The Chairman is temporarily detained elsewhere so the first business is to elect a temporary Chairman.
Election of Temporary Chairman.
Clerk to the Committee
I propose Deputy Connor.
I second that.
Clerk to the Committee
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Deputy Connor assumed the Chair.
Estimates for Public Services, 1995:
Vote 1 — President’s Establishment (Supplementary Estimate).
Vote 2 — Houses of the Oireachtas and the European Parliament (Supplementary Estimate).
Vote 6 — Office of the Minister for Finance (Supplementary Estimate).
Vote 13 — Office of the Attorney General (Supplementary Estimate).
Vote 15 — Valuation and Ordnance Survey (Supplementary Estimate).
Vote 17 — Office of the Ombudsman (Supplementary Estimate).
We are considering the Supplementary Estimates for the Finance Group of Votes. The suggested timetable for today has been circulated — this is intended as a guideline only to assist consideration of the Supplementary Estimates before the committee in a businesslike fashion. Is the timetable agreed as a working document? Agreed.
Will we deal with the other matters today?
My advice is that if we get through this we will see how we are doing.
Are the matters which were to be discussed at the meeting at 11.30 a.m. tomorrow being discussed now?
My advice is that they are. I must apologise because I have not been briefed. I am informed that the meeting was to discuss a Supplementary Estimate from the Department of the Environment. We do not have a room so in the circumstances it will not take place. There is another meeting in the afternoon tomorrow.
So the Environment Supplementary Estimates are not being taken tomorrow?
That is so, because of the non-availability of a room. We will inform the convenors.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs to present a number of Supplementary Estimiates on the Finance Group of Votes. Some details of these Supplementary Estimates have already been circulated to Members of the committee. I hope we can have a constructive discussion on them.
The first Supplementary Estimate is on Vote 1, the President's Establishment. A small net additional sum of £15,000 is necessary to provide mainly for unforeseen travel by the President. The annual travel estimate for presidential travel is based on an assessment of expected travel requirements in each year. However, some unforeseen travel can arise from time to time. In this case, a humanitarian visit by the President to Rwanda took place before her visit to the UN General Assembly. All presidential travel outside the State is approved in advance by the Government.
The second Supplementary Estimate of £1.07 million arises on the Vote for the Houses of the Oireachtas. The bulk of the Supplementary Estimate is required under subhead A5 to meet an expected overrun of £1.362 million caused mainly by a higher than expected cost of printing in 1995. The reasons for this overrun were: first, additional expenditure was necessary on printing of Statutory Instruments; second, expenditure on tidying-up of outstanding Dáil Journals was incurred prior to in-house printing; and third, an excess occurred on the provision of bound volumes of debates.
Additional expenditure also arose because of the provision of necessary office equipment for Members of the Dáil and Seanad and the payment of death gratuities to widows of deceased Members. Savings of £372,000 reduce the net amount required to £1.07 million.
The third Supplementary Estimate is one of £465,000 on the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Finance. This is required to meet the expenses of the special ad hoc commission on referendum information and for the cost of a publicity campaign reminding the electorate to vote on referendum polling day, Friday, 24 November 1995. The Supplementary Estimate also includes provision for a contribution towards the cost of certain additional remedial and capital works at the Irish Institute of European Affairs at Louvain, for which provision was not included in the original Estimate.
In regard to the referendum information items, Members will recall that in order to facilitate consideration by the electorate of the various issues involved in the divorce referendum, my colleague the Minister for the Environment announced on behalf of the Government on 15 September 1995 that an ad hoc commission would be formed for the purpose of supervising the production and distribution to every household in the country of an information leaflet containing a concise statement of the case for and against the proposed constitutional amendment on divorce. In all, 1.27 million copies of this leaflet in bilingual form were distributed before referendum polling day. Details of the work of the ad hoc Commission on Referendum Information are contained in its report, copies of which were laid before each House of the Oireachtas on 24 October 1995. I congratulate all those involved in producing this information leaflet in the very short time-scale involved.
The Government also decided that, in addition to the leaflet produced by the ad hoc commission, a publicity campaign on television and radio reminding the electorate to vote on referendum polling day should also be undertaken. Because of the need to maintain an even handed approach in the run up to referendum polling day the Government decided that the arrangements for the publicity campaign reminding people to vote should best be undertaken by another Department, in this case the Department of Finance. The only money involved here is in respect of the commission for the information document stating the case for and against removing the constitutional ban on divorce and for a campaign simply advocating that people use their vote. This money was not used for any form of advocacy.
The second element of this supplementary estimate provides for the contribution of £250,000 to the Irish Institute for European Affairs which is based at the Irish College in Louvain. This additional contribution is required to undertake urgent remedial work together with a number of capital improvements.
I am particularly pleased to recommend the approval of this contribution to an institution which has such a lengthy and historic relationship with this country. I hope members of this committee will agree with me that an institution of this nature deserves the type of support I am proposing today.
The fourth Supplementary Estimate of £1.9 million is sought for Vote 13 — the Vote of the Office of the Attorney General. This Vote covers the Attorney General's office, the Office of the Chief State Solicitor and a grant-in-aid to the Law Reform Commission. The three major components of this Supplementary Estimate are in relation to salaries, legal fees and general law expenses.
The need for an additional £220,000 for salaries in sub-head A1 is due to a number of factors including the recruitment of additional staff in the Chief State Solicitor's Office to deal with claims for compensation for deafness by both serving and former army personnel and an insufficient provision in the original estimate for the cost of pay increases.
An additional £1.5 million is required to meet expenditure on legal fees to counsel under Subhead B, and an additional £100,000 is required for general law expenses under Subhead C. Expenditure under these subheads is almost entirely dependent on the number of legal cases taken against the State, the types of cases arising and the costs awarded against the State in each case. By its nature, it is impossible to predict accurately the number of the nature of cases that will be brought against the State in the coming year or the level of funds that will be needed for this purpose.
In addition, a provision is also being made for an anticipated shortfall of £70,000 in receipts from appropriations-in-aid due to the Chief State Solicitor's Office.
The fifth Supplementary Estimate is for the Valuation and Ordinance Survey Office. A Supplementary Estimate of £150,000 is required to cover additional costs incurred during 1995 on aerial photography. These relate to the completion of an aerial photography programme in 1995 which had been expected to take two years to complete. The photography was completed in one year due to the exceptionally fine weather experienced.
The sixth Supplementary Estimate is for the Vote of the Office of the Ombudsman where a net Supplementary Estimate of £75,000 is needed, mainly to provide for the expenses of the public offices commission in 1995. The Government has decided that the additional staff and facilities required for this commission will be attached to but distinct from the Office of the Ombudsman. A new Subhead within the Vote for the office of the Ombudsman is, therefore, required to meet this additional expenditure. The Ethics in Public Office legislation has already been fully debated by both Houses of the Oireachtas and I do not propose to say anything further on this major new initiative in public life.
That concludes my description of the need for the Supplementary Estimates which I have brought before you today. I will be happy to respond and take on board any views the committee may have on them and will deal with them as fully as possible.
