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

Question 1: To ask the Taoiseach the cost accrued to date by his Department arising from the Moriarty tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30240/09]

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

Question 2: 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. [30627/09]

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

Question 3: To ask the Taoiseach the cost to date to his Department of the Moriarty tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39046/09]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.

Total expenditure by my Department since the establishment of the tribunal in September 1997 to 31 October 2009 is €37.72 million.

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

When will the tribunal, which has been ongoing for some time, report? What is the Taoiseach's estimate of the final cost of the Moriarty tribunal? Does he know if the tribunal will hold further public hearings? On the last occasion the Taoiseach answered questions on this matter, it was suggested further public hearings might be held. Perhaps the Taoiseach will set out the position in this regard.

We were told in July 2008 by the Minister for Finance that legal counsel to the tribunal would no longer be paid once public hearings had ceased. Is legal counsel for the tribunal still being paid? Has the 8% reduction in professional fees, introduced last year, been applied to counsel for the Moriarty tribunal?

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

The figure I gave in the primary reply is the cost of the tribunal up to 31 October 2009. What the final figure will be we will not know until the tribunal has completed its work.

I am informed by the sole member that a part-heard witness requires to be recalled and that there is a possibility of a limited amount of further testimony, none of long duration. As regards the timescale for completion of the tribunal's report, barring matters outside the tribunal's control arising, it is the sole member's intention that the report will be ready for publication in early January. The 8% reduction in professional fees with effect from 1 March has been applied to counsel for the tribunal.

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

I am glad to hear the Taoiseach say that the report of the tribunal will be published at the beginning of next year. Obviously, the report will be interesting given the matters under investigation by the tribunal. The Taoiseach has acknowledged that the 8% reduction in professional fees has been applied. Are legal counsel still being paid and at what rate are they paid? There must be some estimate of the eventual cost of the tribunal. I appreciate that the figure up to end October 2009 is €37.72 million. I presume an estimate is available of what will be the likely final bill.

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

Obviously, I cannot say what the final figure will be. However, taking account of what the sole member has said and given the tribunal is coming to an end, whether the final figure will be €38 million or €39 million remains to be seen.

Payment to legal counsel has continued on the basis of hearings that had to be undertaken again. The Deputy will be aware some witnesses were recalled during the course of this year. In fairness, the sole member, by way of the manner in which he operated the tribunal, ensured hearings were not at all time held in public. This brought about a saving when compared to other tribunals in terms of costs. The tribunal's work will be completed, barring matters outside of the sole member's control arising, in January. The tribunal is drawing to an end at this point.

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

Perhaps I can assist the Taoiseach on this matter. The recently published Comptroller and Auditor General's report indicates that the final cost of the Moriarty tribunal, including third party costs, will be in the region of €100 million, which speaks for itself. The cost for 2008 was €4.1 million. I would like if Dáil committees, properly resourced and empowered, could do this work in future. Regardless of how cynical people are about their politicians they do like to see them do work on their behalf. There are previous experiences in the Oireachtas of where this applied.

The Estimates for the Taoiseach's Department in 2009 provided a cut of 25% in funding to the Moriarty tribunal. Has the Department been able to operate within that reduction? Also, how much has been spent in 2009 to date in this regard?

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

I do not have that specific information to hand but I will obtain it for the Deputy. The Deputy will be aware that overall allocations are divided between various subheads and should they be exceeded the funding must be made up elsewhere within the Department's overall allocation.

On the Deputy's point in regard to the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, the report was discussed during the course of this year by the Committee of Public Accounts. Chapter VI concludes that "the potential liability of the State appears, therefore, to be somewhere in the region of €100 million". This includes costs incurred by other State bodies in responding to tribunal inquiries, as well as third party costs.

The report points out that the tribunal drew attention to the downstream gains to the Exchequer arising from its establishment and the conduct of its proceedings. The tribunal noted from evidence to it in 2006 from the Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners that as well as specific sums of some €8.5 million recovered from individuals directly connected with the tribunal's proceedings, the tribunal's work has contributed to the cultivation of a new climate or culture of disclosure in financial and fiscal areas. I believe that covers the point raised by the Deputy.

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

The tradition in dealing with tribunals has been that where appropriate solicitors from the Chief State Solicitor's Office are used. The Taoiseach will be aware that for the past four years the Moriarty tribunal ignored this arrangement and engaged a solicitor from a private practice. Can he confirm that the average fee per day was €1,000 and that this amounted to a payment of in excess of €1.2 million for the past four years? How can this be justified given the tradition has been to use solicitors from the Chief State's Solicitor's Office?

