Richard Bruton
Question:3 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance his proposals to reduce tribunal costs. [8684/04]
View answerTribunals of Inquiry.
Questions (3)
Oral answers (12 contributions)
To end October 2003, the total cost to the Exchequer of completed and sitting tribunals of inquiry and other public inquiries was €138.6 million. Of this, €99.4 million was in respect of legal costs and €39.2 million related to other costs. The figure for legal costs includes some €25.5 million in respect of third party legal costs awarded at three completed tribunals. This represents some 68% of the total cost of these tribunals.
In regard to tribunals and public inquiries which are sitting at present, the total cost to end October is €101 million, of which €68 million is in respect of legal costs. The latter only refers to the costs of the tribunal of inquiry legal teams as the issue of third party costs has not yet been adjudicated on in any instance. Given the significance of these costs in completed tribunals and inquiries, there is scope for a sharp acceleration in Exchequer costs if third party legal costs follow the pattern of completed tribunals.
Given the considerable actual and potential costs arising, I am concerned as to the ongoing resultant burden on the Exchequer. At the invitation of the planning tribunal, I made a submission to the tribunal last May in regard to the liability of the Exchequer for third party legal costs. The tribunal has not yet adjudicated on the issue.
More generally, I have a number of proposals under consideration aimed at reducing costs. These proposals follow liaison with the Attorney General and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It is my intention to shortly submit the proposals to the Government for approval. I am not therefore at liberty at this juncture to go into the individual detail of these proposals but broadly they are aimed at addressing a number of issues affecting future tribunals including: tightening and better focusing of the terms of reference with a view to minimising duration and costs; streamlining the operation of tribunals; and a review of the basis of payment for legal representatives.
As the Deputy is aware, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform recently introduced the Commissions of Investigation Bill, which passed Second Stage in the Dáil on 5 March. The mechanism being provided by this Bill may be considered as providing either a precursor or an alternative to tribunals of inquiry. It is, however, also designed to address concerns such as those relating to the time and cost of public investigations. Overall, it seeks to provide a more effective and flexible way of investigating matters of public concern while balancing the issues of time, cost, fair procedures and the rights of affected parties.
This measure has the potential to considerably reduce the need for full-scale tribunals of inquiry and I strongly support it.
I read with interest the Minister's comments at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis. He struck a chord with delegates when he said he would tackle the cost of tribunals. However, it transpires that his only proposals are in respect of future tribunals. He has no proposals in regard to the massive cost we face in respect of current tribunals which will increase. Was he Minister for Finance when sanction was given to increase the brief fee from €20,000 to €60,000, which represents a trebling of the fee and an increase of more than 200%? Was he Minister for Finance when the fee for non-sitting days was increased from €1,270 to €2,250 per day? Comparing the first McCracken tribunal with the most recent tribunals, how does he square his sanctioning of increased per diem daily rates to barristers with his alleged concern expressed at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis to contain the cost of tribunals?
As the Deputy will be aware from contributions made by his former colleague in Government, Deputy Quinn, the Minister for Finance sanctions these fees at appropriate times following consideration by the Office of the Attorney General and deliberations it has with counsel on the going rates at a specific time. This matter was alluded to on many occasions by Deputy Quinn in his two and a half years as Minister for Finance. In my time as Minister for Finance, I too have approved a number of increases. The last such were approved with effect from July 2002.
Different daily rates are paid to counsel working on the various tribunals, details of which I can supply to Deputies if they wish. In the Moriarty tribunal, senior counsel are on the per diem rate of €2,500. In the Morris, Barr and planning tribunals, the equivalent figure is €2,250 and, in the Laffoy and Dunne tribunals, it is €1,905 per day. Brief fees have been paid by these tribunals to senior counsel as follows: in the Moriarty tribunal it was €31,743——
The Minister is evading answering the question.