I would prefer to discuss the Estimates for 1996 today than the Supplementary Estimates for 1995. Every year at this time for successive years Governments have had to bring Supplementary Estimates before the House to cover some of the additional expenditure which has arisen throughout the year.
I suggest to the Minister that in future years it would be better to discuss the Book of Estimates at this time of year. Irrespective of the differences between individual Minsters, that fact that we are discussing some of the small amounts of money involved in some of the Departments here late in the year while about £11,500 million in Estimates will be announced in the next few days shows the futility and ridiculousness of the Oireachtas system. It is a reflection on our procedures.
The Taoiseach wrote some very splendid documents in the 1980s about how to plan the nation's finances which I agreed with at the time. I still agree with that general principal, notwithstanding the difficulties that arise between individual Ministers. I have been long enough around to know that putting off bad decisions does not make them any easier. It is pointless having meetings at 8.30 a.m. or at 10.30 p.m. if the Government keeps putting off decisions; the decisions must be made sooner or later.
Whatever bad points the last administration had, we were not afraid to make decisions. Some of those decisions were not popular. If some of the political decisions had been put off we might still be in Government, but the then Taoiseach was not afraid to make a decision.
Deputy, could you confine yourself as far as you possibly can to the Estimates before us?
I am coming around to the Estimates, Chairman. I will speak about the individual Estimates later. In regard to the additional Estimate under the Finance Vote there is a Supplementary Estimate for £165,000 for the Office of the Minister for Finance. Most of the expenditure here arises from the ad hoccommission set up which published a document which cost £215,000 in advance of the divorce referendum. I do not query this because I am an accountant and like to keep things in little boxes, I query it because it is stupendous that the original Vote of £500,000 for the divorce referendum is in the Vote for the Minister for Equality and Law Reform.
I am sure if I go to the Minister in the Environment's Vote in the abridged Estimates I will find some figures within the subheads expenses relating to referendum day costs such as the costs of polling clerks, presiding officers and count staff. Payments for these people must be under the Vote of the office of the Minister for the Environment. The costs of the ad hoc commission now appear in the Vote of the Minister for Finance. The Minister must have anticipated that I would have something to say in this regard, because he referred to the reason for this. I congratulate the official in the Department of Finance who thought it up. The reason was:
Because of the need to maintain an even handed approach in the run up to referendum polling day the Government decided that the arrangements for the publicity campaign reminding people to vote should best be undertaken by another Department, in this case the Department of Finance.
Now hardly any other person in politics has more respect for the officials of the Department of Finance than I, but even the great geniuses in that Department would not claim they are the best people to handle an information campaign leading up to the divorce referendum.
Especially if it is to cost money.
I cannot understand why this could not be another subhead of the Vote of the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, unless some advice has been given that maybe it would be better to take this additional expenditure away from the subheads under the Department of the Environment as it might have some implications for the court cases now pending. However, it is mean to try to justify putting it under a subhead of the Department of Finance and I do not understand it. To say that this gave an even-handed approach to the divorce referendum campaign does not make sense and I will be asking more questions on it when we come to the Vote.
In light of next year's Estimates, I ask the Minister to include a reasonable figure for the Supplementary Estimate on the Houses of the Oireachtas as it relates to the provision of bound volumes of debates. I do not know whether I am the only Member of the committee who still receives bound volumes of Oireachtas debates. When I became a TD in 1987, I asked that they be sent to me and I used to get them every few months. I received two bound volumes two weeks ago for the 1987 debates. They are nearly ten years behind and that period could lengthen. We did not get any bound volumes for some years, although there was a boost this year, perhaps because of this money. However, if anyone wants to refer to a bound volume to find out what was said in the Dáil from 1987 to the present day, they will not be able to get them because they are not available.
I thought they had given up sending the bound volumes until I received two of them in the post. I had not got any volumes in the last two years. I checked some months ago as to why this was the case and was told it was because of lack of resources. I was also told that if a small additional amount of money was provided, around £300,000-£400,000, all that work could be done. If a person wants to see what was said in past Oireachtas debates, the least one expects is that they can refer to the bound volumes of the Oireachtas reports. Since the figure to bring them up to date would, subject to correction, be less than £500,000, I ask the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Coveney, to allocate for it in the 1996 Supplementary Estimates. They would all be up-to-date if these resources were granted.
I will come back to the individual items later but I would prefer to deal with the bigger volume of the Estimate rather than be dealing with a few hundred thousand pounds.
I share Deputy McCreevy's sense of frustration that we should have a committee meeting to consider the 1995 Supplementary Estimates at a time when we should be considering, and in past years were able to consider, the 1996 Estimates. This committee recently sent a delegation to South Africa to study its budgetary system. Whatever the imperfections of its system, it was clear it regarded their budgetary process as one which went on over a number of years in terms of preparation prior to it, the submission of Estimates for it and consideration at its public accounts committee on Estimates afterwards. It regards the process as a three year cycle. The failure of the Executive to supply 1996 Estimates to the Dáil for consideration is insulting. It means the so called supervisory role of the Dáil in financial matters is effectively set at naught. On the Vote dealing with the President's Establishment, our President does us proud and that Estimate should be unanimously agreed to.
It should be remembered that the ad hoc commission on divorce referendum information was established as one behind which the Government could hide its own advocacy expenditure. Nobody ever asked for an ad hoc commission in its own right and it was only conceded because the Government parties intended to expend moneys on an advocacy role. It should also be recalled that Deputy Bruton had committed himself against the use of public funds for advocacy material long in advance of the referendum campaign and unambiguously committed himself in writing to the proposition that such expenditure would be wrong.
The leaflet handed out by the ad hoccommission was a complete waste of public money. I have never met anybody who claims to have read it in its entirety. The only people who might have read it are insomniacs, the kind of people who read their parking tickets from top to bottom or those who read the ingredients on corn flakes packets when they have nothing else to do. It may have been the most poorly presented and unattractive document I have ever seen. I do not want to insult my two senior counsel colleagues who were retained to prepare its text but I have never seen the State issue a document which was more likely to be ignored. Parking tickets may be more attention grabbing than the leaflet in question.
The Minister expressed his gratitude to the ad hoc commission for its work and congratulated it for doing it in a short timescale. However, it was a complete waste of public money and had no justification. I imagine only a handful of the one million leaflets issued were ever read and they would not have influenced anybody significantly one way or the other.
The idea of spending public money to put both sides of an argument to people in that form was a complete and total waste of public money and time. Its motivation was not to inform the public but to say that it was doing something for the No campaign while at the same time giving a good blast of advocacy expenditure for the Yes campaign. We should not allow this moment to pass without expressing our profound reservations about the motivation and real bone fides that lay behind that activity.
Deputy McCreevy referred to the Dáil bound volumes. I was also elected to this House in 1987 and I have never received a Dáil bound volume. Although the Progressive Democrats was established in 1986, it has not been possible for us to get a full set of the Dáil reports to research matters for debates. I ask the Minister to ensure that every recognised political party has at least one complete set of reports, on loan if necessary — we do not want to plunder the last few remaining sets — at their disposal and not just when the Oireachtas Library is open for the purpose of conducting research.
