Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding €4,000,000 to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st day of December 2009 for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

I am seeking a Supplementary Estimate for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in the amount of €4 million. This will bring the total Vote of the DPP's office to €45.1 million. The costs of the Supplementary Estimate will be met from savings elsewhere within the Taoiseach's group of Votes.

The need for the Supplementary Estimate arises from increased demand led pressures on the two programme subheads, subheads B and C, in the Vote for the office. As regards legal fees, there has been a significant increase in the number of fees paid in 2009 arising from levels of case activity and this has lead to increased costs overall, despite reductions in the fee levels. There has also been an increase in the number and size of awards made by the courts. In other regards, the director in 2009 is within budget on salary costs and other administrative costs. He is also broadly within expected expenditure levels with regard to the local State solicitor service.

In recent years we have assigned more gardaí and allocated increased resources to the courts, and inevitably this has led to increased activity in the prosecution service and associated legal costs for the DPP, despite applying the reduction of 8% in individual fees to barristers. There have also been associated costs for the defence which is provided mainly through the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme administered by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

More criminal cases are being tried and disposed of in the courts. In the Central Criminal Court, where murder and rape cases are heard, the number of judges sitting in 2009 was increased. During 2009, seven Circuit Courts regularly sat in Dublin compared to six in 2008. Additional sittings have also taken place on circuits outside of Dublin during the year to reduce significant backlogs in dealing with criminal cases which had developed in some parts of the country. While most cases end in either guilty pleas or short trials, some high profile and complex cases can run for a considerable period and result in substantial costs. Two such cases this year ran for a combined total of 116 days.

In recent years the remit of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has been extended. Under legislation enacted in 2005, the 32 local State solicitors moved from the aegis of the Attorney General to report to the Director of Public Prosecutions. In 2001, the Government oversaw the transfer of the criminal division of the Chief State Solicitor's office to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Notwithstanding this, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, in common with other public sector bodies, must now do more with fewer resources.

I would like to outline the range of measures the DPP has implemented to reduce expenditure in his office. I understand he has managed to reduce operating costs without adversely affecting frontline prosecution services. He has been able to operate in 2009 with a non-pay administrative funding of €3.1 million or 38% less than in 2008. The DPP has also delivered the 3% payroll savings target set for all Civil Service organisations. He has also implemented initiatives within his office to reduce expenditure on counsels' fees, such as the non-application in September 2008 of a 2.5% increase in fees, suspension of the long-standing practice of paying an additional refresher fee for cases which run beyond 5 p.m., and the application of the 8% reduction in fees. I understand equivalent measures have been taken by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in respect of defence costs.

The DPP has provided assurances that the fees paid to counsel who prosecute on his behalf are well below the rate which counsel would charge to a private client and that every effort is being made to minimise legal costs while maintaining the prosecution service. The DPP has also pointed out that in the majority of indictable cases he is represented only by a single junior counsel. I understand the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is bringing forward changes aimed at ensuring that a senior counsel may be assigned to the defence only in more serious cases. This initiative was also approved of by the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes, as were a number of other cost saving proposals the Minister is bringing forward in a new criminal legal aid Bill which is currently being drafted.

However, as I said previously, while the DPP is within budget with regard to salaries, operating costs and the costs of the local State solicitor service, funding pressures exist on his two programme subheads. That is why I come before the Dáil today to propose a supplementary estimate of €4 million. Subheads B and C of the Vote are experiencing significantly higher than anticipated levels of activity in 2009.

Subhead B provides for the fees paid to counsel who prosecute cases on behalf of the DPP in the various criminal courts. Notwithstanding the 8% reduction in counsels' fees, the DPP's office has seen a significant increase in the total cost of fees paid in 2009 compared to 2008, reflecting activity levels in the courts. In monetary terms, by the end of September some €11.629 million had been paid on fees. It is estimated that a provision of an additional €3 million will be required to ensure sufficient funds are available to meet liabilities this year. This addition of €3 million will bring the total provision for subhead B to €15.293 million.

