|
|
|
|
APPENDIX 6
Dear Mr. Hickey, I have been requested by the Committee of Public Accounts of Dáil Eireann to write to each of the Counsel who represented the State at the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry. The Committee have indicated their concern at the large amounts of the fees paid to State Counsel at the Tribunal and have expressed the view that they were excessive, particularly in the light of the length of the Inquiry. They also have referred to the fact that, it appears, consultants who were engaged to assist the State legal team agreed after a period to reduce their daily rates of remuneration. In view of the large amounts involved the Committee have asked me to request Counsel to consider reducing the levels of the fees paid to them and to repay to the State some of the fees. I would therefore be grateful if you would give consideration to this request and let me have your views on it so that I may place them before the Committee. As I am due to appear again before the Committee on 12 January 1995, a response from you in advance of this date would be much appreciated. Cheques or bank drafts, which may be sent to me, should be crossed and made payable to “The Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry”. I am writing in similar terms to each one of your colleagues. Yours sincerely,
____________________ MATTHEW RUSSELL Accounting Officer
10th January, 1995 Mathew Russell, Esq., Accounting Officer, Office of the Attorney General, Government Buildings, Upr. Merrion Street, DUBLIN, 2 Dear Mr. Russell, I received your letter of 29th December last written at the request of the Committee of Public Accounts of Dail Eireann. I note that the Committee have indicated their concern at the large amounts of the fees paid to State Counsel at the Tribunal and have expressed the view that the fees were “excessive”. I think I should make the following points:- 1. As you and the Committee are no doubt aware, the Brief and daily Refresher fees paid to State Counsel were set by a former Attorney General. When it became apparent at an early stage that the Tribunal would not sit on some days which were reserved for essential research and preparation, a substantially lower daily rate was agreed during the Inquiry in respect of those “non-sitting days” with his successor. All the fees were paid and accepted on the basis of agreement. 2. The level of fees paid to State Counsel and, I believe, to Counsel for the Tribunal were by no means excessive given the nature of the Tribunal which was the most complex in the history of the State, the multiplicity of State and other agencies involved and the vast amounts of documentation which required careful consideration. The Brief and Refresher fees were lower than the rates charged in commercial cases in the Four Courts of considerably less importance. 3. The length of the Inquiry which added to its complexities was entirely outside the control of State Counsel and, speaking for myself, I would have preferred a shorter Inquiry so that I could have endeavoured to find and resume my ordinary practice at a much earlier time. 4. The decision of the consultants assisting the State Legal Team to reduce their daily rates of remuneration, which was entirely a matter for them, was, I believe, taken during the Inquiry as was the agreement of State Counsel to accept lower daily fees for these “non-sitting days”, as mentioned above. The Committee have now asked State Counsel to consider reducing the levels of fees paid to them and to repay to the State, some eighteen months after the conclusion of the Inquiry, some of the fees. Lest it may have escaped the attention of the Committee, I should point out that I have, in fact, repaid to the State some 50% of the fees received by way of Income Tax and appropriate Levies. I can therefore see no valid reason why I should repay any further money to the State out of taxed income in respect of fees which I consider were properly and fairly agreed and earned and I have no hesitation in declining the request of the Committee. Yours sincerely,
_____________________________ Henry Hickey. J. GERARD DANAHER, Barrister-at-law
11 January, 1995 Mr Matthew Russell Office of the Attorney General Government Buildings Upper Merrion Street Dublin 2 Dear Mr Russell, I refer to yours of the 29th ult. The fees in question were agreed fees. They were agreed in excess of three and a half years ago. They have been in the public domain for most of that time. It is now almost two years since I last received a payment in respect of my work at the Beef Tribunal. In these circumstances I am sure you will appreciate why I do not intend to act as ‘requested’ by the Committee. Yours sincerely,
J Gerard Danaher The Law Library, Four Courts, Dublin 7. Matthew Russell, Esq. Accounting Officer Office of the Attorney General Government Buildings Upper Merrion Street Dublin 2. January 11th 1995. Dear Mr. Russell: I refer to your letter of the 29th ult. regarding fees paid to me in connection with my work at the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry. I note your request that I should consider reducing the said fees and returning a portion to the State. I have considered your request. The fees I received were agreed and I do not believe they were excessive. Consequently, I must decline the request. Yours sincerely,
Colm O hOisin, B.L. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
