|
|
|
|
APPENDIX 7
10th January, 1995 Matthew Russell, Esq., Office of the Attorney General, Government Buildings, Merrion Street, Dublin 2. Dear Mr. Russell, I received your letter of December 29th written by you on behalf of the Committee of Public Accounts of Dail Eireann. Please advice the Committee that the fees agreed by the Attorney General, Mr. Murray, with the State Counsel were, in my opinion, not excessive, having regard to the extremely complex nature of the brief and the extent of the commitment required by Counsel on acceptance of the brief. I ceased to be a member of the State team at the Tribunal on being appointed Attorney General on September 28th, 1991. In my view the request to me to repay portion of the fees, which were paid to me on foot of a concluded agreement, is unjustified and inappropriate. Yours sincerely,
Harold A. Whelehan.
11th January 1994 Matthew Russell Esq., Office of the Attorney General, Government Buildings, Upper Merrion Street, Dublin 2. Re: Beef Tribunal Fees Dear Mr. Russell, I have your letter of the 29th December 1994 concerning the above and I note its contents. The fees paid to me were agreed fees. In the circumstances the Committee’s request is inappropriate. Yours sincerely,
CONOR J. MAGUIRE S.C.
13 April 1995 Ms Cliona O’Rourke Clerk to the Committee of Public Accounts Leinster House Dublin 2 Dear Ms O’Rourke I refer to Ms. Una Connolly’s minute of 3 January and return herewith the Draft Transcript of the minutes of evidence of the meeting on 8 December 1994 with amendments marked. I wish to confirm that I have since clarified that the date of commencement of the engagement of Carr Communications Ltd. was 2 March 1992. As requested at the meeting I enclose copies of the following: 1. Letter dated 10 March 1993 from Conor J. Maguire S.C. in connection with the services provided by John Hogan and Donal Cronin (Carr Communications). 2. Letter dated 28 April 1992 from Matthew Russell regarding the retention of the services of Donal Cronin of Carr Communications. In reply to a question from Deputy O Malley at page 36 of transcript of meeting 8 December 1994 regarding the appointment of John Hogan. I am quoted as saying: “.......... the Taoiseach had accepted the advice of the legal team that Carr Communications should be engaged ..........” this should read “.......... the Taoiseach had accepted the advice of the legal team that John Hogan and Associates should be engaged ..........” At page 23, the Chairman asks “how the daily fees of £1,800 in each case was initially agreed .....” It should be pointed out that in the case of Hogan & Associates the initial fee was £1,500 for a ten day engagement and subsequently reduced as clarified on page 24. However the rate for Carr Communications was £500 per day from 2 March and reduced to £1,500 per week from March 93 onwards. Yours sincerely
Michael C Dowling Secretary
10th March 1993 Mr. Michael Dowling Secretary Department of Agriculture, Food & Forestry Agriculture House Kildare Street Dublin 2 Re: Beef Tribunal 1.John Hogan, and 2.Donal Cronin (Carr Communications) Dear Mr. Dowling, As you are aware the Department recently has been in communication with us in respect of the basis of engagement of both of the above at the Tribunal. On behalf of the State legal team I would like to record that we consider their engagement for the remainder of the Tribunal essential for the proper running of the State’s case. 1. Re: John Hogan While Mr. Hogan initially was engaged exclusively on Economic Research arising from the issue of Export Credit at the Tribunal, with the passage of time his brief has expanded to research in other areas. He has provided back up; research and analysis for us in presentation of evidence which has extended far beyond his original brief. You will be aware that our team has been reduced in size with the resignation of Mr. G. Danaher B.L. Mr. Hogan has acquired an extensive knowledge of the evidence and documentation arising from the Tribunal hearings covering all issues. His expertise is not legal but as well as providing specialist economic advice he does research on and provides a factual analysis of the various issues involved. We find his assistance in this regard essential. Having regard to the nature of his work here, his attendance has been and will be required on a daily basis. 2. Re: Donal Cronin (Carr Communications) Mr. Cronin has been engaged on a daily basis dealing with all media matters arising from the Tribunal hearings. There seems to be some misunderstanding as to the work he does. As well as normal P.R. duties he provides a Press Liaison Service by answering press queries and alerting us to issues upon which they intend to concentrate. As you are aware the Tribunal hearings have generated an enormous amount of media interest. The value of Mr. Cronin’s presence cannot be quantified. Although the extent of the media coverage varies from time to time there is a permanent press presence of not less than 10 reporters. It is anticipated that this will continue until the conclusion of the proceedings. His attendance is not related to actual sitting days or indeed to normal working hours. As the issues which require his attention arise he deals with them be it day or night. All of us here are satisfied that his continued engagement is essential. At this stage Mr. Cronin has acquired an in-depth knowledge of all aspects of the State brief. He has established a good professional relationship with the media personnel concerned. I have referred