Enda Kenny
Question:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the costs that accrued to his Department in respect of the Moriarty Tribunal during May 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25057/10]
Ceisteanna — Questions
Tribunals of Inquiry
Eamon Gilmore
Question:2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the total costs accruing to his Department arising from the Moriarty Tribunal up to the end of May 2010; if an estimate is available of the final cost; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26376/10]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:3 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the total cost to his Department of the Moriarty Tribunal since its inception; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27960/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
Total expenditure by my Department from the establishment of the Moriarty tribunal to the end of May 2010 was €39.57 million. Expenditure in May 2010 was €215,319.
The sole member of the tribunal, Mr. Justice Moriarty, has not yet addressed third party costs. Until this 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 on the rights of witnesses and impinge on the independence of the tribunal.
As Deputies will be aware, 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.
Did the letter agreed by all of the leaders of the parties here in respect of the conclusion of the Moriarty tribunal go to the sole member and has the sole member responded to it?
Yes, it was sent, but I have not received a formal reply.
The fees paid to legal teams in the Saville inquiry amounted to just half of what has been paid to the Moriarty tribunal. In 12 years, the Queen's Counsel and four junior counsel earned a total of €16.1 million, €13 million less than has been paid to the Moriarty legal team to end-April 2010, a bill which is ongoing. The Taoiseach is aware that it was the tradition that solicitors from the Office of the Chief State Solicitor would be used for the normal practice of tribunals. The highest salary in that office is €85,000. This practice was broken in the case of the Moriarty tribunal and a solicitor from private practice was engaged. Will the Taoiseach confirm that a fee of €1,000 a day has now amounted to in excess of €1.2 million for the past four years in this case? Is the Taoiseach happy that this practice was the right way to go considering the costs involved? Fees were set in 2002, seven years ago. In the context of the current economic climate and the changed circumstances in which we now find ourselves, is it intended that the scale of fees will be reconsidered for the remainder of the Moriarty tribunal?
On previous occasions I have given a response on the rationale for the fees, which are based on the requests the chairman of the tribunal made. At the time, sanction was given for an agreed fee of €1,000 per day, the same rate paid to solicitors at the Mahon tribunal. The rate was reduced both last year and this year and now stands at €782 per day.
On that, in July 2008 the Minister for Finance said that it was decided that legal counsels to the tribunal would no longer be paid once public hearings were completed and the Government told Departments to which the tribunals report that tribunal legal teams, including the €2,700 a day senior counsel, should be let go. The tribunal has met on only a handful of occasions since last July. What legal fees have been paid since then? The Irish Times reported that in correspondence with the Department the Minister for Finance said that once public hearings were over, the legal staff associated with the public hearings should no longer be paid. The Moriarty tribunal has finished its run of public hearings, apart from whatever decision the sole member makes in respect of one other. In view of the fact that very few hearings were held since last July, does the Taoiseach have the figure in his brief on what has been paid since then?
No, I do not. As the Deputy knows, a particular work method has been adopted by the chairman of the tribunal in an attempt to keep down costs in terms of how they would play out if the hearings were held in public. It was on that basis that he devised this particular work method, which has been effective despite the very serious imposition involved in the process going on longer than was originally anticipated based on four separate challenges, all of which were won by the chairman when it came to the hearings. New rates applied for counsel who arrived after that date. There was a concern not to put at risk the work being done up to then by existing counsel in terms of not changing those particular rates. It is the case that some counsel are currently indisposed, so it is a question of working with existing staff and, in an effort to have this completed before the end of this year, to ensure there is adequate staffing.
The letter sent to the sole member from the leaders of the parties in the House reflected the fact that the sole member himself had indicated that his work is 80% or 90% concluded in respect of both the money trail element and the licence issue. I hope the tribunal will be able to report in its entirety in the timescale envisaged by the sole member. That would be in everybody's interest.
To clarify, the party leaders agreed on the desirability of the tribunal completing its work as soon as possible consistent with its mandate. They also agreed to write to the judge to this effect in response to his letter to the Clerk of the Dáil. The party leaders' letter has issued to the judge and he has written back acknowledging it.
Does the Taoiseach have any further information as to when the remaining witness who was to be called to the Moriarty tribunal is likely to appear? The sole member had decided to hear evidence from Mr. Andersen but there was some dispute as to whether the latter was willing to attend. I understand lawyers for Mr. Andersen have clarified that he is willing to attend. That was some months ago. Is there any information as to when that witness will appear before the tribunal and when thereafter the tribunal is likely to conclude its business?
