Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 1: To ask the Taoiseach if all fees and costs arising from the McCracken tribunal of inquiry have been discharged; the reason token amounts remain in the Estimates of his Department under this heading; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29416/07]

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

Question 2: To ask the Taoiseach the costs that have accrued to his Department in respect of the McCracken tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30766/07]

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

Question 3: To ask the Taoiseach the cost which accrued to his Department in respect of the Moriarty tribunal since 1 January 2007; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30767/07]

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

Question 4: To ask the Taoiseach if all fees and costs arising from the McCracken tribunal have been discharged; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30968/07]

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 5: To ask the Taoiseach the costs which have accrued to his Department in respect of the Moriarty tribunal up to the latest date for which figures are available; if an estimate is available of the expected final cost; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31971/07]

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 cost to date of the McCracken tribunal is €6.56 million. A token provision for 2008 was made to cover potential claims arising from the McCracken tribunal. Two of the parties who were granted representation before the tribunal have not yet claimed their costs. The Chief State Solicitor's Office has no method of estimating how much the claims might amount to, should they ever be submitted. However, it cannot be assumed that these parties will not claim their costs at some future point. They are entitled to these costs and prudent provision must be made in the Estimates.

As regards the Moriarty tribunal, the total cost incurred by my Department since 1997 up to 31 December 2007 was €30,466,497. For 2007, up to 31 December, the figure was €4,154,564. It is not possible at this stage to estimate the final costs.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand that the amount in the Estimates for the McCracken tribunal is €1. Presumably, the two witnesses or participants in the tribunal are likely to claim a bit more than that if they claim. Is there any estimate of what the likely claim for costs will be?

According to reports prior to Christmas, Judge Moriarty was planning to publish his report in January. However, there has been some speculation that some of those referred to in the report may take legal action to block its publication. What does the Taoiseach know about the publication of the Moriarty tribunal report and when we are likely to see it?

Over the Christmas period, the Taoiseach and some of his Ministers were very vocal about the costs associated with tribunals. Will the Taoiseach confirm that legal costs — the scale of fees with lawyers — were set by his Government?

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

The figure of €1 is present in the Estimates to keep the subhead open pending whatever might happen in respect of the two outstanding claims. Due to the passage of time, there is some thought that these may not be claimed although the two parties are entitled to claim them. A case arising from the beef tribunal is before the courts where the State is arguing that the Statute of Limitations applies. The Office of the Attorney General would be of the view that it would apply where a similar situation arises. Until that situation is clarified, the token provision remains. It will remain until that case is dealt with. If the case is dealt with successfully, we will probably remove it from the Estimates but it remains there pending the resolution of that case.

In respect of the Moriarty tribunal, I do not have a date. It has been the view for a considerable period of time that Judge Moriarty wants to complete this work and his fine report. Obviously, there are considerations around some legal actions. I have no more information on those than Deputy Gilmore. I understand that Judge Moriarty hopes to conclude it as soon as he can. Obviously, he must take some of those considerations into account and that is the only issue outstanding.

Following the work done by the former Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, some years ago, a number of the tribunals did not move to the new cost structure. Hopefully, 2008 will see the tribunal into the Donegal case and the Moriarty tribunal come to an end. We did not change the cost structure, including that for the Mahon tribunal, because of the time involved. They were set by the Government but we want to bring them all to a conclusion based on the fee structure put in place. Those fee structures are different because some of the tribunals moved to the new fee structure while others did not. For future tribunals, we have laid down a new structure which is very different from and less costly to the Exchequer than the higher structure.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach makes it sound like the tribunals decide what they will be paid. Will he confirm that it is the Government, specifically the Attorney General, which agrees the scale of fees with the lawyers at the various tribunals? I will return to the Mahon tribunal. In 2004, the then Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, described the scales of fees then applying as astronomical and said that the gravy train had gone on long enough. He announced new scales of fees which would apply specifically to the Mahon tribunal and, I think, to the Moriarty tribunal at that stage. There were various stages by which these scales of fees were supposed to come into effect, for example, the autumn of 2004 and February and September of 2006.