The Taoiseach, as an elected representative, will be aware that a person who is inadvertently or otherwise overpaid by the Department of Social and Family Affairs is required to repay that money. He will also be aware - I have raised this issue before - that a letter sent from his Department to the lawyers of the Moriarty tribunal resulted in overpayment to them of €1 million. Has that over-payment, resulting from the error in the letter from the Taoiseach's Department, been refunded? If not, why not?

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

I have previously answered this question in some detail. The Comptroller and Auditor General did not refer in this report to the payment as an over-payment. The letter contained a typographical error and included a figure of €2,500 rather than €2,250, which was the fee per day in the past. I have dealt with this matter in some detail in response to previous parliamentary questions.

As I stated earlier, in fairness to the sole member and given the manner in which the legal team worked, in comparison to other tribunals with similar levels of personnel, the overall cost - we all regard tribunal costs as prohibitive anyway - was less than in other cases. That does not take away from the fact that these are costly arrangements.

On the question of the private sector solicitor, in the latter part of 2004 the sole member of the tribunal formed the view that in the context of increased pressures on the tribunal, a solicitor with experience of commercial practice and commercial litigation was required from the private sector, 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 with the tribunal that instead of an additional solicitor, the private sector solicitor would replace the solicitor from the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. The appointment was expected to be of limited duration because of the expectation that existed then concerning 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.

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

The Taoiseach has informed us the report is expected to be published in January. We know from reports of all these inquiries, tribunals and so on that once the report is imminent, there is often an attempt to have the report delayed, not published or to have matters excised from it, as we saw in the case of some of the inquiries into abuse. Has there been any indication to Government from any source of an attempt to prevent the publication of the Moriarty report?

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

I am not aware of any such attempt. Obviously, I understand that in the preparation of the report, aspects of it that will affect parties will be brought to their attention and they will have an opportunity to respond. This is part of ensuring that natural justice is done to everyone in terms of possible outcomes. However, I am not aware of any detail of that. I am aware of the general process and procedure that exists in respect of how reports are finalised, completed and published. The role of my Department in this respect is to facilitate rather than supervise. I am not involved. The tribunal is a creature of the Oireachtas and the sole member will report to the Oireachtas. My role is to try to accommodate requirements as they arise, based on communication from the tribunal to me.

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

The Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach reported to the Committee of Public Accounts in July that the Government had decided not to enforce the decision to allow for reduced fees to be paid to counsel in attendance at the Moriarty tribunal - a decision that had been announced by the former Taoiseach as far back as 2004 - allegedly because there was a question about the capacity to retain existing counsel and if the decision to introduce the reduced legal fees was made, the prospect of holding on to some of these senior legal practitioners would be severely compromised. What role did the Taoiseach play in that decision? He must have played a central role because it was a Government decision as announced by the Secretary General of the Department at the Committee of Public Accounts.

How does the Taoiseach justify that decision in the context of the announcement five years previously by his predecessor in this Chamber that reduced legal fees would apply in the case of the Moriarty tribunal? Would the Taoiseach not have taken the view that it was time to let them sling their hook if they were not prepared to accept lower fees, particularly given that barristers come and go all the time and that there have been a number of senior counsel at different points in the course of the 12 years of the Moriarty tribunal sittings? Would it not have been better to have faced them down, rather than have capitulated and withdrawn a decision that had already been announced in the Chamber? Does the Taoiseach not consider it an obscenity that at least two senior counsel over the period of their involvement in the Moriarty tribunal are reported to have earned in excess of €8.5 million each? This is an incredible figure. Is the clock still ticking on any or all such costs and is there a prospect of any further public hearings?

With regard to the response to the questions tabled today, will the report that is signalled for publication early in the new year be the final report from the sole member of the tribunal and are we looking at closure? If not, and given the tribunal was established by the Houses of the Oireachtas, do we not have the wherewithal to bring it to a close by presenting a motion before the House? Can we bring the process to an end and instruct the sole member of the tribunal to present a full and final account of the tribunal's deliberations, hearings and conclusions?

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

The Deputy has raised a number of points. Following the July 2004 decision, the Government asked that the relevant tribunals would specify a date by which they expected to finish public sittings. Having given a reasonable estimate of that time, they were to be told that beyond those dates a reduced rate of fee would come into play. In the case of the Moriarty tribunal, as events unfolded the envisaged date was extended on two occasions. The strong view was that the imposition of the reduced rate could lead to the departure of counsel to the jeopardy of the money already expended on the work of the tribunal. In those circumstances, while the reduced rate applied in new appointments and inquiries, it was not applied in existing tribunals.

