Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 1: To ask the Taoiseach the costs which have accrued to date to his Department in respect of the Moriarty tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24244/05]

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 2: To ask the Taoiseach the entire cost to the State to date of the Moriarty tribunal; the estimate of future costs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25209/05]

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 3: To ask the Taoiseach the costs to his Department during 2005 in relation to the Moriarty tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25358/05]

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 4: To ask the Taoiseach the costs accruing to his Department in respect of each year since the Moriarty tribunal was established; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26560/05]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 5: To ask the Taoiseach the costs to his Department of the Moriarty tribunal since its establishment; the projected costs for the completion of the tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27687/05]

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.

The total costs incurred by my Department in respect of this tribunal from 1997 to 30 September 2005 is €21,364,879. This includes fees paid to counsel for the tribunal and administration costs incurred to date since its establishment. Total payments made to the legal team were €16,052,473 up to 30 September, 2005.

As regards the projected costs for the completion of the tribunal, it is impossible to predict what costs may be awarded, and to whom, by its sole member. The overall estimate for 2005 is €10.552 million. The day to day costs for the tribunal provided for in the Estimate for 2005 amounts to €4 million. However, provision of an additional €6.5 million was made to cover costs such as report publication and some element of award of legal costs in the event that the tribunal completed its work in 2005. I propose to circulate in the Official Report the costs accruing for the tribunal in respect of each year.

Given the subject matter of this reply, I think it opportune to inform the House that this morning the Government agreed to a request to extend the deadline for completion of the tribunal. The date originally envisaged for the application of the new fees to the Moriarty tribunal was 11 January 2006. This was calculated on the basis that the tribunal's programme of work, as it stood in mid-2004, would be concluded on or about that date. Due to unforeseen circumstances that have since arisen, the extensive nature of its terms of reference and ongoing inquiries, and litigation by the parties involved, the tribunal has requested that it be given an additional amount of time to complete its work.

The matter has been discussed with the tribunal. Given the relative imminence of the conclusion of its work, it is believed that it is reasonable to facilitate its continuance until 30 June 2006. This represents an extension of five and a half months on the previously expected completion date. It is to be borne in mind that the tribunal has been in operation for eight years and is now nearing its completion.

It is expected that the new tribunals legislation will be enacted prior to 30 June 2006. Therefore, there should be no obstacle to reducing fees payable to lawyers appearing before the Moriarty tribunal after that date, in the event that it has not completed its work by then.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

The costs of the tribunal accruing in respect of each year is as follows:

2005 up to 30 September = €2,721,631

2004 up to 30 September = €3,610,026

2003 up to 30 September = €3,440,954

2002 up to 30 September = €2,799,057

2001 up to 30 September = €2,242,361

2000 up to 30 September = €2,171,921

1999 up to 30 September = €2,139,665

1998 up to 30 September = €1,685,962

1997 up to 30 September = €553,303

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach has indicated that the goalposts have been moved again. The conclusion date of 11 January has been put back. Can he estimate how long the Moriarty tribunal will continue, based on current information? Will he clarify the situation as regards the unforeseen circumstances, given the unacceptable cost that is involved, since the inquiry is about corruption within the political process? What unforeseen circumstances make it impossible to predict when the tribunal will finish? Given the proposed scaling down of the fees, will he indicate what has been the response to date on that from the tribunal? Is it a matter of course that this will take place or are there unforeseen difficulties in that regard too, given that the House would like to minimise the cost of the tribunal?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy has asked a number of questions. The tribunal states it will finish its work by the end of June next year. Given the unforeseen circumstances as regards the litigation of parties involved and other matters, it remains confident that it will finish by next June. The new legislation will be in place by then. That means we will automatically move to the new fees arrangements. We have agreed those dates. Were it not for genuine delays and additional work, the new fees regime would be in place anyway. The Attorney General and Government agree that it is reasonable in these circumstances to allow the tribunal the time it needs to finish. I am advised, however, that the tribunal is confident it will finish by the end of June next year.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Taoiseach agree that this tribunal has continued for much longer than anyone could have anticipated? Is it not fair that we factor in the number of times its work has been obstructed? That is not a value judgment on my part as to whether it ought to continue, but merely to note that it has been obstructed many times as various parties have had resort to the courts. In assessing the balance sheet, it is fair to say that?