above to the nature and extent of our task here at the Tribunal. As of now we represent the following:- (A) 5 Government Departments (Taoiseach, Agriculture, Industry and Commerce, Finance and Foreign Affairs) (B) 6 State Agencies (Attorney General, Revenue Commissioners, Customs & Excise, Comptroller & Auditor General, Ceann Comhairle and the Garda Siochana) (C) 3 Semi-State Bodies (Industrial Development Authority, Industrial Credit Corporation, Coras Beostoic agus Feola). To date, excluding those recalled, 309 witnesses have given evidence. While this does not give a precise indication of the work required from either Mr. Hogan or Mr. Cronin it gives some idea of the diversity of issues and the enormity of the task confronting us all. For your reference I enclose letters in respect of both Mr. Hogan and Mr. Cronin at the time of their initial engagement. We would be obliged if you would remove the embarrassing uncertainty which seems to pervade the employment of both the above at the Tribunal. Yours sincerely
Conor J. Maguire S. C. c.c. Mr. P. O’hUiginn Department of An Taoiseach
16th April, 1992. Mr. John J. Corcoran, D/Asst. Chief State Solicitor, Chief State Solicitors Office, Upper Yard, Dublin Castle, Dublin 2. Re: Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry Dear Mr. Corcoran, On behalf of Counsel instructed by the State I wish to make the following observations. Mr. John Hogan of John Hogan and Associates has provided essential economic back-up to us while the issue of Export Credit has been dealt with at the Tribunal. To date he has provided research and given advice with regard to the issues identified under the general heading of Export Credit Insurance. This includes a cost benefit analysis and Macro Economic appraisal of the operation of the Export Credit Scheme. He has also provided us with an on-going assessment of the evidence as it has been given and placed it in a proper economic context. It is inevitable that further issues will arise in this regard which will require detailed research and analysis by him. It is our view that his services should be retained until the Export Credit segment of the Tribunal’s Inquiry has been disposed of. Yours sincerely,
Conor Maguire, S.C.
16th April, 1992. Mr. John J. Corcoran, D/Asst. Chief State Solicitor, Chief State Solicitors Office, Upper Yard, Dublin Castle, Dublin 2. Re: Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry Dear Mr. Corcoran, Having discussed the matters between us, Counsel instructed on behalf of the State, would like you to record the following matter. As you are aware one of the major problems experienced at the initial stages of the Tribunal hearings was the misrepresentation of the State’s case in the media. While every effort was made by us to correct such misrepresentation when it occurred it became increasingly obvious that our case was not receiving the appropriate or proper press coverage. In effect the State was losing the media battle which is an important aspect of this public Inquiry. In response to the numerous representations made previously Mr. Donal Cronin of Carr Communications has attended the Tribunal since 9/3/92 and has been attached to the State team. He has fulfilled a most important function in dealing with press queries and in providing a Press Liaison Service. He is in daily contact with the media personnel answering their queries and indicating to us the matters which are foremost in their minds. He alerts us to their perspective on the evidence as it is being given; allowing us to deal with problems as they arise rather than on an ex post facto basis. We are unanimous that the service which has been provided is invaluable and we would advise that you ensure Mr. Cronin’s continued engagement throughtout the course of the Tribunal hearings. Yours sincerely,
Conor Maguire, S.C.
Dear Mr. Dowling, The Attorney General has asked me to write to you concerning a matter which Counsel for the State in the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry have raised through the Chief State Solicitor. It is the retention of the services of Mr. Donal Cronin of Carr Communications. I understand that considerable importance is attached by those who have responsibilities for policy decisions to ensuring that the State’s position is not misrepresented in newspaper and television accounts of the Tribunal proceedings. In this connection non-State parties to the proceeding would appear to have preoccupations of the same kind in regard to their side of the case and have, I am told, secured similar technical assistance in order to promote their own points of view. Mr. Cronin’s services since he commenced attending at the Tribunal have, I am informed, helped to redress the imbalance which was perceived in published reports of the proceedings and have assisted Counsel by directing their attention to aspects of the case of particular concern as they arose. Of direct relevance to the State’s lawyers is the fact that, as I am informed, prior to the arrival of Mr. Cronin a good deal of their time had to be diverted to dealing with journalists’ enquiries about the proceedings. This was obviously not the most economic way of utilising Counsel’s (expensive) services. Mr Cronin’s arrival has altered that situation for the better. By reason of the foregoing the Attorney General is of opinion that the retention of Mr. Cronin’s services is desirable. Yours sincerely,
MATTHEW RUSSELL Senior Legal Assistant |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