No, I am answering the question. The brief fee for senior counsel on the planning tribunal was €31,743; in respect of the Laffoy tribunal the figure was €34,918; in respect of the Dunne tribunal, €31,743; in the Morris tribunal, €60,000; and in the Barr tribunal the figure was €60,000.
This is an old style filibuster.
As I referred to in my reply and on previous occasion, the costs to which we refer in the figure of €101 million relate to the State's legal costs at this time taking account of what has happened in respect of other tribunals. The costs of third parties will be a considerable multiple of this which is of concern to me. In that context, I will bring proposals to the Government in the near future which I hope will go some way to relieving the taxpayer of these considerable costs.
The Minister has clearly overshot the runway in this regard. The reality is that he sought to get public support and that of his party's Ard-Fheis by stating he would contain costs. However, is it not the case that the Minister has done nothing but increase the fees repeatedly? He has nothing to address the ridiculous anomaly of daily rates for work which should clearly be done on a contract basis. We will face enormous fee increases because the Minister has not learnt the lesson from the huge spiralling costs of these tribunals as they are set up, one after the other.
I am delighted the Deputy agrees with me when he states that counsel's per diem rates are incorrect and that there should be a different method of payment.
The Minister is not doing anything about it.
I am glad he supports me in this regard and, when I bring proposals before the Oireachtas, I am sure Fine Gael will support me. At these per diem rates, in three days a senior counsel earns more than an old age pensioner gets for a whole year.
The Minister has more than doubled those rates.
Tax Collection.
Questions (4)
Joan Burton
Question:4 Ms Burton asked the Minister for Finance the main features of the Exchequer returns for the first two months of 2004; the way in which spending for the first two months compares with the projected levels; if he intends to review any of the budgetary targets for 2004 in view of these returns; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9067/04]
View answerOral answers (9 contributions)
The Exchequer balance for the first two months of 2004 showed a surplus of €430 million compared with a budgeted deficit of €2.806 billion for 2004 as a whole. Total tax receipts for the first two months of 2004 were €5.354 billion, which was €307 million or 6.1% above profile.
While tax revenue results for the first two months have been encouraging, it is much too early at this stage to draw any conclusions from these figures for the outturn for the year as a whole. The excess in receipts over the profile target is largely accounted for by capital gains tax receipts which are running €200 million ahead of profile. Capital gains tax receipts continued to show the unexpected buoyancy seen in the latter part of 2003. However, this good performance is not expected to continue and it is anticipated that there will be a slow down in CGT receipts relative to 2003 by the end of 2004.
More significantly, it should be noted that the taxes which generate the most significant share of revenues, such as income tax, excise and VAT receipts, were slightly below profile for the period to the end of February. On net voted spending on services, the projected increase for 2004 as set out in the 2004 Revised Estimates, REV, is 7%. At the end of February, net voted spending was 1% higher than in the same period last year and was €360 million less than expected on the basis of the published spending profile. The Departments most significantly under profile to the end of February were Education and Science; Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Transport. Departments overall do not project any excesses or savings on the spending totals in the REV. As the Deputy will be aware, assessments of the overall budget performance for the year issue at the end of each quarter.
There has been a considerable overshoot in the figures for the first two months. For the reasons set out by the Minister, revenues have been more buoyant and spending has been kept very tight. In view of this, does the Minister agree it is appropriate that he revisit certain notorious features of his December budget when, presumably, he made decisions on the basis of the Department of Finance's expectations? In particular, the Minister made some very mean cutbacks in social welfare payments.
The Deputy is going outside the remit of the question. A general question is acceptable. I suggest the Deputy put a question to the appropriate Minister
The Minister answered with regard to specific Departments. Widows are suffering a €6 million cutback. I do not know if the Minister had a good week——
A general question may be put but it is not appropriate to go into detail.
The Minister is undershooting his expected expenditure figures, particularly in three areas where significant cuts have been made and there has been an underspend, as the Minister has said. Is all discussion and questioning in the House to be closed down? The Minister has been allowed to answer specific points but I am not allowed to ask specific questions.