I did not consider it necessary to spend £75,000 under the subhead for the Public Office Commission in the Office of the Ombudsman. I do not know what this commission will do in its first year but unless it blows a lot of money on advertising and self-aggrandisement, I cannot see a flurry of activity that will require much time being spent by any public servants seconded to it. I do not want to be a part of building another empire. I assume £75,000 will represent the activities of two or three people or maybe there will only be one person there and the rest will be spent on printing, advertising etc. It is a waste of time and money and expenditure for the Public Offices Commission should only come into effect if and when matters and complaints are reported to it. The sum of £75,000 should not be spent for that purpose.
I wish to return to the individual items when they arise, but it is important to respond to the proposal to spend money on the two sided leaflet on which the various texts were printed upside down so that it could not be said that one was at the beginning and one was at the end. This was a monumental waste of time, effort and taxpayers' money. It should never have been done.
With regard to the provision of £1.36 million for printing, the amount of printed matter we throw in our bins in our offices without even opening it because we have no time to read it needs a careful re-examination. The amount of duplication and waste in printing in the public sector and the Oireachtas must also be examined.
That is correct.
There is an extraordinary overrun of £1.362 million in this regard. I do not know what was the original Estimate. I ask the Minister and his officials to consider this matter.
With regard to the document which was produced on the divorce referendum, I do not agree with Deputy Michael McDowell's views. It presented the "no" and the "yes" case very fairly. I do not know if it was read or not, but I had serious concern with its method of delivery. The postmen in County Galway delivered the documents with the "no" documentation. The ordinary person, unaware of the intricacies of the postal delivery system, took the documentation as the official "yes" and "no" side. People were very annoyed about this in my constituency.
Have you any examples?
Yes. I do not agree with Deputy McDowell that the document did not have an influence. I undertook a very interesting exercise. I met a number of voters from the islands who voted five days in advance of the remainder of the country. They told me that their opinion on how they voted had changed by the date of the election, as they had received more information during this time. It included information via the media and was not necessarily information contained in the document. That information was received as the campaign advanced. The majority of people I spoke to told me that their vote was negative but that it would have changed to a "yes" vote.
Perhaps this had something to do with the Attorney General's letter?
I did not canvass the Aran Islands, so I did not know what way people there were going to vote. A useful exercise could be undertaken on this matter. While I would not condemn the decision to issue the leaflet, I seriously question the manner of its delivery and the confusion it caused.
We will now turn to questions and answers on——
The normal procedure is that we can comment on the Minister's statement.
Our timetable will go wildly wrong.
We are still entitled to comment.
I concede.
Discussion of this year's Estimates is a useless exercise. We are meeting the Minister tomorrow to discuss the forthcoming budget. The direction the committee has taken over the past couple of months in inviting submissions from the different sectors in the community and the economy is helpful. I hope it will have some effect on the budget.
The Minister advised that because of the need to maintain an even handed approach in the run up to the referendum polling date, the Government decided that the arrangements for the publicity campaign reminding the people to vote would be best undertaken by another Department, in this instance the Department of Finance. This is the understatement of the year. It will end up in The Phoenix magazine as one of the quotes of the year. What was meant by an even handed approach in this instance? Everybody knows that there was anything but an even handed approach. If we were voting on such a Supplementary Estimate today, I would vote against, because there was a total mismanagement of this money. It was incorrect for the Government to provide money for a campaign when it was clearly stated that the money was being used to ensure that a “yes” vote was carried.
While we can put all kinds of connotations on it, the situation was a complete mess and badly handled. The Supreme Court confirmed that the Government was wrong. We must get our act together for the future. In this instance, the Departments of Finance, Equality and Law Reform and the Environment were involved.
I am reluctant to interrupt you, Deputy, but we must address the Estimate.
The Minister made some comments and we are entitled to respond. We may be constrained by time, but we do not want a repeat of the mess——
I do not question your remarks, Deputy, but they are not relevant here.
If the Minister made a comment we are entitled to reply.
I must insist that the Supplementary Estimate be dealt with. We will now take questions and answers on Vote 1, the President's establishment, which is on page one of the pages of Supplementary Estimates supplied to all members. As there are no questions arising, we move to Houses of the Oireachtas and the European Parliament on page two.
With regard to the subheads in all of the Votes, has the Department ever considered, and in the light of the strategic management initiative, that a global sum should be indicated? Why has it always been deemed necessary that every individual item must be subheaded here and resubheaded again? I am aware that there are further breakdowns of these figures. Surely this takes away the purpose of anybody trying to manage the Department if every single item must be classified, rather than taking a global sum to run a Department and working within this? Surely in today's management age this type of approach has long since gone?
If we globalised the figure we would also be roundly criticised for not giving enough information.
The amount of money indicated in the subheads should be given to the Secretary of the Department to manage as he or she thinks fit, and a breakdown should then be given afterwards as to how it was spent.
I appreciate this. As far as I am aware, we are moving in the direction of the recommendation made by the strategic management initiative.
On Vote 2 there was an overrun of £1.3 million caused by higher than expected printing costs. I do not know the total amount for the subhead, but I would have thought one could make a fairly accurate estimate of the cost of printing. The Minister goes on to say some of the cost was for providing necessary office equipment for members. Does that include a new printing machine for one of the political parties? If so, is it only one printing machine?
I understood that, regardless of whether a political party had 80 or 15 Deputies, each party had a printing room with a similar type of machine and that when one machine was bought all the parties got the same machine. In my constituency and in Dublin, dropping leaflets is big business and it appears that some political parties have more modern printing machinery and are able to produce better leaflets. The rose comes up redder than it did with the old one.
Fianna Fáil always had that kind of machinery.
When Fianna Fáil had 77 seats and Labour had 12, both parties had the same type of machine and when the Fianna Fáil machine was traded in, the Labour one was also traded in. Historically, all parties were treated the same. One could argue that if one party has 12 Deputies and the other has 77, the big party should have a couple of printers to get the work done quickly. One could argue about why a small party should have the same facilities as the big one.
Could the Deputy put it in the form of a question?
How many printing machines are covered in the Vote? It has been the practice for all parties to get the same machine. That convention was broken in the year Labour got its hands on the till, so to speak.
The Deputy should withdraw that remark. It is outrageous. It is gutter politics with which Deputy Ahern is, unfortunately, being more and more associated.
I must be learning from the Deputy.
We do not have a house in our constituency bought by party members for the leader of the party.
One machine was bought for one party during the year and the other parties have tried to catch up. Will the Minister now provide a new machine for all the parties?
Three new printers were provided. One, which has been supplied, is for the Labour Party and the other two are for Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. They are expected to be supplied before Christmas.
Can we have one if it is available to the other parties?
In principle it is. The two being delivered between now and Christmas are for Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael.
As Deputy Ahern said, there was a rule of equality and every group in the House received the same material. It is wrong that we should find out now that the Labour Party has a spanking new machine and that we have to ask in order to find out. Now I discover Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil are catching up and there is not even a decision as yet to give one to the Progressive Democrats.