There has been a significant increase in the number of brief fees and refresher fees paid. The brief fee is paid to counsel on the first day of trial or when a guilty plea is entered. It is anticipated that the final number of such fees this year could be 32% higher than last year. There also has been a substantial increase in the number of refresher fees paid compared to 2008. This fee is paid on the second and subsequent days of trials. It is estimated that the final number of these fees this year could be 29% higher than last year.

I turn now to subhead C, which provides for the payment of legal costs awarded by the courts in judicial review matters and other applications connected to legal proceedings. While the DPP's office takes steps to minimise both the number and value of awards, there is limited action which can be taken within the current legislative framework to contain costs. A new legal costs Bill is being drafted in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform which aims to bring more transparency and clarity to the current system of legal costs. This is being progressed as a priority issue and I understand it is expected to be published next year. It is estimated that a provision of an additional €1 million will be required to ensure sufficient funds are available to meet legal costs awarded by the courts which will arise in the remainder of the year. This addition of €1 million will bring the total provision for subhead C to €7 million.

In conclusion, the additional funding of €4 million I am seeking today, which I emphasise will be funded from savings this year from elsewhere within the Taoiseach's Vote group, is essential to ensure the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has sufficient funding to continue to discharge its functions the end of this year. As I outlined, I am assured that every effort has been made by the DPP to keep expenditure as low as possible. His efforts with regard to his administrative costs have produced real and substantial savings, involving tighter staffing numbers and pay costs, and non-pay administrative funding has been reduced in 2009 by €3.1 million, or 38%. The DPP has also implemented initiatives within his office to reduce expenditure on fees, such as the non-application in September 2008 of a 2.5% increase in fees, suspension of the long-standing practice of paying an additional refresher fee for cases which run beyond 5 p.m., and the application of the 8% reduction in fees. However, the need for this Supplementary Estimate has arisen from demand-led pressures on the DPP's Vote this year and the level of court activity and from court awards. The cost of the Supplementary Estimate will be met from savings elsewhere on the Taoiseach's group of Votes.

I commend this Supplementary Estimate to the House.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is almost a year since the Taoiseach reassured the House that slashing of funding to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions would have no adverse effects on the work of the office or on the role, function or carrying out of the duties of the DPP. Last November, the Government robustly defended its decisions to cut the budget of the DPP. Speaking in the Dáil, two months later, in January of this year, the Taoiseach, in reply to a question I raised, referred to the cut as a "minor imposition". The Government defended its action, despite the DPP's assertion that his office would be unable to process its workload and that it was already "very lean". The DPP stated at the time that the cuts the Government was inflicting on his office would make it "impossible to continue to provide an effective service".

At a time when the DPP's case load has been steadily increasing - by from 5% to 6% per annum - his budget was €3.5 million less this year than last year. Before the cut was made, EU reports, such as those of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, had found that Ireland's prosecution service had a pathetically low rate of per capita investment in its prosecution service compared to other EU states. It is no wonder our conviction rate for serious crime is so low.

A study of 11 European countries, published last April, recorded that in Ireland only 8% of reported rapes result in convictions. This rate is one of the lowest in the study. Reporting of rape had increased in Ireland by more than 500% between 1977 and 2007, but the conviction rate had fallen. Between 1998 and 2000, the conviction rate was 16%, but the study found this had dropped to 8%. Commenting on Ireland's abysmal record in this area, TCD criminologist, Dr. Paul O'Mahony, said the problem here appears to be one of under prosecution.

A parliamentary question raised on 16 September this year indicated that 114 murders involving firearms took place between 2004 and September 2009. As of 10 September this year, eight convictions had been secured for these 114 murders. That is a conviction rate of a mere 7%. The conviction rate for murders generally in the period 2004 to 2009 was less than 30%, with just 91 convictions secured for a total of 313 murders.