The Chair is obliged to implement the Standing Order.
The Minister obviously had a good week in Cheltenham. Will he rethink the measure regarding widows? Does he agree that the overall information disclosed by the figures shows that capital spending on infrastructure is significantly below the projected figures? This applies to roads, railways and the vital infrastructure which is a major factor in hindering Ireland's future economic growth?
Our universities are in rag order because of the cutbacks in day-to-day spending which have been imposed on them. The Minister has said the Department of Education and Science is below its spending profile. When figures show a different outturn from the expectation set out in the budget should a prudent Minister for Finance not move to revise spending targets so as to achieve the education goals of the national development plan and show mercy to the widows of Ireland who are suffering a €6 cut?
It would not be a prudent Minister for Finance who would base his spending on the figures for six or eight weeks into the financial year. It is much too early to be definitive as to the outturn for 2004. I have explained the position on the revenue side. The increased buoyancy at the end of February mostly relates to the figures from capital gains tax. The figures for the other taxes, such as income tax and VAT, are a little less than profiled but even if they were more than profiled it would be much too early to make a definitive call at this stage.
I am sure the Deputy is aware of the reasons for the rise in capital gains tax revenue. It is the changed dates of payments. Furthermore, it is difficult to predict what capital gains tax receipts will be. They are mostly received on 31 October but a recent change introduced two payment dates so that some are received on 31 January. Besides, capital gains tax mostly relates to one-off transactions.
With regard to year to year spending, in recent years incorrect comment has been made by people both inside and outside this House with regard to basing spending forecasts on the first three, or even six, months of the year. This arises from a lack of knowledge of how the public finances are put together. Consequently, I decided to publish multi-profiles of expenditure for 2003. This gives some idea as to how wrong calculations can be made, and many eminent commentators outside the House made them in 2002. In 1999 to the end of February, the year on year spending increase was 5% below the previous year but the outturn for the year was 11.9%. In 2001, the year on year spending at the end of February was up 25.5% but the full year increase was only 23%. In 2002, the year on year increase to the end of February was 22.4% but the outturn was only 14%. In 2003, the year on year increase to the end of February was 16.7%, yet the outturn for the year was only 6.7%, as budgeted. In 2004, the year on year figure to the end of February is 0.9% but the estimated full year increase is 7.2%.
Decentralisation Programme.
Questions (5, 6)
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:5 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Finance the discussions he has had with trade unions representing civil and public servants on decentralisation since 17 February 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9113/04]
View answerOral answers (56 contributions)
At a meeting of the general council on 10 December 2003, a special sub-committee of general council was set up to deal specifically with the human resource issues arising from decentralisation. Since that date, regular meetings of the decentralisation sub-committee have been held, of which the most recent was on 16 March. A discussion paper on the human resource issues has been tabled by the official side and considerable progress has been made in the discussions.
In addition to the regular meetings of the decentralisation sub-committee of the general council, my Department wrote to David Begg, General Secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on 18 January requesting a meeting to discuss the implications of decentralisation with trade unions which are not covered by the general council. Congress established a working group to engage with my Department on these issues and the first meeting was held on 9 March. A further meeting is being held today.
Has the Minister or his Department had any contact with SIPTU in the wake of its survey of its members which showed that 95% of SIPTU members within the State agencies and Departments did not want to leave the greater Dublin area? That represents 1,000 workers or one tenth of the total number the Minister had hoped to see relocated or decentralised. Is the Minister concerned about that information? This is the latest example in what can only be regarded as the ongoing unravelling of his proposal which was announced in budget 2004. What is the Minister's response to the survey done in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment which showed that only 69 of the 503 respondents indicated a willingness to take up any of the 250 posts to be located in Carlow? That is another example of a worrying situation in relation to the Minister's proposals. We have had an emergency conference of higher civil servants——
A question please.