I will come back to the Deputy on that. I am not familiar with the matter.
Deputy McDowell is wealthy enough to afford his own printing machine in Ranelagh. He has a major printing machine of his own. He does not need any help.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister gave three reasons for the overrun. Will he indicate, in respect of items 1, 2 and 3, the approximate amounts? Would he also itemise the amount — I am not interested in the death gratuities issue — of additional expenditure for the provision of office equipment and is the super printing machine to which Deputy Ahern referred covered in this Supplementary Estimate?
Could we have the figure for the overall expenditure?
We have been given that figure. The original estimate was £2.418 million and there has been an increase of about one-third. That seems extraordinary.
The amount provided in the 1995 Estimate was 18 per cent less than in 1994 so we started from that base. The Supplementary Estimate required for Vote 2 for the Houses of the Oireachtas and the European Parliament is £1.070 million. It will involve three subheads. Under subhead A5, for office machinery and other office supplies, an additional £1.362 million is required. That includes the three printers.
What about the Progressive Democrats?
The Progressive Democrats decided to go down a different road and opted for a resograph with PC attachments which was supplied last year at a cost of £14,000.
We opted for it? That was all we were offered.
I will come back to the Deputy about it but that is the information I was given.
Next we will be told that PD Ministers opted for bicycles when other Ministers were given cars.
A sum of £80,000 is required in respect of pensions for deceased Members. We lost five Members of the Dáil and Seanad during the year. Subhead N is appropriations-in-aid and an additional £247,000 will be realised. There will be offsetting savings totalling £125,000-£100,000 on subhead A1 for salaries, wages and allowances and £25,000 on subhead A4 for postage and communications services.
Subhead A5 provides for the cost of information technology development, including hardware, office equipment and related supplies, stationery supplies and for the cost of parliamentary printing. The bulk of the Supplementary is required under this subhead and specifically for parliamentary printing. The 1995 outturn on parliamentary printing will be in the region of £2.6 million as against an estimate of £1.5 million.
That difference is accounted for by a delay in the receipt of the last monthly invoice in 1994 which resulted in additional unprovided expenditure of £225,000 in 1995. In effect that means we have 13 monthly payments in 1995. There was an excess of £150,000 in respect of bound volumes of debates which the office was contractually obliged to meet according as they were completed by the printer. Bound volumes of debates are published as a matter of course although there is a considerable backlog. In the estimates for parliamentary printing as submitted to the Department of Finance, an amount of £1.3 million was requested for an increased production of bound volumes, including an amount to meet the normal yearly production of bound volumes. This request was turned down at the time but the requirement for meeting the normal production was inadvertently overlooked, hence the £150,000 for the normal production is required in the Supplementary Estimate. There was an excess of £250,000 in respect of the printing of statutory instruments. The Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas has no control over this area. Statutory instruments are the responsibility of individual Departments but the cost of printing them has historically been included in the Oireachtas Vote, along with other parliamentary printing items.
There was expenditure of £180,000 for the supply on disk of type setting and other preparatory work already carried out by printers in recent years on outstanding Dáil journals which the shortage of staff resources did not permit the Office to advance up to now but which, with the introduction of computerisation, can now be completed in house more cheaply than by printers. Journals are now being completed in house with significant savings.
Expenditure on Seanad bound volumes and Dáil and Seanad agendas was greater than expected. There was unexpected expenditure on the report of the sub-committee of the Dáil Select Committee on Legislation and Security. Expenditure was not provided for the 1988 Public Accounts Committee report. In addition, it was difficult to estimate the extent of printing required by the new select committees. Under subhead A5 there are additional costs arising from the provision of necessary office equipment such as offset printers, photocopiers and fax machines for Members and parties, for which the Minister agreed an additional £130,000 earlier this year.
I do not need to deal with the pensions subhead except to express our regret that we lost so many Members during the past year.
With regard to appropriations-in-aid, receipts from the sale of parliamentary publications were estimated at £300,000. Actual receipts will be of the order of £547,000, including £96,000 in respect of 1994 because of the changeover to a new system of recording receipts. The Government Supplies Agency was unable until now to obtain accurate figures for 1994.
Did the Minister say that the Labour Party's printing machine cost £130,000 and that it was the only such machine budgeted for this year? How old was the machine it replaced, how much did it originally cost and what is its present value? Was it traded in for the new machine or is it kept somewhere?
Expenditure was provided for three machines, not one. The Labour Party machine cost £34,000. The Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael machines cost £37,000 each and we will have them before Christmas.
Where are the machines which have been replaced?
I must check this. I do not have that information.
I suggest that the machine for which the Progressive Democrats are supposed to have opted cost less than £10,000 compared to the £34,000 spent on the Labour Party's machine.
The previous machines were three years old and they were traded in. I will obtain detailed information for Deputy Cullen. I do not have the answers to hand.
I appreciate that.
I am concerned with the bound volumes. Subject to the fallibility of my memory I think we have received only four bound volumes this year which brings us to 1987 — we are nearly nine years behind. How can this delay be dealt with? I understand, from inquiries I made over the last six months, that all the information is ready and the necessary work has been done by the Civil Service. It is now a matter of spending some money in order to bring the bound volumes up to date. It is not, I suggest, acceptable that we are nine years behind in the production of bound volumes. We have never been this far behind before; we have been falling steadily behind over the years. When I first came to this House, it was possible to obtain a bound volume within six months and then the situation declined. Earlier in the year I thought they had gone out of existence altogether because it had been two or three years since we received any bound volumes. What is the situation? It can be corrected by the provision of money.
Obviously, it can be corrected with money. As I said, there was a proposal to bring this up to date at a cost of £1.3 million.
For next year?
This was in the current year, and it was not accepted by the Government. Only the normal amount of work was provided for this year.
If the normal amount of work for the previous four years had not been done there would be no bound volumes. Were bound volumes produced in 1993 or 1994? Deputies should check this. We are talking now of bound volumes for part of 1985 or 1986.
This Supplementary Estimate includes £150,000 so we did some work this year.
Yes, but were any bound volumes sent to Members in 1992, 1993 or 1994?
I never got one.
No, the Deputy certainly did not.
I will take the Deputy's comments on board.
I want to emphasise this point which was very ably put by Deputy McDowell in his contribution. The purpose of the bound volumes is not for people to have stacked up shelves but they are, or used to be, used to check back on what various Deputies said or one's party had to say at a particular time. It has now reached the stage where we are a decade in arrears. I do not know of any parliament in the world where the same situation prevails. I suggest to the Minister, before the 1996 Estimates are finalised, that we set up a two year-programme for 1996-97 to get the bound volumes up to date. That is a reasonable proposal taking account of the national finances. The situation is not satisfactory and we have let it go on for far too long. I am bringing it to the Minister's attention and I am making a special plea to him and the Minister for Finance to deal with it now.