Where antisocial behaviour type offences are concerned, the Central Statistics Office has reported that, between 2003 and 2008, of the 13,460 offences carried out with knives, sticks or other offensive weapons, only 4,361 people were convicted. In other words, fewer than one-third of offences for the possession of knives and other non-firearm weapons have resulted in convictions over the five years up to and including 2008. Considering the very constrained budget with which the DPP is dealing, we must commend the achievements of Mr. Hamilton and those who work in his office. This year, while his budget plummeted, the Government put on further pressure.

The Minister's colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, introduced surveillance and anti-gang legislation. This year he proposes to introduce DNA database legislation. He has promised that the net result of this will be more successful convictions, yet the office charged with achieving this surge in convictions is being starved of funds. Now, towards the end of the year, we must grant a Supplementary Estimate to keep the show on the road. Fianna Fáil's favourite approach, of legislating without providing resources, is evident once again in the area of justice. Almost 12 months after the cut was made to the DPP's office, we note a shortfall of €4.3 million in its budget. We are now voting merely to keep the show on the road for another few months. This is a very strange approach to one of the most important offices in the State.

Last year the DPP announced his workload would increase even more, by providing relatives and victims of crime with reasons for not prosecuting or nor proceeding with a prosecution, in cases where a crime has been committed resulting in death. This new approach would help demystify the legal process, Mr. Hamilton said, and I agree. A pilot project is being undertaken in this regard. There is talk about the process being extended to other genres of criminal matters. Perhaps the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, would brief the House on the progress of that pilot project and offer his views on it. He might also, in this context, say why he chose to reject out of hand a Fine Gael Primate Members' Bill introduced by my colleague, Deputy Alan Shatter and I last year, which included provisions for the exact type of process in which Mr. Hamilton is now engaged.

The briefing material accompanying the Supplementary Estimate indicates that the shortfall in the budget of the DPP has arisen on the programme side, namely, fees to counsel, and general law costs. The Office of the DPP has already shaved €400,000 off barristers' fees by abolishing extra payments for court cases that run after 5 p.m. As this Supplementary Estimate shows, however, the office still continues to struggle. What solutions can the Minister offer the Director of Public Prosecutions and what leadership is being shown in this area? Cutting a budget, and then when a decision is shown to be deeply flawed, introducing a Supplementary Estimate, is not the ideal of adept leadership. Just as we cannot continue to create new offences without addressing the serious problems in our prison system, so too, we cannot introduce new anti-gangland measures while cutting the budget of the State prosecutor.

The Government's approach to prosecutions is wholly inconsistent and unsustainable. This type of flip-flopping is the result of poor decision making by the Minister in charge. I have the greatest respect for the Director of Public Prosecutions and I believe he must be listened to when he estimates the budget his office needs to prosecute crime on behalf of the people of this State. He is not prone to exaggeration and certainly not prone to waste. It is a year since Mr. Hamilton warned his office could not function efficiently or effectively with a serious budget cut. His warning has proven to be correct. In the preparations for the forthcoming budget, I ask the Minister to engage with his colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and with the DPP. The Minister should listen to the director when he outlines the funding needs of his office and respond positively towards him.

There are many areas where savings can be made, but we cannot be miserly when it comes to criminal prosecution and justice for the victims of serious criminal acts. I am happy to support the allocation of additional funding to the DPP, and I wish his office well in the important work that it undertakes on behalf of the people of this country.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The presentation of this Supplementary Estimate summarises all that is most difficult and in default with regard to the Government's management of public finances. It expresses as well the difficulties that lie within the McCarthy report. Each Department seems to have produced a wish list, while the expenditure section of the Department of Finance also had one, and the two wish lists were edited together into the McCarthy report.

