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

Question 3: To ask the Taoiseach if his sanction was sought for the recent appointment by the Moriarty Tribunal of a new counsel to the Tribunal; the basis on which any sanction was given; the number of senior counsel and junior counsel allocated to the Tribunal; the implications for the costs incurred by his Department of the appointment of the new counsel; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40182/10]

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

Question 4: To ask the Taoiseach the costs which accrued to his Department during October in respect of the Moriarty Tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41187/10]

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

Question 5: To ask the Taoiseach if he approved or sanctioned the appointment of a new counsel for the Moriarty Tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41188/10]

Michael Noonan (Limerick East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 6: To ask the Taoiseach the estimated cost to his Department of the Tribunal chaired by Mr. Justice Moriarty; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41610/10]

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

Question 7: To ask the Taoiseach the costs accrued by his Department arising from the Moriarty Tribunal at the latest date for which figures are available; if any estimate is available of the estimated final cost to his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42572/10]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 7, inclusive, together.

Earlier this year, in view of the long-term absence of Mr. John Coughlan, senior counsel, the sole member of the tribunal, Mr. Justice Moriarty, sought sanction to appoint a senior counsel to replace him. In the event, the judge did not proceed on this basis.

Instead, Mr. Justice Moriarty sought and received sanction to appoint a senior counsel solely to undertake the examination of Mr. Michael Andersen. This work has now been completed and the engagement of the senior counsel by the tribunal has ceased. In addition, a junior counsel was appointed to the tribunal's legal team to do the ongoing work of Mr. Coughlan.

While sanction for these appointments was sought from my Department, neither I nor my Department was involved in the selection or approval of the individuals concerned. As is the normal practice, that is a matter for the tribunal. A brief fee for the senior counsel in respect of the examination of Mr. Andersen was sanctioned, along with a daily rate for the actual examination, other than the first day. However, no invoice has been received in the Department and it is understood that the tribunal has not yet finalised terms with the senior counsel, within the sanctioned rates. In view of this, I do not propose to disclose the sanctioned rates but I can confirm that they are considerably below those applying to the tribunal's own senior counsel.

As no invoice has been received in the Department, I cannot yet give the House details of the costs arising from the engagement of the senior counsel. However, the costs involved will be more than offset by the significant savings that have accrued from the long-term absence of Mr. Coughlan.

The fee of the newly appointed junior counsel, engaged to do Mr. Coughlan's work on an ongoing basis, is €1,050 per diem. This is considerably below the rate which applied to Mr. Coughlan. There are currently two senior counsel and three junior counsel on the tribunal's legal team. The appointment of a junior counsel to replace Mr. Coughlan reduced the number of senior counsel from three to two. Total expenditure by my Department from the establishment of the Moriarty tribunal in 1997 to end-October 2010 was €40.8 million. Expenditure in October 2010 was €162,642.

The sole member of the tribunal, Mr. Justice Moriarty, has not yet addressed third party costs. Until this is done, we cannot estimate the overall cost of the tribunal with any accuracy. The tribunal secretariat has on many occasions over the years told my Department that any attempt by the tribunal to quantify third party costs would lead to conclusions being drawn and suppositions being made, which could infringe on the rights of witnesses and impinge on the independence of the tribunal.

As Deputies will be aware, the Comptroller and Auditor General's special report on tribunals of inquiry, in attempting to establish some estimate of the overall cost of the Moriarty tribunal, gave various ranges for third party costs, but stressed that the figures were subject to many caveats and contingencies.

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

Does the Taoiseach know why it was necessary to appoint an additional senior counsel to conduct the last module of the public hearings when the tribunal already had other counsel available to it? There had not been public hearings for a while and this public hearing had been signalled for some time. I do not understand why, if other counsel were available to the tribunal, it was necessary to appoint an additional senior counsel.

I understand the public hearings have now concluded. In July 2008, the Minister for Finance introduced the initial set of measures for cost savings for the Exchequer and one of the commitments he gave was that once public hearings of tribunals were concluded counsel would not be paid after that date. Will the Taoiseach confirm this is now the position in respect of the Moriarty tribunal?

Has the Department of the Taoiseach made any inquiry or examined the number of days for which counsel claimed payment in the Moriarty tribunal? Is it true that some counsel have claimed more than 300 working days in a particular year? Given that the normal working year is approximately 250 days, will the Taoiseach indicate whether the Department has examined the number of days for which counsel claimed up to €2,500 per day for work on the tribunal?

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is a danger in questions on this matter that we will get into a parallel discussion about the workings of the tribunal. Many of these matters are the responsibility of the chairman of the tribunal.

Michael Kennedy (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That was a profound announcement made by the Ceann Comhairle.

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

With regard to legal resources approved for the tribunal, earlier in the year Mr. Justice Moriarty sought additional resources in view of the long-term unavailability of Mr. Coughlan. Initially, he sought and was given sanction for the tribunal to engage a senior counsel on an ongoing basis to assist it in completing its work. Sanction was also obtained for the engagement of an outside firm of solicitors with regard to separate legal proceedings against the tribunal. The judge subsequently sought and obtained sanction for a senior counsel to be engaged solely for the purpose of examining Mr. Anderson on behalf of the tribunal and for a junior counsel to do Mr. Coughlan's work on an ongoing basis. A decision as to who will cross-examine is a matter for the tribunal itself. We are not involved in selecting or approving who it will be. It was the chairman's view and we acceded to it.