I think everyone agrees it is a desirable thing to do. It is not all that different from the state of the county roads. This is something that has been inherited by this Government. We cannot deal with it overnight. It will require quite a lot of money but it needs to be done and I will take the Deputy's suggestion and see if we can deal with it over the next couple of years.
Perhaps a note on this could be prepared and circulated to Members. We have spent a long time on this which is by no means a major item on our agenda.
The cost of doing it and how to do it in a more cost-effective manner is something else we will look at.
I suggest that the Labour Party might do some of the printing involved in this work on its printing machine. I said earlier that I did not receive any bound volumes. This was incorrect. I have just remembered that last year I received ones for 1919.
The delay in publishing bound volumes is probably due to the fact that the Labour Party does not want any record of what it said in Opposition because this is a contradiction of what it is doing in Government.
At least we did not switch parties. Two years ago Deputy Cullen attacked Fianna Fáil in this room.
I am puzzled as to why a printing machine which was less than two years old required replacing.
What was wrong with the machine? Was it a bad buy? Did the Labour Party want a super one which did more? It seems that less than two years after a new machine was bought the Labour Party decided to buy another new one. We cannot get bound volumes printed.
The machines were three years old.
Not when the Minister budgeted for them.
The machines were traded in at approximately £7,000 each. I presume the new machines are capable of doing things which the old machines were not able to do.
It is bad forward planning.
The machines for Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael cost substantially more than the machine for the Labour Party. Perhaps they are more efficient. Every Sunday afternoon Deputy Noel Ahern and his family are observed on the north side of Dublin distributing thousands of leaflets.
I would prefer if we did not discuss that.
The Deputy should not have started it.
He is a professional politician.
I ask you to put your question on the bound volumes.
It obviously irritates Deputy Broughan.
Everything is bound in the National Library of Ireland and in Trinity College. Would it be possible to expedite this process by involving research institutions on subcontracts?
Only the printing needs to be done at this stage. The work has been contracted out in the way the Deputy suggested.
I am moving on to the Supplementary Estimates for the Office of the Minister for Finance.
Why was the subhead — Referendum Information — under the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Finance? Why was it not under the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Equality and Law Reform where the original £500,000 was deposited?
The Department of Equality and Law Reform was the sponsoring Department in this matter and it was evident that it was advocating what it believed. The Department of Finance was seen as a more appropriate place to put this expenditure because it advocated nothing other than asking people to vote and giving the arguments for "yes" and "no". The Deputy may have his own opinion, but that is the position. Deputy McDowell raised the same point. The Government took the view that a Department which was not involved on a day to day basis would be seen, particularly by those who had a different point of view from the Government, as being more remote from the battle and, therefore, a more appropriate place to deal with the provision of money to advocate a "yes" and "no" vote, which the leaflet was designed to do in an impartial way. Trying to get people to vote was not suggesting which way they should vote. That was a reasonable way to proceed. I accept the Deputy's view, but it would have been less clear-cut if it had been included with a Department which was sponsoring the amendment.
I accept the Minister's point. However, doing it this way highlights the problem rather than what it was intended to do. This subhead would be more appropriate under the Department of Equality and Law Reform or the Department of the Environment, which deals with information for electoral registers, etc. I do not understand why it is included in the Vote for the Department of Finance. When the different subheads under the Department of Equality and Law Reform and the Department of Finance and the expenditure incurred by the Department of the Environment are added up, what is the total cost of the divorce referendum to the taxpayers?
I do not have that information because I am just dealing with two items.
There must be some information on this matter. The Estimates for the Department of the Environment would have included some figures in this regard. Perhaps the Minister could send me the total cost.
It is available, but I do not have it with me.
The value for money achieved through the delivery of the leaflets was distorted by the manner in which other neutral material was put inside them before they were pushed through the doors.
How many leaflets were delivered, few were delivered in my constituency?
The method of delivery was a matter for An Post. I did not have control of that. Deputy McCormack mentioned that neutral material was put inside leaflets which advocated a "no" vote.
That did not happen in my constituency.
It should not have happened. I understand that representations were made by the Government to An Post as soon as it became evident and the practice was not continued.
A number of speakers asked if this document was effective. I read it out of interest and I thought the arguments were succinctly put. I agree it is not an attractive presentation and that, perhaps, only people who were seriously concerned might have taken the trouble to read it. The arguments were well put for both sides. The document served a purpose for those looking for information and who were confused. However, I do not know how many people read it. Its content was different from the normal leaflets used by political parties to advocate support for one thing or another. The arguments were succinctly put by professionals. I would not belittle it in the same way other speakers did. It is wrong to say the Government only did it for the reasons mentioned. It was unusual for a Government to produce an independent set of arguments for and against a proposal, but it was a welcome departure.
As regards how many houses received this information, we were informed that 1.27 million copies were delivered to households in the country. However, it would probably cost more money to verify that. I did not think that large numbers of houses were missed, although I received some complaints in this regard. The commission will follow this up and will report on distribution of the leaflets.
May I ask some detailed questions about the costing of the commission and its activities, and on the neutral advertising campaign encouraging people to vote? Can the Minister outline the expenses of the ad hoc commission? Will the Minister indicate the fees paid to counsel? In that context, nothing I said earlier was meant to reflect on the quality of the drafting, it was the quality of the presentation which took from it. I have no doubt that the arguments were sensibly drafted. What were the printing fees, and what fees were paid to An Post for delivery? What other fees were there in terms of advertising notices in relation to its activities? I think the commission took newspaper advertising of some kind at some stage.
What about barristers' fees?
I have already asked that, do not worry. How much was spent on the programme of advertisements simply encouraging people to vote, whichever way they intended to vote? What advertising agency handled it?
I have a breakdown, which I will give you and anybody else who wants a copy, of the commission's work. Originally, the ad hoc commission’s report estimated the costs at £143,000. The outcome is £147,000 which includes a provision of £8,000 to meet the fees of two senior counsel. That has not yet been finally agreed but the estimate is considered adequate for that purpose. It is very reasonable in the circumstances.
I will not query it.
The total cost of the publicity campaign was £55,000. On 17 October the Government decided that the publicity campaign reminding the electorate to vote on polling day should be provided through a Supplementary Estimate on the Vote for the Department of Finance. The estimated cost of the publicity campaign was £55,000 and provision for this was included in the Estimate. The Department sought quotations from five advertising agencies in accordance with public procurement requirements. After interviewing the five agencies involved, the recommended agency was Peter Owens and this recommendation was approved by the Minister for Finance. The advertising campaign with a neutral message, "Make sure to vote", it covered TV, radio — including local radio — and newspapers, with the main emphasis on TV and radio beginning on Tuesday, 21 November. Press advertising was confined to the evening newspapers on Thursday, 23 November and the daily papers on Friday, 24 November. Advertisements were also placed in Anois.
In relation to subhead R: the Irish College in Louvain, Belgium——
Are we finished with those questions now?
I have not got the material I asked for.
It is being photocopied.
Can we come back to it when we have the copies?
Yes. We will go on Deputy Cullen's question and will go back to the referendum.
