Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)

Does the Taoiseach know why it was necessary to appoint an additional senior counsel to conduct the last module of the public hearings when the tribunal already had other counsel available to it? There had not been public hearings for a while and this public hearing had been signalled for some time. I do not understand why, if other counsel were available to the tribunal, it was necessary to appoint an additional senior counsel.

I understand the public hearings have now concluded. In July 2008, the Minister for Finance introduced the initial set of measures for cost savings for the Exchequer and one of the commitments he gave was that once public hearings of tribunals were concluded counsel would not be paid after that date. Will the Taoiseach confirm this is now the position in respect of the Moriarty tribunal?

Has the Department of the Taoiseach made any inquiry or examined the number of days for which counsel claimed payment in the Moriarty tribunal? Is it true that some counsel have claimed more than 300 working days in a particular year? Given that the normal working year is approximately 250 days, will the Taoiseach indicate whether the Department has examined the number of days for which counsel claimed up to €2,500 per day for work on the tribunal?

See this speech in context