When the Taoiseach, Deputy Brian Cowen, was Minister for Finance he delivered with a great fanfare what he described as a reform of the budgetary process. He did away with prior Estimates and instead, brought in a reformed process, where Estimates were introduced on the same day as the budget. That has resulted in an enormous reduction in the amount of information provided about Government spending plans on a departmental level, not just to the detriment of the Opposition, but also I suspect, to the Government itself. Formerly, the Estimates process had to be reviewed and completed a month or six weeks before the budget. The purpose of the reform, on paper, was very valuable because it was meant to be supplemented by activities in committee, where the type of detailed discussion regarding the Vote, outlined by Deputy Charles Flanagan, would have taken place well in advance of the budget and the Estimates then being published on budget day, because the committee would have discussed the matter in hand. Instead, the position now is that the information only becomes available when we are almost at the year end or on budget day.

The Minister for Finance says the €4 million will be found by other reductions in the Taoiseach's Vote. We do not even know what the other reductions are. Are they as a result of waste, because in many ways the McCarthy report is a testament to waste, since it issues lists of so many areas where money was spent, as much to gain political patronage as to do with the politics of the State? It goes without saying that the Vote of the DPP is fundamental to the rule and administration of law in this country. That is particularly true in the case of people who have suffered injury or been bereaved as a result of murder, manslaughter or vicious assault. If confidence is to be restored in the legal system among communities that find themselves under siege, there must be successful prosecution to bring murders and professional criminals speedily to justice. We share a constituency, so the Minister knows that the toll of murders over a number of years there, and in the constituency of the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, has been frightening. Many of those murders have gone unprosecuted and unpunished and the families made bereft of fathers and sons, for the most part, who have been murdered or killed, are waiting, in many cases, for justice to be done and to be seen to be done, with the wrongdoers deservedly being sent to prison for long periods of time. Having a functional DPP office which prosecutes on a timely basis and gets convictions is crucial.

One hardly ever wakes up these days without RTE reporting from some part of the country about somebody being murdered, killed or the subject of manslaughter. There was another such case in my constituency within the past ten days where a young man seems to have been beaten to death while at a disco. The impression and feeling of lawlessness that this Government has allowed is now strongly implanted in society.

With regard to professional criminals, I do not know whether anything has been done which seriously provides for the recovery of moneys from those who have acquired substantial assets, to cover their defence costs. Usually the cost of the defence of professional criminals is met through the legal aid system. Will the Minister say whether the 8% reduction in fees has been fully carried through, in terms of the services provided by barristers, solicitors and others, for legal services supplied to the State? It is important for public servants who are taking such a significant hit in terms of the pension levy as well as the other levies and taxes, that the sheltered private sector in Ireland, particularly where it gets much of its business from the State, is seen to be taking a commensurate hit.

I frequently pass the new Taj Mahal of the Courts Service, the new court buildings at the bottom of Parkgate Street, near the Phoenix Park. It is a huge complex. It is gigantic. There is a cost which was undertaken through a PPP mechanism when the Celtic tiger was at its height. Have the fees to be paid for that court arrangement been subject to any renegotiation? I am sure that court will be magnificent. The Phoenix Park has a very large memorial to the Duke of Wellington which has dominated the Dublin skyline for centuries. However, while it may not be as tall, the new courts complex is significantly bigger than the Wellington monument and now dominates the entrance to the park.

Some €42 million has been paid to date on the proposed prison at Thornton Hall, including the latest few tens of thousand of euro to be spent on additional landscape work around the prison. We are now living at a time when many families have lost employment. Families are living in very reduced circumstances, but we are still living with the legacy of Charlie McCreevy and a party on attitude, when nothing was too good or costly for the group of Ministers across the benches. Is the Minister aware of what the Taoiseach will cut from his Vote? Will it be superfluous items that just went with the glory years or will it cut into services that may be required?

The current DPP has done a considerable amount to improve the status and standing of the office. The efforts made by the DPP to increase the level of communication from his office particularly in the distressing circumstances of the avalanche of murders that regularly occur has been extremely important to the families of the victims. The various measures to improve information on court procedures given to the families of victims when they go to court are all welcome. From speaking to families in my constituency who have had to go to court to sit and listen to a case regarding their loved one who was murdered, it is clear that the improvement in communication has been extremely important. I commend the DPP and urge him to continue that process.