I have no objection in principle to this very important institute and what it does. I note that the funding came from the national lottery. Is it a new departure to use national lottery moneys for expenditure outside the State?
It came from that source as well in 1992 on the only previous occasion in recent years.
How much was involved on that occasion?
It was roughly the same amount, £250,000, on that occasion.
What was the "urgent revewal?"
Refurbishment work and renovations.
Does the fact that a couple of subventions have been paid mean that the work is completed or can we expect more funding requirements. Is it anticipated that it will come from the national lottery?
We certainly have no reason to anticipate any further requirements in the short term, but I suppose over the years there will be requirements.
But not in the middle of a specific programme that is requiring more money? It is not a three or four year programme of remedial work?
No.
What is the history of the Irish College in Louvain?
I was afraid you would ask me that, Chairman. I do not have the statistics although I have some information about it.
It is leading up to another question because I visited it recently.
The Irish Institute for European Affairs is based at the Irish College in Louvain, Belgium, which has been run by the Franciscan Order since its foundation in the 17th century. The Order has given a lease on the premises at a nominal sum to a group of Irish trustee representatives of Irish officials in the European Commission and Irish business interests in Brussels. The institute is incorporated under Belgian law and run by a board on which the Department of Finance has been represented since 1989. The aim of the institute is to provide, through education and training, an awareness of European languages, culture, structures and institutions for three broad categories of Irish interest: the third level education sector; the business/commercial sector; and the public service. The institute receives an annual grant and it has some cross-Border connotations as well.
My question related to its history. For what purpose did the Franciscans found it in the 17th century?
It was a seminary established for Irish students as, presumably there were not any seminaries in Ireland at that time. It has long historical connections with Ireland.
It was to avoid the penal laws, as I understand it.
Exactly and it was acquired to retain the relic of that period in our history. I visited the Irish College in Louvain this year with my children and I was appalled to find that they have done to it what the Soviets did to many Orthodox churches and basilicas in the Soviet Union. They have removed all semblance of its history. Anything to do with religion and its history has been removed. I was appalled. It is cultural devastation. I was sickened to see that every single sign of its religious history has been removed. I express reservations about voting this money to the Irish College in Louvain. I consider that what was done to it is outrageous. It is the sort of thing they are trying to put right in many churches in Russia now after 70 years of communism. Regardless of a religious standpoint, this is part of our history and should be preserved. The Minister of State should visit the Irish College in Louvain and see how they have denuded it of all signs of its history. There is absolutely nothing. The little monastery is separated by a wall. The church is within the college but it is used for musical rehearsals. As for the college itself, one would never know what it was by going around it. All signs have been removed and I was sickened by it. This is what I had personally seen in Russia, what the communists had done to many Orthodox, Catholic and other Christian churches in their time there. Restoration of some of the old symbolic artefacts should be considered.
I was there once but it is a long time ago and I have no strong memories of it. I will have to take on board what you said, Chairman, and we will investigate it. I do not know the background to that.
I would be grateful if you would investigate this to see if any steps could be taken to restore some of the symbolism which would remind people of the history and purpose of the college.
That would have to be done while bearing in mind that we are not looking for opportunities to spend large sums of money there or anywhere else.
Obviously not, but what has been done there is outrageous.
Do you mean in the entire complex or in the part known as the Irish Institute for European Affairs?
The Irish Institute for European Affairs occupies the bulk of what was the Irish College in Louvain. The small Franciscan community occupies a house on the grounds. The college has been devastated and all signs of its religious past have been removed. This is a denial of the history of the college.
I have not been to Louvain but I am shocked by what the Chairman has said which is the opposite to what I thought the college represented, particularly at a time when we are so conscious of our heritage and culture throughout the world. I was under the impression that this college was a feature of historical Ireland. It is extraordinary that all memory of that history has been removed.
I find it extraordinary too.
I am not blaming the Minister for this. We are all of the same view in this regard. The Government or the Department should seek a report on this matter given that we have poured £.5 million into this and may be requested to do so again. If this building has simply been denuded of its features, I do not see the point in providing money. I am shocked and disappointed. Where are all the artefacts belonging to the college? Have they been stored somewhere? Are they being kept in good condition?
I will request a report and come back to the committee.
The explanation I was given was that there was a cross-Border dimension. They wanted everyone to feel comfortable. I concur with that aspiration, but it should not be achieved by destroying a symbol of an important part of Irish history. A denial of that history does not serve cross-Border cooperation.
If one goes to the House of Commons or the House of Lords, one sees an astonishing amount of Irish history. Although one might not like its connotations, I would not like to see it being removed. That argument relating to the cross-Border dimension does not stand up, particularly in relation to an institute in Belgium.
Are the salary costs in the Estimate the apportioned salary costs of civil servants who were working on this for some time?
Yes, in the Ombudsman's Office.
Much of that money will relate to an accounting arrangement between two Government Departments. That is a fair way of doing it as those civil servants would have been paid anyway.
This Estimate is noted. We will move on to the Office of the Attorney General.
Part of the increase in salaries here relates to additional staff being taken on in the Chief State Solicitor's Office to deal with army deafness claims. The Minister will know about this from his previous ministry. I understand that a large number of people in the Army and who served in it have made claims against the State which could run into hundreds of millions of pounds. This Estimate only gives the legal costs of hiring additional staff, but I am more concerned about claims in the pipeline and those which have been settled. Has any estimate been made by the Department of Defence or the Department of Finance as to the cost to the State?
From my memory of the Department of Defence, we are talking about a large sum of money and a considerable number of people. I would not like to state the actual number of claims because I am not sure, although I gather it is somewhere in the region of 5,000 to 10,000.
I have been aware of this for some time and these numbers are growing. I believe some claims have been or are in the process of being settled. If the number grows, the cost to the State will be millions of pounds. This matter has not been highlighted by anybody. However, living in County Kildare which has a large Army population, I have checked this out. Members and former members of the Defence Forces have submitted claims and some court decisions have found in their favour. I am not disputing the merits of those who have made claims, but I am interested in the cost to the taxpayer in future years. It will involve hundreds of millions of pounds. I ask the Minister to comment on this matter because it will be the same as the EU equality treatment directive arrears situation, only multiplied to the nth degree as far as a future Administration is concerned.
I echo Deputy McCreevy's comments. If it involves 10,000 claims at £20,000 each, which is not entirely unreasonable if any significant degree of deafness has set in, the total would be £200 million. By any standard, that is a vast sum of money. Is it the case that, for the expenditure of a few thousand pounds on ear plugs or ear protection devices on artillery ranges, the State could have avoided a possible bill of £200 million in legal claims? I am staggered by the revelation.
This is included in the Defence Vote and I cannot speak with authority about it. I understand the claims relate to a period some years ago. The ear protection which has been provided for some years appears to have eliminated the claims problem. It would be argued that this was an advance in technology and medical knowledge and it was not previously appreciated that some of this alleged damage had taken place. Many people who lodged claims did so in respect of ear injuries which they allege occurred ten or 20 years ago. It is difficult to get precise information on the position.