Second, in regard to legal fees, I understand there has been a reduction in the feeds paid to lawyers doing State work. Has there been a corresponding reduction in the fees paid to tribunal lawyers?
The Deputy will appreciate that it is not proper for me to comment on the proceedings or ongoing work of the tribunal. It is a matter between the tribunal and the witness to whom the Deputy referred as to when that witness will appear. I understand from when I last spoke to the sole member about this matter that there is ongoing correspondence, but I do not have any more information than I did then. I do not have any ongoing or daily contact with the tribunal as to how the matter is proceeding.
In regard to fees, I can confirm that fees paid to the tribunal's legal team were reduced both last year and this year. They were reduced by 8% on 1 March 2009 and further reduced by 15% this year, except for one lower level which was reduced by 6.5%. In other words, the fees to the legal team have been reduced by a total of 21.8%, except for the lower level fee which was reduced by some 14%.
Deputy Kenny asked about the statement made by the Minister for Finance in July 2008 to the effect that legal counsel to the tribunal would no longer be paid once public hearings had ceased. We had all understood that public hearings had ceased and then information emerged that one further witness was to be heard. If, to all intents and purposes with the exception of one witness, public hearings have ceased, why are legal counsel still being paid on, it would appear, an ongoing basis?
That was on the basis of having completed all the witnesses for the tribunal. As Deputy Gilmore indicated, there is at least one outstanding witness that the chairman of the tribunal believes it would be of benefit to hear from. Therefore, that arrangement would come in place at that point.
Does the Taoiseach recall that in reply to previous questions regarding the barristers fees at the Moriarty tribunal, the Taoiseach refused to identify which barristers would have threatened to walk away if the signalled reductions in their daily attendance rate had been implemented when it was first signalled? Given that two of the barristers involved have received more than €8.5 million for their work at the tribunal, will the Taoiseach provide a straight answer to the question of whether the barristers threatened to walk away, as he suggested in his own reply to me previously across this floor? If so, why were they not faced down? Why did we not face them down and ensure that the new rates would have applied?
I note the Taoiseach's response to Deputy Kenny earlier to the effect that there was no official reply to the letter from the party leaders in the Dáil Chamber to the sole member.
I corrected that. There was a reply. He sent back an acknowledgement.
Is the Taoiseach any better informed with regard to the expected duration of the tribunal? Is there any projected overall cost to the conclusion of this long and protracted tribunal?
As I have stated, the independence of the tribunal is an important aspect of this issue. Therefore, it was important that the ongoing work ongoing was not compromised or put at risk. The risk of it being interrupted determined the Government's view on these matters regarding the need to keep continuity and the necessity of not being accused of interfering in any way with the tribunal. Were that to have taken place, there may have been a political charge made that the Government was interfering with the tribunal. The Government sought to ensure that it was not in any way bringing forward anything which would leave it open to that charge, because that it not our intention. As other Members have indicated, consistent with the mandate of the tribunal, we wish to see this matter concluded as quickly as possible. I have indicated that the chairman of the tribunal has suggested he hopes to have it concluded before the end of the year.
I refer to my notes of what the Taoiseach stated here previously when I put the matter to him. The Taoiseach claimed that the recommended reduction in fees for barristers might result in their being driven away from the Moriarty tribunal. On what basis did the Taoiseach give that answer? Were there threats to walk away delivered either orally or signalled in any way by any of the counsel attending at the Moriarty tribunal? If there were, whether overt, hinted in some way or by whatever means of communications, why would the State not have face down such a threat? It just does not ring true and I am concerned because it runs contrary to everything else the State is apparently about in terms of the payments of fees, salaries, expenses and everything else. Why would a small cohort of people be immune and, in some way, protected from all of that? It just does not make sense. Was some communication or means of expression employed by some of those attending the tribunal that they would walk off the site if the reduced fees undertaken by the Taoiseach's predecessor were implemented? While the official reply from the sole member does not give the certainty one would like, is the Taoiseach in any better position today to suggest when this tribunal process will end?
I am simply outlining the situation to the Deputy and the review of fees which took place. Taking account of further communication from the tribunal and its legal team and advice from the Attorney General, it was considered that, in the particular circumstances of the Moriarty tribunal, the fees should remain at what they were at that point. Since there have been reductions of 21.8% in respect of those fees. I have no further indication beyond what I have said as to when it will be finalised.