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

It is bizarre that at this stage of the year we are dealing with this issue regarding the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, given the warnings from those of us in Opposition and from the DPP himself about cuts in the Estimate for the running costs of his office last year. Society must make a choice about investing in the justice system. It is welcome that we are ensuring the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions continues to operate properly until the end of the year. However, it says much about the budgetary system and the absolute failures in the Minister's budget last year to take account of what is happening in the justice field.

While I was not present when the Minister gave his opening address on this matter, I have since read it. He has said that there have been savings by the DPP. However, he had no choice because otherwise he would have been in the position of seeking additional moneys in May. The Minister and his officials failed to take account of what was happening in the justice area if they miscalculated by €4 million the cost of running the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It has been plain for anyone to see that the courts are bogged down by more and more complex cases. The more complex they get the costlier they will get and the more time consuming they will be. Obviously it is important that justice is seen to be done and that every angle is covered.

The DPP is in a very difficult position. There is often a demand by the public for cases to get to court more quickly. The dangers of that have been seen time and again in the past year and in previous years, in that court cases are collapsing. When a court case collapses I presume legal counsel gets paid in full, even with the 8% reduction the Minister has quoted here. It is a difficult game for the DPP to juggle money. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions should always have the required sums, but it should be backed up by the changes required in terms of ensuring that the justice Vote as a whole - even though this one comes under the Department of the Taoiseach - deals with savings. If the money were invested in the probation and welfare service we could save millions if not tens of millions of euro every year by diverting people in larger numbers away from the prisons to community service and similar programmes through which offenders would be seen to pay their dues to society.

Obviously there is also a need to save money by avoiding circumstances where barristers - or solicitors at the very least - judges, those who are charged and witnesses all turn up in court only for the case to be adjourned because the material is not ready or there is some other delay. There needs to be greater co-ordination between the prosecution and defence to ensure a court case goes ahead on the scheduled date and that additional cost is not heaped upon the DPP owing to mistimed court cases.

The cuts in the Estimate for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions last year and the cuts in Garda overtime, the blocking of promotions in the Garda Síochána and the recruitment ban all add up to major problems in the justice system in the foreseeable future. In addition there is the difficulty that the forensic science laboratory has not gone ahead. The only thing that has gone ahead - this says much about Irish society under the Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats Governments - is the privatisation of justice and public private partnerships. I heard mention earlier of the glass box at the entrance to the Phoenix Park. The development of the courts complex is to be welcomed and I welcomed it at the time when we debated it. However, the problem is that it is under the PPP system just as the Government proposed for the prison complex at Thornton Hall. That is the legacy.

It is interesting that this comes about through a saving of €4 million from the Department of the Taoiseach's group of Votes. I wonder where those savings were made. I did not notice the Taoiseach mention that he had a spare €4 million floating around in his Vote that he could spend on anything. Many schools that require special needs classes etc. would like to have heard that earlier so they could ask the Taoiseach to divert that money to those causes rather than to the DPP. However, as the DPP needs this money, I am not arguing against it and will not vote against it. It is an absolute failure with regard to the forecasting of figures if, for such a small Vote as that of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Minister got it so wrong.

I presume that, prior to the budget last year, the DPP made submissions to the Minister that he would have a certain amount of costs for the period 2009-10 and that he had already pared back on costs and tried to save, as we know from previous years. Yet, in his wisdom, the Minister last year introduced a cut. We are now dealing with a major crisis because if the DPP's office did not get this €4 million, matters would slow to a halt until the new year or until the budget was saved.