It would be extremely dangerous for me or anybody else to say that is the type of figure involved. I do not know what the figure involves, but I concur with the Deputy's grasp of the order of things. It is a major potential liability to the taxpayer, which is comparable to the examples mentioned.
I would not like this country to go to war.
In many cases, it arose from things which happened many years ago. For example, somebody who left the Defence Forces 20 years ago has an ear problem and some medical science or other can conclude that it relates to his time in the Army. We cannot stop people making such claims, some of which go back 30 years. It involves potential liability and there is no point saying otherwise.
As other members stated, it is an extraordinary revelation.
This is not the first time it emerged.
The figures are emerging today. Do many of the claims relate to a particular set of circumstances? Are the claims based on injuries occurring in this country, activities overseas or a mixture? What is the precise origin of the situation? Do the bulk of the claims relate to an obvious timeframe?
There is no clear cut pattern. It does not apply overseas more than at home to any perceptible extent. The latest claims relate to periods prior to the provision by the Army of the current level of ear protection, but I am not certain whether that was five years ago. The claims predate that and people who might not have been aware previously that they had damage to their ears are much more aware of the issue now. The claims are appearing but it is impossible to say how genuine they all are. I saw a reference at one stage to the fact that a particular law firm was generating a huge amount of the claims. I do not know what to say about that aspect.
The Minister is not in the Department of Defence now and it may be unfair to ask him, but has a comparison been carried out regarding the experience of other countries with standing forces in relation to this matter? Has a similar situation arisen and has that given rise to what is happening in Ireland? Is there any knowledge of the cost to other countries?
I do not know the answer but I would be astonished if there are not some parallels. The Defence Forces representative associations, particularly PDFORRA, have been active in highlighting this issue.
It brings up an interesting legal point as to how the law has been interpreted in Ireland in terms of injury and accident claims. Subject to advice from learned counsel on this matter, under ancient law in the UK it is not possible to sue the monarch if one serves them. I am subject to advice from eminent counsel in this regard but I understand——
There is such counsel beside the Deputy.
——there is a marked difference between the law as it stands in Ireland and how the courts have interpreted compensation claims and the position in the UK. I am not aware of the situation in other countries. However, I highlight the issue because I am aware of an increasing number of current and past members of the Defence Forces, and the possibility of people who lived adjacent to the situation, making claims against the State.
From the experience of other Departments in other areas, the extension or interpretation by the courts of law in this area has made it difficult for the State to come to grips with the situation. Some people say the cost of accidents and insurance is so high because of the large number of claims. Taxpayers must ultimately foot the Bill for these claims against the State. From my knowledge, the number is increasing and involves a vast potential liability to the State which must be borne by the taxpayers.
While the State is subject to the law, it will seek to minimise the exposure of taxpayers. These cases are being treated seriously. They are being examined but they are not being conceded in any shape or form. Perhaps Deputy McDowell could shed some light on this matter. Is there a trend in European law?
The simple answer is that I do not know. However, it occurred to me recently, from reading some reported law decisions, that we are getting into a situation where civil liability in the course of the operation of the Defence Forces is becoming a major issue. For example, I am aware that some people have sued the State for the manner in which they were directed to respond to shelling of their positions while in the Lebanon. I do not know of any court in England which has handed out damages for negligence by an officer in the field. If we were to take that road, the mind boggles as to where it would end if we ever engaged in peace enforcement as opposed to peace-keeping and if errors made by officers in active service situations could give rise to civil liability in the Irish courts.
I do not begrudge anybody proper compensation for their injuries but it is preferable that the State should have a proper system of pensions and compensation for people who suffer injuries while in the Defence Forces which has nothing to do with court decisions. War wounded should be looked after and they should receive pensions, but I have grave misgivings about the idea of compensation on top of that. If the £200 million figure, which I hope is not alarmist, comes to pass, it is equivalent to the equality payments and what is faced in relation to the Blood Transfusion Service Board. At some stage the capacity of the State to compensate people for various matters must be questioned.
The only current example of it is in the United States where major law suits are being launched by soldiers and officers who served in the Gulf War and who are suffering post traumatic stress disorder. It is being taken very seriously and they seem to have a case which they will be able to pursue under the American judicial system. It is certainly relevant to what is happening here that they can pursue the State for compensation. I understand the United States Government is already conceding that it will face this issue. This situation is a similar issue although arising out of different circumstances. Does the Minister have figures relating to any of the cases, without mentioning anybody involved? Deputy McCreevy said he thought that some cases had been dealt with and it would be interesting to see the order of settlement.
I gather a small number of cases were dealt with but the Department of Defence has the figures.
How many solicitors and staff have been brought in to the Office of the Chief State Solicitor to deal with this?
Two assistant solicitors, three law clerks and six clerical assistant typists are dealing with this issue.
I do not want to be contentious but, if one thinks of the Tallaght chimneys episode, it might be better to achieve a settlement and make an ex gratia payment without fault rather than have tens of thousands of legal claims and costs against the State. I assumed there was a tribunal to make service pension arrangements for people who served in the Defence Forces and award them pensions in respect of injuries sustained while in service. I am sceptical about allowing 10,000 legal claims against the State, especially as some of them are coming from one firm.
It is a horrific thought but efforts are being made by others, such as the Minister for Health, to reach a consensus on a tribunal although some legal advisers simply advise their clients not to participate. It would definitely be worth considering if it were possible to do it but, in the face of some members of the legal profession who are actively stirring the situation, it would be extremely difficult to sit down and achieve consensus at a reasonable price. There will certainly be efforts made to settle many of the cases and some people would rather do that than go through the courts. Presumably a substantial hard core of people will be advised to pursue it to the limits.
It has serious budgetary implications down the road. Coupled with the equality payments, the fines from Europe and the compensation in the hepatitis C cases, the State is facing potential payments of almost £1 billion. The State and the taxpayers simply cannot afford it. Perhaps it is time for the Department of Justice to look at the area of compensation which has gone off the rails. The State now has the ultimate responsibility for our lives and we really need to put down a marker in this regard before another group finds some reason to sue. I do not mean to cast aspersions on anybody but business is business and if people think they have a right to a windfall, they will pursue it.
I take these comments on board. This is happening at a time when the State finances are in better shape than they have been for ten years. Post 1999, when large transfers from Europe cease and there is an inevitable recession, it will be a very different scenario. The fact that we can cope with this because of an expanding economy does not mean we should be complacent about a very difficult subject.
The problem is we are losing money which could be used for productive investment. It is a disaster.
We also have to consider people's rights.
I was going to make the point the Minister just made. People have rights and we must be aware there are victims in these cases. I agree there is a case to be made for dealing with these matters in a different way within the Defence Forces and perhaps we should look at that. I had a peripheral involvement in, and at the very least observed, the operation of the Stardust tribunal which was the first example of taking these matters out of the courts, albeit on a voluntary basis. It worked quite successfully and as far as I know nobody appealed the matter to the courts. That was a positive experience and while, not having seen the cases and not knowing the details, we cannot say the Department should approach this that way, there is a case for examing the possibility. I encourage the Department to avoid unnecessary expenditure on legal fees if possible.