——which showed that only small numbers wished to decentralise, particularly among the older, more settled groups and those with children in education. In response to a question I posed last May in the House, the Minister stated that a great deal of consultation and work had been put into this area. Does the Minister acknowledge that all the information before us clearly demonstrates that there was a lack of consultation and planning and a lack of information given to staff about the proposal to relocate or decentralise 10,300 civil servants to a list of locations throughout the jurisdiction?
The Deputy cannot say there was a lack of planning. We spent four years from the announcement of the decision before we announced the locations and the number of civil servants who would travel to the regions. My Department and other Departments are pushing ahead at full speed with the decentralisation programme. I hope we will be able to fulfil our target date. This programme is totally voluntary. It was a decision taken by the Government and it will be fulfilled.
I noted that my colleague, Gordon Brown, announced in his budget speech last week a decentralisation programme for United Kingdom civil servants. For those who commented unfavourably that I should not have included a reference to decentralisation in my budget speech, I am glad to note that my friend, Gordon Brown, mentioned it in his budget speech. I refer Deputies to an interesting document by Sir Michael Lyons, on which Gordon Brown based some of his recommendations and commentary, which is well worth reading. Sir Michael Lyons totally pooh-poohs much of the commentary about decentralisation, which Members also heard from some commentators in this country. The plan is on course, the scheme is voluntary, consultations are taking place with unions and it is a case of full speed ahead. By the way, does the Deputy's party support decentralisation?
It absolutely supports decentralisation.
Is Deputy Bruton's party for it?
It is a matter for the Member to ask the question and for the Minister to answer it. We cannot have a debate here.
Would you control your Minister, a Cheann Comhairle?
A very brief question Deputy, we are running out of time.
Good for the Minister and good for Gordon. However, has Gordon put any more preparation into it than the Minister? I am concerned that the plan announced by the Minister will not actually transpire. The Minister emphasises the voluntary nature of it but he refuses to accept——
A question, please.
——the salient information that is available.
We will have to conclude this question.
The Minister will be aware that the Combat Poverty Agency came before the Oireachtas Committee on Finance and the Public Service in recent weeks. In the course of that meeting——
The time for this question has concluded, Deputy. We must move on to Question No. 6.
——it was indicated by the agency that this small tranche of decentralisation, numbering 25 to the town of Monaghan——
Deputy Ó Caoláin still has not submitted a question. I call Question No. 6 in the name of Deputy Richard Bruton.
That is extremely discourteous. My opportunity to ask supplementary questions was taken up by the Minister and the Chair made no allowances for the Member——
The Chair has no control over the length of the reply.
——which is your wont. That is the pattern. The passage of St. Patrick's Day changed nothing with regard to the Chair and this Deputy.
There is a means of dealing with it if the Deputy wishes to do so.
There is a means of asking the Minister questions. Will the Chair allow the Minister to reply? The Combat Poverty Agency——
Deputy Ó Caoláin, there is a six minute limit for a Priority Question.
I did not get to ask a supplementary question.
Deputy Burton and Deputy Richard Bruton wanted to ask more questions. There is just over six minutes for each question and every Member is entitled to the same treatment in the House. I cannot make an exception.
You did not allow for the Minister——
When you stood to speak the Chair told you to ask a brief question because the time was concluding.
You did not allow for the Minister's interruptions.
I call Question No. 6.
Richard Bruton
Question:6 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance if a risk assessment has been undertaken by accounting officers in agencies affected by decentralisation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9066/04]
View answerOn announcing the decision on decentralisation, I appointed an implementation committee to prepare and submit an overall implementation plan on decentralisation by the end of March 2004. Following this, each agency will be required to develop a detailed plan for its own element of the programme. The question of risk assessment and risk mitigation, covering such aspects as business continuity and financial and logistical issues, will be addressed in the detailed planning exercise.
This Minister has made no secret of the fact that his decentralisation proposals follow an electoral agenda. He has made the programme subject to the electoral interests of himself and other Ministers. Every town in the country would like to have some Government offices in its town square.