On each occasion that these new scales of fees were supposed to come into effect, the Government changed it and allowed the existing fees to continue. It is the height of hypocrisy for Ministers to bellyache, which they have done for the past number of months now, about the fees paid to lawyers at the Mahon tribunal when the Government set those fees. Will the Taoiseach confirm to the House that the legal fees being paid to lawyers at the various tribunals were set and approved by the Government?

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

The answer to that question is a simple "Yes". All fees have been negotiated and arranged by the Government. The point I was making related to when the former Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, and the then Attorney General set about negotiating new fee structures with the tribunals. We had about eight tribunals in one form or another pursuing different investigations at that stage. In the case of some tribunals that were near an end, they allowed the fees to remain while they wrapped up. There was a view in those that remained on the highest structure that their end was imminent, which is why they allowed the fees to remain as they were.

The new fee structure has been implemented for a number of tribunals, some of which have come to an end, while the Breen and Buchanan tribunal has only begun. The new fee structure is in place for those tribunals.

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

Has there been any recovery of costs in respect of the McCracken tribunal, given that some of those interviewed were less than comprehensive in their co-operation with the tribunal? What efforts have been made and what recovery has been brought about? Is there any report on that?

In respect of the Moriarty tribunal, I did not catch the clarity of the Taoiseach's reply to Deputy Gilmore. The tax business of the two principals dealt with by the Moriarty tribunal was dealt with while the tribunal was carrying out its work. I did not catch what the Taoiseach said with regard to his business with the Revenue Commissioners while the Mahon tribunal is ongoing. What is the view of the Taoiseach on that?

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I remind Members that the Taoiseach is only responsible for the costs associated with the tribunal and the questions tabled refer to that matter. It is not appropriate for a Taoiseach to answer detailed questions on the report or questions personal to him, other than those that fall within the remit of his Department. I must point that out.

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

Regarding the McCracken tribunal, the total cost is €6.56 million to the best of my knowledge. That is the gross cost, as far as I know none of the individuals involved has engaged in netting off any return figure. If that is incorrect I will advise Deputy Kenny.

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

If it is incorrect the Taoiseach can let me know.

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

I do not think it is because I have answered this question before. I will have that checked.

To clarify the other issue again, it is possible that the Revenue Commissioners can resolve this ongoing matter at any time. If I stated that it would be resolved at the end, I should not have said that.

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

Does the Taoiseach still agree with his statement, at the time of the publication of the McCracken tribunal report, that "the acceptance of large gifts or payments or personal benefits in a surreptitious manner or the large scale evasion of tax and exchange control regulations by even one or two senior serving politicians or members of Government is deeply damaging to trust in politics"? There has been much criticism by the Taoiseach and other Ministers of the Mahon tribunal for the scope of its investigations, its duration and cost. There is a credibility deficit because there are pertinent questions about many other tribunals but we have not heard these criticisms of other tribunals in which the Taoiseach was not directly involved.

Regarding costs, can the Taoiseach clearly and exactly spell out the steps that have been taken and the measures introduced to reduce the cost of tribunals, especially the exorbitant daily rate paid to counsel?

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

The new rates or set fees paid to a senior counsel will be based on the current annual salary of a High Court judge, plus 20% in respect of pension contributions. Related payments will be paid to other legal staff, including barristers and solicitors. The new measures will drastically reduce the legal costs of new tribunals or those existing tribunals that have already changed and where the new rates will apply from a future date. The new rates represent less than 40% of the maximum current rate paid to the counsel of tribunal inquiry. The rates are at a different level to what has been the case for the past ten years. Does that answer Deputy Ó Caoláin's question?

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

Regarding the Taoiseach's position at the publication of the McCracken tribunal report, I cited what he said at the time.

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

That is still my view.

