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

Question 1: To ask the Taoiseach the cost which accrued to his Department in respect of the Moriarty tribunal since January 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15556/09]

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

Question 2: To ask the Taoiseach the costs that have accrued to date to his Department arising from the Moriarty tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15593/09]

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

Question 3: To ask the Taoiseach the costs which have accrued to his Department in respect of the Moriarty tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18625/09]

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

Question 4: To ask the Taoiseach the full cost to his Department to date of the Moriarty tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20711/09]

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.

The expenditure incurred by my Department in respect of the Moriarty tribunal from 1 January 2009 to 31 May 2009 was €1.78 million. Total expenditure in my Department from the establishment of the tribunal in September 1997 to 31 May 2009 was €36.25 million.

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

The total figure is €36.25 million while the figure for 2008 was €4.01 million. I understand from the Comptroller and Auditor General's report that the final cost will be in the region of €100 million.

I want to ask the Taoiseach a question I asked him before. He is aware that the normal practice for tribunals is to use lawyers from the Office of the Chief State Solicitor and that the highest level of salary for these officials is €85,000. Will the Taoiseach confirm that for the past four years the Moriarty tribunal has ignored that arrangement and engaged a solicitor from private practice? Can he confirm that the fees of €1,000 per day are in excess of €1.2 million for the last four years? Does he have a justification or reason for having sanctioned the use of a solicitor from a private practice when the tradition in tribunals has always been to use persons from the Office of the Chief State Solicitor? As the Taoiseach is aware, fees were set in 2002, seven years ago. Is it intended to review the pay scales of lawyers to the Moriarty tribunal?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In the latter part of 2004, the sole member of the tribunal formed a view that, in the context of increased pressures on the tribunal, a solicitor with experience in commercial practice and litigation from the private sector was required in addition to the tribunal's existing solicitor on secondment from the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. As the Department wished to avoid the cost of two solicitors, it was agreed that instead of an additional solicitor, the private sector solicitor would replace the solicitor from the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. That appointment was expected to be of limited duration in view of the then expectation of the completion of the tribunal's work.

Sanction was obtained from the Department of Finance and a rate of €1,000 per diem agreed, which is also the rate paid to solicitors at the Mahon tribunal. The private sector solicitor was to be recruited by the tribunal. We are informed by the tribunal that he was recruited by interview process, his appointment being at the discretion of the sole member, subject to the sanction of the Departments of the Taoiseach and Finance. The sole member has assured the Departments that when public sittings are conclusively completed the role of the legal team is likely to diminish.

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

In July 2008 the Minister for Finance stated that it was decided that legal counsels to the Tribunal would no longer be paid once public hearings were completed. The Government told the Departments to which the tribunals report that tribunal legal teams, including a senior counsel at €2,700 per day, should be let go. That did not happen in the Moriarty tribunal. Does the Taoiseach have a figure for how much has been paid out since last July toward a tribunal which has sat only a handful of times? On 14 July 208 The Irish Times reported that the Minister for Finance had told the Departments to whom tribunals reported that once the public hearings were over, legal staff associated with it should no longer be paid.

The recent Comptroller and Auditor General's report on tribunals made no specific recommendation on the Moriarty tribunal However the report made it clear that the implementation of the Government's legal costs working group's recommendations to establish a legal costs regulatory body could help combat the escalation of legal costs and promote regulation and a structure in which future estimation could be carried out. Arising from that, why did the Government not establish a structure or agency to manage legal costs, given all of what is involved here?

Does the Taoiseach have an opinion, as Taoiseach, on the tribunals which have been established to do specific work? Does he see a situation where we should have a future referendum to ask the people to restore the position whereby Members of the Oireachtas, whoever they might be, would be entitled to carry out investigative or examination work? This happened with the DIRT inquiry and to some extent with the Abbeylara inquiry. While people might be very cynical about politics and politicians, those two inquiries did a remarkable job at very little cost to the taxpayer and, in the case of the DIRT inquiry, brought a sizeable return to the Exchequer. With all the public comment about costs associated with tribunals, perhaps the Taoiseach might reflect on the matter.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Following the Government decision of July 2008, the Minister for Finance wrote to his Cabinet colleagues with responsibility for tribunals stressing that it was essential that tribunals and inquiries conclude their business as early as possible and that legal costs were managed in the interest of the taxpayer. He requested them to inform the chairs of the main features of the Government decision and asked that they seek a firm completion date from the respective chairpersons. As a result of that decision we wrote to the sole member who indicated that it was his intention to complete his work - that is to publish his report - by the end of that year. Up to December 2008 the Department was still being informed that the timetable was still on course.