I will raise it with the Attorney General and the Minister for Defence because it is worrying.
Obviously people's rights must be respected but the remarks made here are expressions of concern that the compensation industry is growing at a rate which cannot be sustained by the State. We are concerned about people exploiting situations and the State. There is clear evidence in respect of claims against local authorities and State companies that there are people seeking opportunities to make claims and taking advantage of the court's stance. It may be time to raise the question of whether a new law on compensation would be possible, feasible or desirable.
The learned people in the Supreme Court would have something to say about that.
Obviously, it must be in keeping with the Constitution but it is something that certainly needs to be looked at and considered.
Does the figure of £1.5 million include fees for legal advice where the Attorney General, by virtue of conflict of interest, is unable to advise? What is the fee for independent advice sought by the Government? The Taoiseach said that where there is a conflict of interest the Attorney General will absent himself and other advice will be sought. Is there a running total on what that is costing us at the moment?
It must be included there if there is such a thing. By the same token, it would be unfair to suggest that any appreciable proportion of this could possibly be related to that instance. In fairness to the Attorney General it is not right to suggest he might cost us £1.5 million.
There was no such inference in what I said. I simply asked if the figure was available.
My information is that none of the excess relates to that matter and I do not have any further information.
Could the Minister of State break down that figure?
Yes. How much of a breakdown does the Deputy need?
Where is the £1.5 million being spent? Are specific cases giving rise to the necessity for this expenditure?
This is very hard to estimate because it is demand-led. The fees result from the number of cases which arise, whether they are won or lost and whether costs must be paid. There is no information which we cannot provide, but I presume the Deputy does not require details of the precise amount paid to each individual?
No. Am I correct in stating these fees are paid to counsel employed from outside the Office of the Attorney General?
The major proportion of the Supplementary Estimate, almost 80 per cent, is due to this area of expenditure. However, this is a demand-led subhead and is not amenable to control as most other subheads. Expenditure is contingent on factors such as the number of cases in any one year, most of which the State has no option but to defend, the complexity and length of cases and the fees agreed with counsel to fight a case. The outturn for legal fees in 1994 was in the region of £1.8 million. The initial 1995 provision was £1.5 million but it became apparent, during the year, that this, amount would be insufficient. In particular, expenditure on one case — the Bula case — has been in the region of £600,000 which accounts for in the region of 35 per cent of the initial provision.
The Attorney General has also directed that all outstanding fees should, as far as is practicable, be paid. However, none of the increase in legal fees is due to the beef tribunal. The Attorney General recognises the need to limit expenditure on legal fees as much as possible but he must have regard to the level of fees set by the market. Nevertheless, steps are being taken to control such expenditure. It is now the policy of the Attorney General to attempt to include a review procedure on the level of legal fees in appropriate cases. This has proved successsful in the Bula case were the State's legal counsel have agreed to reduce their daily rate of fees by around 13 per cent by the start of the next legal term. Guidelines have been issued by the Department for appointments in connection with tribunals, etc., which are designed to control the legal costs involved.
A review of the way in which the State administers personal injury cases is under way with a view to reducing the level of legal costs associated with such cases. It is also proposed to establish a working group, combining representatives from the Departments of Justice, Finance, Enterprise and Employment, Equality and Law Reform and the Office of the Attorney General, to consider the general level of legal fees in both the public and private sectors.
The Department of Finance is cognisant of the import of the issue raised by Deputy Cullen.
At long last, action is being taken in this matter.
Would it not represent better value for the State to employ extra barristers in the Office of the Attorney General, rather than having to pay out such large sums of money? If this situation is to be ongoing, surely the most cost effective way——
It will be within the terms of the review to deal with that issue.
The Minister stated that the fees in the Bula case were to be reduced by 13 per cent——
They are to be reduced at the beginning of the next legal term.
What was the daily figure for those fees and what will it amount to as a result of that reduction?
I will provide that information when I receive it. At present, the only information I have is that negotiations took place to reduce the fees by 13 per cent.
My point arises from the meeting the committee had with the Attorney General. Will the Minister confirm that the £1.5 million is inclusive of VAT paid at 21 per cent.
Yes.
Will the Minister also confirm that all of the income in question is subject to a withholding tax of 27 per cent?
Yes.
Will the State recover the vast majority of fees paid through VAT or the effective rate of income tax applying to the counsel involved in this case? The rates for VAT and income tax in this matter are 31 per cent and, on average, 41 per cent respectively. People paying income tax at a lesser rate would not be involved.
That does not change the cost to the State.
I accept that but 70 per cent of the money returns to State coffers.
The establishment of the working group is long overdue. The point raised by Deputy Cullen——
I made that statement by way of declaring an interest.
Yes. I should have ruled Deputy McDowell out of order. He is an apologist for the Law Library. With regard to the point in relation to staff barristers, the Committee of Public Accounts recently made a comparison with the Scott Inquiry in Britain. I am aware that people object to direct comparisons in this regard but one of the differences which emerged was that barristers from the staff of another Government office acted in the Scott Inquiry thereby removing the need to pay huge daily fees to outside counsel.
This is the second occasion on which the Chairman has mentioned the Scott Inquiry. I agree it was a model in terms of economy. However, I ask him to compare what occurred there to the case of the Orkney Child Sex Abuse Inquiry which involved representation for many people when accusations had been made in respect of their good name and their treatment of their children. The costs in the latter inquiry were monumental.
I accept that the parallel is not a direct one because every case is different. However, our job is to ensure that the State receives value for money and economy is achieved to the maximum possible extent.
I thank the Chairman and Members for their very constructive suggestions. I hope the answers I provided were adequate.
Report of Select Committee.
The committee notes the Votes for the Office of the Attorney General, Valuation and Ordnance Survey and the Office of the Ombudsman. I propose the following report:
The Select Committee has considered Supplementary Estimates for the public service for the year ending 31 December 1995 in respect of Vote 1 — the President's Establishment; Vote 2 — the Houses of the Oireachtas and the European Parliament; Vote 6 — Office of the Minister for Finance; Vote 13 — Office of the Attorney General; Vote 15 — Valuation and Ordnance Survey and Vote 17 — Office of the Ombudsman. Arising from its consideration of the additional provision proposed under subhead R, Irish Institution for European Affairs, and the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Finance, the Committee has requested the Minister for Finance to furnish, before 1 February, a statement on the Irish College in Louvain with particular reference to the reported removal of the insignia and symbols of the college's original history. The Supplementary Estimates are hereby reported to the Dáil.
I agree with the report but I would like to see it couched in stronger terms. We are merely requesting a report on the removal of insignia. I would like the report to include the following wording after Louvain:
. . . . . its current modus operandi, its present role in preserving and nurturing its important heritage.
The wording suggested by Deputy Cullen will be incorporated in the text of the report. Is the amended report agreed? Agreed.
Report agreed to.
Ordered to report to the Dáil accordingly.
The Select Committee adjourned at 1.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Thursday, 7 December 1995.