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

Regarding criticisms of the scope of the investigations, the duration of the Mahon tribunal and its cost, many of these questions are also pertinent to other tribunals yet there is not the same focus from the Taoiseach or his Ministers. The Taoiseach has answered in part, referring to what has been done or what was proposed in respect of the curtailment of costs of tribunals. The Taoiseach signalled the introduction of new daily rates applying to counsel, which were subsequently deferred, deferred again and are not applied in critical cases, including the Mahon tribunal. In 2004 I noted that the Minister for Finance indicated that the cost to date of all inquiries, completed and current, was then some €440 million. Can the Taoiseach indicate the updated figure? What do we know of the overall outlay of the State commitment, not only what is paid but what has been clocked up and will be due for payment in the future? I fear the figure will have more than multiplied the €440 million indicated by the then Minister for Finance in 2004.

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

On the general point, the Commissions of Investigation Act sets out clearly the best consideration of how we should deal with these issues in the future. With the new fee structure, that would make a dramatic change to the speed and type of investigation and how issues are dealt with.

Personally and as Taoiseach, I have appeared before the children's abuse tribunal, the Moriarty and Mahon tribunals and possibly another but I cannot remember which one. The point has been made about the length of time that passes from urgent business to the end date. Regarding the issue that we will debate later, collusion, a point made by all relatives is that they do not want the State to get into a long process. They want to focus on the issue that can be dealt with in a number of months, without building up major costs to the State.

To the end of 2007, the total cost to the Exchequer of completed and sitting tribunals of inquiry and other public inquiries is €323.17 million, not including the third party costs that will emanate.

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

The Minister indicated a figure of €440 million in 2004. There is a major discrepancy and I am sure none of the counsels has paid a refund or returned moneys to the State. How can the figure be smaller today than what was indicated previously when a gap of four years applies?

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

Did the figure given by the Minister state the cost?

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

He stated that the cost of all inquiries, completed and current, was €440 million.

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

Was he not including projections for third party costs?

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

I will not discount that at this point. I must revisit what I have looked at.

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

I am excluding third party costs.

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

Is there an indication of what that figure might be?

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

An awful lot.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Pursuing the issue of costs, the lower scale of fees was announced by the then Minister for Finance, Mr. Charlie McCreevy, in the summer of 2004. He promised that they would come into effect in September 2006. In July 2006, the Government made a decision, announced in a one line statement on 13 July 2006, that the existing level of fees would continue for both the Moriarty and Mahon tribunals. What was the cost of that decision? If that decision had not been made and the lower fees had applied, how much would the State have saved in fees?

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

It is 40% of the costs.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is obviously not 40% of the full €300 million.

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

No, it will be 40% of the fees element.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are talking about several tens of millions of euro which resulted from a Government decision to continue with the existing level of legal fees. However, over the Christmas, a parade of Ministers made out the levels of fees paid to the tribunals had nothing to do with them when they had agreed to keep them at that level.

My next question is on the recovery of some of the moneys paid out and some of it yet to be paid out when the third party costs come to be assessed. Some time ago, the Government promised legislation on corruption and to establish an agency similar to the Criminal Assets Bureau, the purpose of which was to recover the ill-gotten gains of people who had either been paid bribes or benefited from corrupt decisions. Is it still intended to introduce this legislation? Is it intended to recover moneys from those paid bribes? Are there any plans to recover from those who benefited from corrupt decisions, such as landowners who had land rezoned as a result of a corrupt decision of a local authority? Is there any intention to introduce legislation which will recover some of the gains these people made in order to defray the considerable cost incurred by the taxpayer in the inquiries into these matters?

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

Two Bills on corruption are with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. One is nearly ready for publication but I am not sure of the status of the other. The Deputy will need to table a parliamentary question to the Department on that. It will be a matter, when the Bill is implemented, of what action will be taken on these matters.

It was decided in 2006 to leave the present legal teams intact so that it might bring an efficient end to the tribunals. If the legal teams were removed, it was felt some of those involved would vacate their positions and disrupt the tribunals' work. That is why the decision was made at that stage.