I do not believe there is any opposition to this Estimate. It simply shows the need for much more time and effort to be put into forecasting the exact cost of the court cases the DPP is preparing. We know in advance approximately how many court cases the DPP will present next year because cases are usually taken a year after the arrests, given the time it takes to get to court. The prediction would be simple to make. The Minister mentioned two cases which collapsed and then ran on for a combined total of 116 days, but, while they might have been slightly abnormal cases, they would not have been out of synch with previous years. There are often substantial court cases, and future cases will be increasingly complicated as the Garda Síochána and the DPP rely increasingly on forensic evidence in trying to prove a trail of evidence while the criminal gangs try to beat the system and make it more difficult for convictions to be gained.

I urge the Minister, when responding, to deal in particular with the preparation for this year's budget and to take account of the failure to ensure the DPP has sufficient moneys to deal with the workload he and his office will undertake for the period 2010-11. We must ensure we do not have to come back to the House in October or November next with an emergency or Supplementary Estimate just to allow the DPP's office to survive.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Ó Snodaigh suggested there was a great crisis. In the immortal words of one famous Irish politician, "What crisis?" The DPP is doing his job very well. In fact, he has been very successful at implementing economies in his office. I join all Members of the House in commending him on his work and the great ability he has brought to it. He is not and should not be the subject of any party debate between us but, in regard to this alleged crisis, there is no crisis. The simple explanation-----

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

He is €4 million short.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No crisis in crime? It is over a year since he was Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform but he should not be that remote.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no crisis in his operation. There is €4 million short in his legal fees. These could be paid next year but with prompt payment legislation in place-----

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

I doubt the solicitors and barristers will wait that long.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the fact that Opposition Members support the Estimate to discharge these fees to counsel and to solicitors. However, the reality is that this has happened because there has been an unprecedented growth in the volume of criminal business before the courts. That is a testimony-----

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

That could have been predicted last year.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The bulk of it will have to be with the Revenue on-line service before 17 November.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is a testimony to the ability and capacity of the Garda Síochána to bring individuals to justice. The gardaí are to be commended on this. Commissioner Fachtna Murphy and his force are doing tremendous work in bringing individuals to justice.

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

Nobody is taking anything away from the Garda Síochána.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is the dramatic increase in the number of cases before the courts that has occasioned this increase in legal fees. This can be illustrated by the fact that this increase has taken place notwithstanding an 8% reduction in fees.

I confirm, in response to Deputy Burton's question, that the position is that this has been applied to all legal professionals. That has also taken place despite the fact that the director took certain measures in regard to the payment of additional fees after certain hours. All of that has been done by the director and the Government to contain costs. The director has gone a long way in containing his own payroll costs and the costs of his office.

This is a demand-led aspect. Because of the independence of the DPP, his Vote must be separate from other Votes. With me and my Department, the Taoiseach bears an overall responsibility in regard to the preparation of the Estimate but the DPP must have a separate Vote to confirm his independence. That is why it is necessary to vary it at this stage of the year. All I am saying to Deputy Ó Snodaigh is that this will be done by any responsible Government and Minister in the circumstances we are in.

It raises questions about the commitment of the Opposition parties to the necessary fiscal controls we must have that they find it surprising we would have insisted on rigorous control of public expenditure at the outset. Better to have erred in that direction than to provide too much at the start. We are now dealing with the necessary contingency that arose, which was not a foreseeable contingency-----

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

It was definitely foreseeable.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----although the director made certain comments about it at the time. We will always work in close co-operation with the director.

Deputies Burton and Ó Snodaigh asked where the money was found within the group of Votes allocated to the Taoiseach so that, although there has to be a Supplementary Estimate in law because of the independence of the director, we have sufficient funds to meet these accrued liabilities. Within the Taoiseach's group, we have located savings at the Central Statistics Office and at the National Economic and Social Development Office. There is also the position in regard to the Moriarty tribunal where certain third party fees are not yet agreed, so that liability has not yet arisen. Therefore, we have been able to find the necessary funds within the Vote allocated to the Taoiseach to meet this requirement.

That is really as far as I can move it. I welcome the comments of the Opposition in regard to the director. I agree with them in regard to the tremendous job he has done and is doing. I commend the Estimate to the House and welcome the support of the Opposition parties for it.