Inquiry could be £10m below estimate

THE beef tribunal may cost the taxpayer £10 million less than the £32 million estimated by the Department of Finance in 1994…

THE beef tribunal may cost the taxpayer £10 million less than the £32 million estimated by the Department of Finance in 1994.

While the legal fees submitted by solicitors and barristers to the tribunal continue to be a source of public outrage and a possible High Court challenge, the "worst case scenario" of a final bill for £35 million - predicted by some senior politicians who were critical of the investigation - will not now be realised.

At this stage, the State has paid, or is about to pay, £14.2 million in costs with a further £2.7 million in dispute. Official sources suggest that outstanding bills will amount to less than £5 million.

The unusual delay in submitting these bills may be prompted by political considerations, because politicians are mainly involved. The largest bills are expected from the Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Spring, who was legally represented throughout much of the tribunal, and from the former leader of the Progressive Democrats, Mr Dessie O'Malley, who was represented in connection with export credit insurance.

READ MORE

Legal costs ranging from £750,000 to £1 million have been speculated on in each case. Mr Albert Reynolds was represented by the State's legal team for much of the hearing, but he was granted separate legal representation in relation to his dispute with Mr O'Malley over export credit figures.

The Fine Gael leader, Mr John Bruton; the Minister for Health, Mr Michael Noonan; and Mr Paul Connaughton of Fine Gael were also represented. Other legal bills may be submitted by the United Farmers' Association and by some small meat companies and individuals.

The extraordinary and unexpectedly high cost of solicitors fees has already inflated the cost of the tribunal. From the beginning, the public knew that barristers were set to make fortunes because of a failure by the State to negotiate fees properly. What was not expected was that some solicitors would also get rich quick.

In that case, the contrast between the treatment of State employees and solicitors in private practice was startling. The Taxing Master of the High Court, Mr James Flynn, granted A&L Goodbody solicitors £3.1 million in costs last week for its work for Mr Larry Goldman and Goodman International, while a further £554,000 was awarded to Rory O'Donnell & Co for its advice on export credit insurance. The solicitors who advised the barristers retained by the State in the case did not even qualify for overtime, but it is understood that a small ex gratia payment made in one or two cases.

The Government is expected to appeal against the £7.69 million legal costs awarded to Mr Goodman and his companies by the Taxing Master in the High Court last week and it is believed that up to £1 million could be lopped off the £2.7 million figure which is still in dispute. An appeal in the case will have to be lodged by October 8th and the Cabinet may sanction such action when it meets in early September.

A total of £32 million was provided to cover the cost of the tribunal within the Estimates for the Department of Agriculture in 1994 and 1995, on the advice of the Department of Finance. The incoming Minister, Mr Yates, found the position to be so "outrageous and unacceptable" in January, 1995, that he requested the new Minister for Finance, Mr Quinn, to challenge the figures with the Taxing Master of the High Court. Hearings have continued since October.