I am not here as a defender of the cost of tribunals or their duration. I am here as Taoiseach to recognise that it is the decision of this House they are set up. Quite apart from the merit of having tribunals or using them as a mechanism, we have learned from our experience that the House needs to take things slowly before deciding to deal with an issue of urgent public importance in this way in the future. We have responded legislatively in the House by providing for a statutory basis for commissions of inquiry. These seem to provide a far more cost effective means by which issues of urgent public importance that require investigation in the public interest can be dealt with differently, while at the same time engaging in the sort of scrutiny and respect for procedures that must be accorded to any citizen, whatever the issue, so we do not do anything prejudicial to people's constitutional rights. At the same time this would ensure that matters of public interest are inquired into, reported on here, discussed and lessons learned and that policies are changed, amended or modified according to the needs of the day. These were the practical issues that informed how we were to proceed.

With respect, I suggest that had the Government pushed the issue at the time, that might have led to the departure of counsel and many here would have conjured up another conspiracy theory around that, such as political interference with the tribunal or that the Government was seeking to influence the tribunal in some way. Once a tribunal is established, it is very difficult for the Government to deal with these matters. I agree it has been open to the House for some time to deal with the issue, but only if consensus is achieved on how Members wanted us to proceed. Obviously, there are other considerations before we reach that conclusion as well.

The lesson that must be learned is that we have provided a legislative alternative to the 1924 Act. I do not believe as a general comment that matters of urgent public importance should be taking as long as they are taking to come to a conclusion. I also know that, in many cases, legal challenges, non-co-operation or other issues that arise can cause issues to be prolonged and many detailed investigations and cross-examinations take place.

I am not making any prejudicial comment; I am trying to explain that these are the realities as we have seen them unfold. While we look forward to these reports, and they are investigating matters of public importance the significance of which I do not diminish for one moment, the House must be mindful in the future as to how we deal with issues as they arise in this way and avoid, if possible, a partisan political atmosphere when deciding how to proceed.

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

Could the Taoiseach clarify what were the influences that made the Government change its mind on the reduced fees in this tribunal's case? It was a definite statement that was made before the House in 2004. It had universal welcome and acceptance and it has never been applied. The Secretary General's remarks in July to the Committee of Public Accounts indicated that it was out of fear that some of these people would not stay in situ to continue their service. That is not a good enough reason. Were the waters tested? Did counsel indicate that they would walk away if lower fees were applied?

This is important and we, as Members of the House that established the tribunal, have the right to know. What influences were brought to bear? What pressures were brought to bear that forced Government not to proceed with a clear intent as outlined by the former Taoiseach here five years ago? Would it not be the case that there are many other eminent, able and equally interested senior counsel who would be quite prepared to fill the vacancies and take up the position and bring the process to a conclusion? We need some explanation of all of that.

Will the Taoiseach, for clarity's sake, outline whether the report he has indicated will be presented in the early new year is the finality of the process? Are we looking at closure? Is that yet in prospect? Can the sole member bring the process to a conclusion and will we see finality, with a final report, and will the Taoiseach again confirm that there is no further prospect of any other public hearings?

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

I have replied to the Deputy regarding a possible further public hearing in respect of a part-heard witness who requires to be recalled. There is a possibility of a limited amount of further testimony but none of very long duration, according to the information I have.

I have explained to the Deputy in respect of the main thrust of his earlier question regarding the possibility of loss of counsel and the impact that would have on the work of the tribunal, etc. - the considerations that came into play in respect of counsel's fees not being reduced in this case. This is a detailed, technical, complex issue involving those being investigated on foot of a previous tribunal report from Mr. Justice McCracken.

This will be, as outlined in the tribunal's terms of reference, the second and final report. It will deal with those parts of the terms of reference relating to Mr. Lowry and will contain recommendations addressed in the third section of the terms of reference that state that in light of its findings and conclusions, the tribunal is to make whatever broad recommendations it considers necessary or expedient.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Without wanting to interfere in any way with the workings of any tribunal, would the Taoiseach agree that, as this House set up the tribunals, it should be possible to ask either the Moriarty or Mahon tribunal, instead of waiting for a final report on all modules, that the very minimum that should happen is for the results of the inquiry into individual modules be published as they are completed?

In some instances, as in the Mahon tribunal, there are people, including myself as a former member of Dublin County Council, who have had to wait 12 or 13 years to have their good names cleared simply because they were asked to attend to give evidence. It is grossly unfair to any individual that he should have to wait long periods to clear his good name. The very least that should happen is that as each module is completed, a report on that module should be published.

I ask the Taoiseach if this House, having established the tribunals, could ask those involved to publish the reports of each module so that people's good names can be cleared without having to wait for 12 or 13 years.

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

It is a matter for the sole member to decide how the work that is being undertaken regarding the preparation of reports in respect of all these matters will be proceeded with. As a matter of principle, I do not have a problem one way or the other.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What about those people whose names have been dragged into things?

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

I remind the Deputy that I was brought down there for a module myself but I am confident my good name will remain intact despite that waste of time.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

So will mine but that is my point.