While, naturally, I am not privy to the workings of the tribunal or kept informed of its investigative work, obviously a number of things have happened regarding the tribunal. The preliminary findings, which are in circulation, were subject to an injunction when some media threatened to publish them and these proceedings took a considerable amount of the time of the legal team. The chairman issued his preliminary findings in November and interested and affected parties have responded. Fresh evidence is being heard to allow people adversely affected by the provisional findings to argue against them.

The result is that while public hearings are still being held the full legal team is in place. Further hearings are taking place this month. I understand that it is likely that after that is completed the chairman would then proceed to finalise a report in the months thereafter. That is my latest understanding of how he intends to independently complete proceedings as things stand.

Regarding the overall issue of tribunals etc., we have enacted legislation. Commissions of inquiry may in future be a far more appropriate mechanism of investigation without the associated cost that have arisen with these tribunals of inquiry, where a life's work seems to be part of the outcome. Committees of this House have their roles. Where they have been able to work within the legal constraints without offending the constitutional rights of citizens, they have been able to conduct good work on various issues some of which have been suggested by Deputy Kenny. Working within all those parameters, the commissions of inquiry and the investigative powers of committees could provide a better means for the future.

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

Two questions arise from the Taoiseach's reply. As the Taoiseach has said the Moriarty tribunal has reopened public hearings. This is apparently as a result of the draft findings of the tribunal which were circulated to interested parties. Can the Taoiseach give the House any indication as to when those public hearings will be completed? When are we likely to eventually get a report from the Moriarty tribunal?

Related to that it has been reported that a document - I understand from the reports that the document contained legal advices sought by the then Attorney General back in mid 1990s - about which the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources had claimed legal privilege and had withheld the document from the Moriarty tribunal for more than ten years, has now been produced to the Moriarty tribunal. Can the Taoiseach confirm that such a document that had been withheld for that period of time has now been produced? Has he made any inquiries as to why the document was withheld in the first place and what caused it to be eventually released? This is about cost.

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

Unfortunately, the matters the Deputy are raising are matters for the independent tribunal of inquiry and not matters for the Taoiseach to address on the floor of the House.

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

The issue here relates to cost. It has been suggested in reports regarding this document that had it been made available to the tribunal at an earlier stage, it would have foreshortened the work of that tribunal-----

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

That is a matter for the independent chairperson.

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

-----therefore having implications for its eventual cost.

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

I have made my point.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I cannot comment on that really. It is a matter for the chairperson to adjudicate on in due course as to its significance, relevance or otherwise. It is not a matter for me to engage in.

As regards the ongoing work, it is expected that public hearings will take place during the course of this month. In so far as one can gauge, it will not be beyond this month. That is my best information. The report will be brought forward later this year. That is our best understanding of what is intended, based on the work that is ongoing there at the moment.

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

I accept that the content of the document, its implications and its impact on the matters under investigation are matters for the tribunal. I do not wish to comment on that, but I do want to raise a question with the Taoiseach. Is it true that a Government Department withheld a document for ten years claiming legal privilege on it and has now made that document available for the second round of public hearings? Is that true, or not? I am not commenting on the content of the document, which is a matter for the tribunal. If it is true, however, we are owed some explanation as to why privilege was claimed on it in the first place and why it was lifted when the second round of hearings came up.

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

We are dealing with the costs that have accrued to the Department of the Taoiseach. I call An Theachta Ó Snodaigh.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With the reopening of public hearings it is difficult to gauge what the cost will be. Does the Taoiseach have any projected costs or figures in mind at this stage? Has there been a projected date for the conclusion of the tribunal? The Taoiseach will be aware that some of those under investigation by the Moriarty tribunal remain major tax avoiders, and the cost to the State as a result. Has the Government taken any lessons from the tribunals? Will it introduce measures, including legislation, to address the problem of tax avoidance by wealthy people who make fortunes here and use loopholes to avoid paying tax in this State? Some of them will probably benefit from the tribunal, even though they are not citizens, because their costs might be paid for them, although they are not paying tax in this country. Will that anomaly be addressed?

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

We are moving into new pastures now.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

All I can say is that the sole member of the tribunal will not turn his mind to the question of third party costs until such time as he concludes his deliberations on the report. We await the report's findings and, as part of his job, the sole member will then make further legal decisions on those matters.