned to the appropriate departmental officials by him. Appropriate replies subsequently issue when the requests have been considered and any relevant information or files identified.
When I raised this matter with the Taoiseach some weeks ago the information available to him was that the report of the Moriarty tribunal was expected to be published in March. Recent announcements suggest this may not be the case. Has the Taoiseach been informed as to whether additional witnesses are to be called? If so, does that mean the tribunal report may well be delayed for a further undetermined period? Has he been officially told that other witnesses are to be called which will delay the publication date of the report?
The tribunal is independent in the conduct of its proceedings, including the selection and timing of witnesses' appearances before it. I understand the tribunal has called two additional State witnesses and has written to the affected parties informing them of the intention to hear additional witnesses from the Attorney General's office. As of this morning no date has been set for the hearing.
It will delay the tribunal for a further period if those two witnesses are called and give evidence that may give rise to further questions. The final cost of the tribunal has been estimated to be approximately €100 million, including third party legal costs. Can the Taoiseach indicate the scale of the legal fees that have been paid to lawyers for the tribunals in respect of what has been a very long time? If he does not have this information to hand, he might forward it to me.
I understand from the tribunal that it will not be able to give a timescale for completion of its report until after the witnesses have been heard and their evidence assessed. I have no intention of commenting in any way on the work of the tribunal. As for questions on the cost and duration of the tribunal, tribunals undoubtedly are an expensive way of carrying out investigations. This is the reason the Government has introduced the Tribunals of Inquiry Bill that is before the House at present. As for the length of time the tribunal has taken, I should point out it has published the first part of its report. Moreover, I believe the tribunal itself would point out that it has been subject to legal challenge, which also has taken time. It is not possible to give an accurate estimate of the final overall costs until third party costs have been assessed. As I stated, the cost of the tribunal to this Department to the end of 2009 was €38.27 million and the Comptroller and Auditor General's report indicated that the cost to other State bodies up to the end of 2007 was €10.9 million.
When I last questioned the Taoiseach on this issue on 4 November, he informed me that it was the sole member's intention that the report would be ready for publication in early January. On the following day, 5 November, an article appeared in The Irish Times that quoted a source with knowledge of the tribunal’s affairs which stated that the early January date was unrealistic and that it was not expected that it would report by early January. Can the Taoiseach now give the House an indication as to when the tribunal might report?
There have been reports that the Moriarty tribunal has now agreed to call new witnesses from the Office of the Attorney General. As the latter office reports to this House through the Taoiseach at Taoiseach's Question Time, what is the Taoiseach's information on the witnesses who are likely to be called from the Office of the Attorney General? How many witnesses has he been informed are likely to be called and what is his estimate of the likely length of time this further calling of witnesses and hearing of their evidence will take?
I have no idea how long it will take. That is a matter for the tribunal and I do not comment on the working of the tribunal at all for obvious reasons. I understand the tribunal has called two additional State witnesses, that the affected parties have been written to informing them of the intention to hear additional witnesses from the Attorney General's office and as I understand it as of this morning, no date has been set for the hearing. However, I am not in a position to comment further on how long that might take. That evidence must be given, adduced and assessed and thereafter it will be a matter for the sole member.
Again, when Members last addressed these questions in November, I made reference to the fact that the previous July, it had been indicated at the Committee of Public Accounts that the Moriarty tribunal had paid €8.5 million each to two barristers working in the tribunal. I described such payments as an obscenity and asked the Taoiseach the reason that the reduction in fees signalled in 2004 had not proceeded over the five years up to that point last July or up to Question Time in November. In his extraordinary reply the Taoiseach stated, "The strong view was that the imposition of the reduced rate could lead to the departure of counsel to the jeopardy of the money already expended on the work of the tribunal". At what point in time and by what means did senior counsel or someone on their behalf either threaten or seek to bluff in respect of how they might respond in the event of the introduction of a reduction in fees? Would the Taoiseach not have thought it appropriate either to face down the threat or to call their bluff? As for the argument or view that these senior counsel would walk, resulting in an absolute loss of all the years of effort employed and putting in jeopardy all that already had been expended in the tribunal up to that point in time, I do not believe it holds any water. Where stands this matter at present?
The Government acted on advice at the time. This issue has been dealt with a number of times at Question Time and I do not wish to go through the same questions as the same replies are available now as I have put on the record of the House previously. The Deputy is aware that anything the Government does in this situation that might have an effect like the one mentioned would lead to it being accused of seeking to orchestrate something that was not its intention. It was a question of being obliged to deal with the situation that arose. An error did arise as I have explained in detail in previous comments. It has been raised at the Committee of Public Accounts with the Accounting Officer concerned and has been explained there as well. I have nothing further to add except to state that the Government is anxious that this matter should be brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible. However, that is a matter for the sole member and I do not comment on the workings of the tribunal beyond that for fear of being misinterpreted.
We are coming to the end and I call Deputy Lowry briefly.
I wish to ask one question of the Taoiseach. How can the Taoiseach or any Member of this House justify what ultimately will be the multi-million cost of this tribunal? I have 13 years of experience in dealing with this tribunal and have come to the opinion that this quasi-judicial legal farce has been out of control for years. The Oireachtas has stood back from it and has allowed it to continue. Although Members this morning have been discussing the economy being in tatters, they are still observing and sanctioning daily payments to senior counsel, including Saturdays and Sunday, on which expenses have been drawn. Were the Taoiseach to examine the invoices going into his Department from the tribunal, he would see that after 13 years, senior counsel are paid €2,500, now reduced to €2,250, per day. Moreover, in some instances they are claiming for Saturdays and Sundays. How can the Government justify such expenditure of public funds on an ongoing basis, while at the same time it has reduced social welfare payments, is cutting the public service pay bill, has removed medical cards from people who deserve them and is reducing the health services and funding for hospitals?
In respect of the costs, how could the officials in the Department of the Taoiseach who are responsible for the tribunal allow senior barristers for the tribunal, who now are multimillionaires on foot of their work there, to submit bills that were incorrect and which were overstated by €250 per day, amounting to millions of euro——
Deputy, you could be entering uncharted water on this matter.
—— without claiming it back? Why was this money not claimed back from these barristers? Were social welfare recipients involved, they would have been harassed and hounded to ensure the moneys were repaid. I have come to the conclusion that the officials in the Department of the Taoiseach have allowed this tribunal to become untouchables, particularly the barristers involved.
I also wish to correct the record. The witnesses from the Attorney General's office were not called back by Mr. Justice Moriarty. They were called back because he was forced to do so, as otherwise, he would have a High Court hearing this morning.
With the introduction of the new Tribunals of Inquiry Bill and the Commissions of Investigation Act, which we have passed, there is an acknowledgement in the House that we need to deal with matters of urgent public importance in ways alternative to what has been the case under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921.
I am aware that Deputy Lowry has close involvement with and knowledge of these matters and that they have gone on for a very long time. I make the case for the Government, in that we wish to see these matters brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible in the interests of everybody. In future, this House needs to consider carefully the question of the use of the 1921 Act, as we have brought forward more modern enactments that can more speedily deal with issues that the Oireachtas may need to have investigated from time to time because they are matters of urgent public importance. In matters of urgent public importance, a length of time is taken because of a range of issues, including challenges that have been made. People are entitled to vindicate their rights in court in respect of any issue that arises based on their legal advice or their own opinion as to how matters should be dealt with.
I make these general points and say that we await finalisation of all of these matters as soon as possible.