The Minister asked about Fine Gael's view. The Fine Gael view is that in a modern democracy, one does not make a decision such as this without taking account of the published criteria, without an assessment of the personnel and their interests, without an assessment of the property implications of the changes, without an assessment of the impact on the capacity of the organisations to continue and without dovetailing the proposals with the spatial strategy. What is at stake is the style and method of Government. The Minister is presiding over a crassly political approach to this important issue, on which there is a great deal of consensus in the House.
I still do not know whether the Deputy's party supports the decentralisation programme. Does it support decentralising these bodies to these locations and centres or does it oppose it? There seems to be a difference between Deputy Bruton's approach and that of the rest of his party.
I am totally opposed to——
Many of the Deputy's party seem to support it but the Deputy seems to oppose it.
I oppose turning decentralisation into an issue of the personal electoral interests of Ministers. That is what the Minister has said. That is the disgrace in this approach and not what he is seeking to achieve.
Fine Gael seems to oppose these places receiving decentralised offices. As the Deputy is aware, we spent a long time considering this programme. I accept it is very ambitious. We set a deadline to achieve the bulk of decentralisation by 31 December 2006. I made no secret of the date, which is more than three years from the date of my budget announcement and seven years from the time of my original comments about decentralisation. That is a fair and decent amount of time and should allow for the bulk of decentralisation to take place. It will certainly put pressure on Ministers and Departments to ensure that the offices and agencies under their remit have decentralised to the locations in question by that date for the obvious political reasons. It is the job of politicians to make decisions. We decided in the previous budget which offices would be decentralised to which towns. We hope to have completed the bulk of the programme by 31 December 2006.
It is well known that the last resort of the political scoundrel is to cast a slur on those who oppose him.
It is not a slur.
Will the Minister confirm that he made no assessment of the impact on organisations, of the needs of personnel, of the property dimensions or of the relationship of the decentralisation programme with spatial strategy? Is it not therefore a purely politically motivated choice? The Minister has not done the homework. He spent two years doing nothing.
It is four years. Did the Minister talk to anyone about it?
We decided some four years ago to relocate 10,000 civil and public servants outside Dublin. Most Deputies on all sides of the House, excluding the Deputy, but he is the spokesperson for Fine Gael, seems to be in favour of it.
The Minister is persisting with the slur.
I can only take on board the Deputy's public utterances on this matter which he has repeated time and time again.
It is clear the Minister is on the run.
When asked on the floor of the House, he has not given an unequivocal answer, which he expects me to do.
With whom is the Minister doing the planning?
This programme is ambitious and will be fulfilled.
The Minister does not want to be asked questions. So much for accountability.
There is still one minute remaining.
Has the Minister looked specifically at the position of, for example, the Equality Authority which I understand will probably lose about 80% of its staff? Will that have an impact on the capacity of that organisation to continue to do the important ground-breaking work that it is doing?
The implementation committee chaired by Mr. Philip Flynn will shortly present its report to the Government and all matters will be considered.
The Minister gave no thought to that.
There has been some misrepresentation on this matter. It has been known to all members of the Government for many months that this programme would be announced on budget day in December 2003. Every Minister was consulted on many occasions on the relocation of various offices. Some decided to discuss this matter with some civil servants in their Departments. Others chose not to do so, which was their entitlement. The matter was discussed by the Government.
That is not the question the Minister was asked.
I want to put this matter on record. The final decisions were made by the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and me, and ample consideration was given to all the issues, including the location of the body to which the Deputy referred.
Budget Submissions.
Questions (7)
Dan Boyle
Question:7 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Finance the number of organisations and persons who made representations to his office regarding the Finance Bill 2004 between Second Stage and Committee Stage and between Committee Stage and Report Stage. [9208/04]
View answerOral answers (7 contributions)
I received 25 representations regarding the Finance Bill 2004 between Second and Committee Stages and 20 between Committee and Report Stages. These were in the form of letters, faxes, e-mails and telephone calls to my office and Department generally and came from public representatives, representative organisations and individuals. They covered a number of different tax areas.