In his reply to Deputy Sargent, did the Taoiseach say that there is informal contact between the tribunal and the Office of the Attorney General and that there is an end in sight? Has the Taoiseach further information on a question which I put to him before about this, whether the figures he has given in the House include the cost of litigation engaged in to date and whether the State is picking up the bill for that? Is that included in the figures he has given the House?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On the first point, it is true that there have been a number of unforeseen circumstances. The extensive nature of the terms of reference, ongoing inquiries and litigation by parties have contributed to this. Nonetheless, the tribunal believes that its work can be finished entirely by 30 June 2006. The Attorney General, who has been notified of the reasons for the extension, has told the Government that he believes this is the last one and that the tribunal will finish on 30 June. It remains to be seen whether that is the case, but I understand that it is, so long as no further difficulties arise.

The position is not so clear as regards Deputy Rabbitte's second question. The total cost which I have given is €21,364,879. This figure includes fees paid to counsel for the tribunal, administration costs incurred to date and the cost of the legal team. It is impossible, however, to predict the projected cost upon completion, including what costs may be awarded and to whom by the sole member of the tribunal. That is not in our estimation. Such decisions must be made by the chairman and will depend on those who try, in whatever form, to recover their costs. The precedent set by other tribunals suggests that some but not all third-party costs will be allowed.

I included some €10 million for this purpose in this year's Estimates. I have already released a major part of this into the Exchequer because it is clear the tribunal will not end this year. We must decide what figure to factor in for next year. The Government has no clear idea in this regard and this year's figure was indicative. We do not know whether it is too much or too little.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What is the Taoiseach's reaction to Mr. Justice Moriarty's ruling on 29 September, rejecting submissions from Mr. Denis O'Brien that——

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The business of a tribunal should not be discussed in the House. There are many rulings from the Chair that such issues are not a matter for the Dáil.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It was extremely difficult to follow what the Taoiseach said in response to Deputy Sargent. In the context of the ruling to which I referred, does the Taoiseach not anticipate any extensive roll-on in time in regard to the Moriarty tribunal's sittings? Are there cost implications from this ruling for his Department? It is unclear whether the new fee to apply from 11 January 2006 will kick in as of that date, irrespective of what progress has been made by the tribunal at that time.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will try to be clear. An extension was sought for the reasons outlined in my reply and reiterated to Deputies Sargent and Rabbitte. It is hoped the tribunal will complete its work by the end of June. The new fee rate will come in after that.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The specified time was 11 January.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes. However, I have given the reasons for the change in this regard. Due to the extensive nature of its terms of reference, its ongoing inquiries and the litigation of parties involved, the tribunal has asked for additional time to complete its work.

I can make no comment or judgment in regard to any of the tribunal's decisions. Neither do I know what costs will be given by the sole member. These are matters he must adjudge at the completion of his work.

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The terms of reference made provision for the publication of an interim report not later than three months from the date of establishment of the tribunal. Was such a report presented to the House? Has the Taoiseach asked for any subsequent reports that would give some indication of the tribunal's thinking, bearing in mind that some of the issues, apart from the investigative side, concern recommendations in regard to public policy, including those relating to the Revenue Commissioners, Central Bank, accountancy law and procedure, company law and public administration? Has the Taoiseach, over the years, sought interim reports that could shed light on how we can prevent any corrosion of the nature in which we do business across all these spectrums?

The terms of reference also specify that the inquiry should be completed in as economical a manner as possible and at the earliest stage consistent with the fair examination of the relevant matters. The Taoiseach has stated that provision of €4 million has been made for the 12 sitting days that remain this year. Is he satisfied these are soundly based costings? Rather than deferring the date when lower costings will come into place, should we not bring forward that date? The Taoiseach suggests 30 June is a definite end date as opposed to one that may again be extended due to litigation or some other of the factors listed in his reply. Has he reason to believe this is a more definitive date than the other dates that were extended?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This extension was requested by the sole member and it his belief that the tribunal will end on that date. As the end approaches, he has a clearer picture of the work remaining to be done.

I have never asked the tribunal for interim reports because its terms of reference were devised by the Oireachtas and it would be inappropriate for me to do so.