I can confirm that the fees for the tribunal's legal team were reduced last year and this year. Fees were reduced by 8% from 1 March 2009. Fees were further reduced by 15%, except for one lower level fee which was reduced by 6.5%. It is true that claims have been made for large numbers of days, but it should be noted that all claims for legal fees for a tribunal's legal team are certified, both by the tribunal's registrar and by the sole member, before being sent to my Department for processing. For the most part, these claims related to expenses incurred several years ago. The focus now should be on the tribunal finishing its work. While the costs of the tribunal are met from the Vote of my Department, the administration of the tribunal is carried out by its own staff in order to fully respect the independence of the tribunal. Administrative expenditure relating to the tribunal is certified by the registrar of the tribunal and this certified information is then transmitted by the tribunal to my Department for payment.

There is no doubt that tribunals are an expensive way of carrying out investigations and it was for that reason we brought forward the Tribunals of Inquiry Bill which is currently before the House. With regard to the length of time the Moriarty tribunal is taking, I should point out that it has published the first part of its report. Also, in a letter to the Clerk of the Dáil in May, Mr. Justice Moriarty pointed out that were new circumstances outside the tribunal's control, such as legal challenges, which have delayed its work. He indicated that he would comment more fully on this matter in his final report.

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

The Taoiseach has repeatedly refused to identify the barristers who he claimed in a previous response to a parliamentary question I put to him had threatened to walk. He indicated the threat was made in the event the Government was to proceed by enforcing the reduced fees that had been signalled a considerable time ago. In the context of at least two of the barristers having earlier this year clocked up to €8.5 million between them in fees through the Moriarty tribunal, will the Taoiseach not take this opportunity to identify who these barristers were? Will he explain to the House - something he has refused to do in the past - why they were not faced down if they threatened to walk away as indicated?

I have listened to the Taoiseach's detailed reply. Is he in a position now to guesstimate when we will see a conclusion to this long protracted process? While he has indicated he is not in a position to give an estimated final figure, are there any projections on the anticipated overall cost of tribunal over the decade and a half of legal consideration on this issue?

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

I do not recall the context in which I made the comments the Deputy ascribes to me. It may have been in the context of a supplementary reply where I was probably making the more general point that if the Government interfered with the tribunal in some way, the political charge would be that we were seeking to undermine it or trying to influence the outcome, because, unfortunately, there was a very partisan political atmosphere around the tribunal, even though it was a tribunal that was selected by everyone in the House at the time. As a result of the setting up of this tribunal, which is, if one likes, a "child of the Parliament", the Government is not in a position to dictate how it proceeds. There are rules and procedures and we have brought in new legislation to supercede the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 to look into matters of urgent public importance. We all agree the tribunal has taken a considerable length of time, partly because of the length of legal challenges, to a point that it is difficult to see it as being the most effective way of investigating such matters. There must be some other way of doing it. The Commissions of Investigations Act has proven to be a good method of investigation. It ensures there is a full investigative process, while ensuring it does not take as long as the tribunals have proven to take for various reasons.

It was probably in that context that I made my previous points to the Deputy. I do not have any personal knowledge of anyone not being prepared to serve on the basis of the remuneration they were being offered nor do I have files or correspondence on that. I do not deal with the tribunal personally and have only met the chairman of the tribunal, at his request, on one occasion since I became Taoiseach. I am anxious to ensure that the independence of the tribunal is respected and that there is no misinterpretation of any involvement I may have with it. It is the unanimous view that we would like to see the final report of the tribunal brought to the House as quickly as possible. We have had the cross-examination of Mr. Andersen and must now await and see what impact that has on the final conclusions.

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

It is on the record of the House that the Government feared that certain barristers would be driven away if the Government was to press acceptance of the reduced fees the previous Taoiseach announced during the 29th Dáil, but surely with hindsight that should have been pressed. Everyone welcomed the reduced fees at the time, yet for the Moriarty tribunal people were not only able to continue on the increased fees but because of a mistake were able to exact even greater returns for their services. If this is not correctable in the current situation, I hope the Taoiseach agrees it is a lesson that needs to be learned for the future so that we never see such a repetition of both the Government and State backing down because of the threat of removal of services by any legal opinion, adviser or person employed to carry out a particular service. This situation was most unfortunate.

I take it from what the Taoiseach has said that he is not in a position to indicate a potential conclusion date or projected overall costs. Surely that is something the Government should have sought and established by this point.

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

The costs to end-October are of the order of €40.8 million, but third party costs have not yet been addressed. Therefore, the ultimate cost of the tribunal is not yet clear. The indications we have had from correspondence, which I brought to the notice of the House on a previous occasion when we discussed this matter, was that the chairman felt that the cross-examination of Mr. Andersen would be important. That cross-examination has now been completed and I understand the tribunal is now moving to finalise the report. Two weeks were spent taking evidence from Mr. Andersen and Mr. Justice Moriarty has since indicated to my Department that before the final stages of the tribunal's report can be mapped out, he must consider Mr. Andersen's evidence, both as a body of material in itself and in the context of the substantial volume of earlier evidence concerning the GSM-2 process. That is the current position and we hope the matter will be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.