I thank the Minister for his response. When the Minister came to office in 1997, he decided to discontinue the practice of his predecessor of publishing information of submissions made prior to the budget.
Will the Minister agree that in the interests of openness and transparency, not only is there a need to restore that practice but the type of lobbying done while the Finance Bill is being progressed through this House needs to be examined? We have seen a number of examples of that over the past few years.
My last priority question to the Minister was about the lobbying over the Eircom ESOT, the ramifications of which we have seen with the recent flotation. The Minister did something similar recently in terms of pension entitlements and benefits for the teachers' unions. Last year a representation was made by a constituent, although not during the debate on the Finance Bill, in regard to private hospitals and tax incentives.
On the second phase of lobbying between Committee and Report Stages, there is a need for openness and transparency because we have seen from experience how Report Stage amendments often do not get debated on the floor of this House. Has the Minister any intention of introducing a method whereby those who have sent him letters, faxes and other communications during the various Stages of the Finance Bill will be made publicly known?
I have no particular difficulty giving the Deputy all that information if he so wishes. I am prepared to provide him with a list of the representations in question, including the names of the representative bodies and the public representatives who made them, but subject to the normal restrictions that apply to requests made under the Freedom of Information Act in regard to releasing the names of private individuals. I can give examples of some of the representations I received. They include representations from the chairman of the Labour Court, ICTU, the Gaelic Players Association, Ministers, Deputies, Departments, the ASTI, etc. I can give the Deputy a list in that regard. I also received representations on the floor of the House on Committee Stage relating to the date of the planning applications for some of the tax incentive schemes, which I responded to on Report Stage. There is no mystery about this and the Deputy is free to get all the information he so wishes. However, I flatly reject any charge of favouritism in respect of any particular group which may wish to make representations to me or to the tax officials in my Department.
As the Deputy will be aware, every citizen has a right to contact his or her public representative or officeholder to make representations on his or her own behalf or on behalf of others. I regard this right as sacrosanct and I will not do anything that might impede or discourage people from doing so. To do so would render the political process irrelevant to the needs of ordinary citizens and put all of us out of touch with the wishes of the electorate.
I want to make it clear that, either through their public representative or to me directly, either inside or outside the House, everybody is free to make representations to me at any time. During my years as Minister for Finance I have received some ideas in the most unusual places and have incorporated them into legislation. Many of the measures in the Finance Bill are my own ideas and the Deputy will not see representations from anybody about them. I can point out many of them over the past seven years. I want to make it clear that for as long as I am Minister for Finance, people are free to make representations to me in whatever way they think fit, either by phoning me, meeting me at football matches, race meetings or pitch and toss banks.
The Minister is missing the point somewhat. I am very grateful that this information can be made available subsequently but even under the neutered freedom of information legislation he is obliged to do so.
If someone makes a representation, he or she can get the information under the Freedom of Information Act.
To inform the legislative process as the Finance Bill is going through this House, we, as Members of this House, should be aware of those who are making representations, the basis of those representations and the effect of those representations being acceded to. That information should be made available as they are made to the Minster's office. That is a flaw in the system that needs to be addressed. Otherwise, the Minister and the Government will invite subsequent accusations of possible favouritism and poor decision making. That is something the Minister should give consideration to in terms of fairly activating the workings of this House. I fear that, in the future, occasions may arise where we will be questioning decisions made in such circumstances.
As the Deputy is aware from his participation in Committee and Report Stages, there are representations I acceded to and some I do not accede to. One of the strongest lobbies was made between the publication of the Finance Bill and Committee and Report Stages on behalf of the Gaelic Players Association. I was lobbied by all Deputies and directly by members of the Gaelic Players Association, and I did not agree to that particular representation. I received other representations from the Deputy's colleague, Deputy Deenihan, on Committee Stage which I was gladly able to accede to. I agreed to some representations and did not agree to others. That has been the practice long before my time as Minister for Finance.