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Was a first interim report presented?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Subject to correction, I understand no interim report was provided by the Moriarty tribunal.

In regard to fees, the former Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, believed the proposed system was fair, based on the workload and commitment of those working at the various tribunals. The Attorney General, on behalf of the Government, consulted them in agreeing a date on which the new fee structure would come into operation, provided there was not some extension of the terms of reference or some additional work to be undertaken. Such dates were agreed with all the tribunals, some now in the past and others still to come, with a view to ending the current fee system.

The instigation of a new system of committees of investigation will be the new way of dealing with what has been dealt with by tribunals. The new tribunals of inquiry legislation, which will come before the House shortly, will provide a new framework for tribunals of inquiry and require the chairperson to conduct an inquiry in a cost effective and efficient manner. It will also provide the Oireachtas with a more flexible mechanism for such inquiries, one that will focus on taking evidence in public. Some elements of the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 relating to the efficient management of investigations, provision of interim reports and requirements to prepare an estimate of the timeframe and cost of an investigation will be incorporated into the forthcoming tribunals of inquiry Bill. These two items of legislation reflect our experience of these issues over the last eight years or more. There will be a new process in the future.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is becoming increasingly clear that the Taoiseach must not simply come into the House and say he is pushing back the date on which the new rates kick in. On 22 June, he said that if there was to be any change in the coming into force of the new fees by 11 January 2006, he would bring the matter back before the House. This is something that cannot be passed off with the reply that the date has been shifted. This House must consider whether it is right to put back the date of the new rates. Will the Taoiseach bring a more substantial motion before the House so Members can decide whether the new date is to be applied or whether the new rates are to become effective later than was arranged? Where is the legislation that was promised? The tribunals of inquiry Bill has been promised in the last two sessions. Is it not the case that the Taoiseach finds himself on the back foot due to the delay in introducing this legislation and that the solicitors are, essentially, calling the shots——

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That question does not arise under these questions.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——at an expensive rate? A sum of €213,000 is the new rate and that is a reduced, bargain rate given the new rates being proposed for a senior counsel. Much money has still to be paid out.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What lobby was employed to get the Taoiseach and his colleagues to concede the extension of the old rates from 12 January to the suggested date of the end of June? Who ultimately took the decision to concede? Was any consideration given to, and what is the Taoiseach's view of, the consequences of this decision on the Moriarty tribunal applying to the other tribunals that have set dates for the new fees to become effective? There are many questions about this and I urge the Taoiseach to be as open as possible in the House.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This issue does not arise directly from the question. I raised it in the reply because it was appropriate to do so. The Government only made the decision on this today. There was no lobbying on this issue. The original dates were fixed by conversation between the Attorney General and the ten chairmen of the tribunals on dates of completion. If there is some new work under the terms of reference, something comes to light, there are delays because of litigation or some other difficulty arises, the work cannot be completed. All these matters arose in this case and the chairman stated that to complete the work efficiently and to retain the team, that time was required.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Blackmail, in other words.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That would be entirely unfair both to the legal team and to Mr. Justice Moriarty. I have my own views about the tribunals and trying to get them all to the date but where there is additional work, litigation or other issues to hold up a tribunal, particularly if this tribunal is to be finished next summer, that would be an unfair interpretation to put on it.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach has given in to it.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With regard to the legislation, the new tribunals of inquiry Bill will be passed, which will mean that when work comes to an end they should be able to move on this. All the other tribunals are still working to that deadline. It is not a question that this is just being rolled over but the chairman has given a fixed date to end the tribunal and to deal with all aspects. If that does not happen, it is a problem but at least the plan to complete it has been outlined. Based on that, the Attorney General brought the matter to the Cabinet and the Cabinet approved it. Obviously, the Minister for Finance——

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The House has not approved it. The Taoiseach said he would bring the decision to the House.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I call Question No. 6.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach said it would come before the House. The House has not approved——

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask Deputy Sargent to resume his seat. I have called Question No. 6.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am simply calling for order in the House.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy has been given much latitude on this question today.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach said he would bring that decision before the House. The House has not approved moving that date back.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I call the Taoiseach on Question No. 6.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is taxpayers' money.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Representations from the Law Library could not be described as lobbying.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Definitely not.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They have something on him.