Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

Exactly. I am surprised the Minister of State has not rushed to Ballinamore to help them out and say, "Hello, I am on your side."

Having spent some time on a parliamentary inquiry with some other Members of this House — this has been mentioned already today — I feel I am in a position to comment on their value. Obviously, the legal profession is a little uneasy about parliamentary inquiries. This was evident in the Abbeylara inquiry, which was a parliamentary inquiry. There are also some other examples. Those who saw themselves as victims reflected in a poor light or not being able to defend themselves or vindicate their position in the early stages of that inquiry, would have a natural reluctance to engage in a parliamentary inquiry. However, because such an inquiry is different from a court of law, there should be no difficulty provided the rules appertaining to the inquiry are observed.

Deputy Jim O'Keeffe and others stated the Law Reform Commission recommended the enactment of legislation providing for a private, low-key inquiry which would focus on the wrong or malfunction that occurred in a system rather than on individual wrongdoing. What probably happened in the aforementioned inquiry is that the person who believed he was being accused felt he would not get a fair hearing, and therefore there was a legal challenge. A subsequent inquiry was set up, which is ongoing.

The people in this inquiry are like many other people. Unfortunately, unlike the parliamentary inquiry, it seems to take an interminably long time to reach a conclusion. I do not know whether this is because of the nature of the inquiry or because legal argument must prevail to ensure that fair play ensues. One should bear in mind that there will probably be an ongoing series of inquires for the foreseeable future which will cost the State a great deal financially. The sad aspect of this is that, at a time when there are so many pressing and competing demands and so many valid causes badly in need of resources, we have to operate in this fashion to ensure we uphold certain standards in the institutions of the State.

Members have asked who initiates inquiries. As some have stated, the Taoiseach sometimes says he set up various inquiries and at other times he says the Oireachtas did so. Alternatively, he says the Opposition set them up. Whether or not he claims responsibility depends on what is happening in the inquiries at the time he makes such statements. However, under this Bill, the Minister will almost have absolute control to initiate them. He or she, with the approval of the Minister for Finance, will establish commissions by order. The Minister will have overall responsibility for the workings of the commission. He or she will set the terms of reference and determine the costs and timeframe. We have already made reference to the costs and further reference will be made thereto at a later stage.

The Minister can amend the terms of reference without recourse to the Oireachtas. This is peculiar and the Opposition intends to contest it. Having come to the Oireachtas with proposed terms of reference in the first instance, the Minister should return to the Oireachtas if he wants to amend them. If he does not do so he is taking powers within his ambit that he should not possess. If a matter is valid enough to be brought before the House in the first place, the Minister should be bound to bring it back before the House if an amendment thereto is required.

The members of the commission are appointed by the Minister and the reports, in final, draft or interim form, must all be submitted to him. I presume he publishes them. The Government has the power to terminate a commission. I would have thought Oireachtas approval was required in this regard and that it did not necessarily fall to Government, of whatever hue, to take such responsibility upon itself, particularly if it were deemed appropriate for the House to establish the commission in the first instance.

The question of commission costs has engaged the public for quite some time. As a former member of the Committee of Public Accounts, I dealt with this issue on countless occasions. The members of the legal profession get very upset and sensitive if anybody makes a reference other than a positive one regarding the costs. I fully appreciate that they, like everybody else, are entitled to a fair wage or salary. Equally, a participant in an inquiry will obviously seek the best legal assistance he or she can obtain. It may well follow, but not necessarily, that the best legal advice will cost a great deal. In such cases, one cannot blame those who employ lawyers they believe will offer the best legal advice. However, in many inquiries the State ends up carrying a fairly substantial part of the bill.

I know there are proposals in this legislation to curtail the extent of excesses in this area but there is a concern that, for some unknown reason, the inquiry process seems to be endless. If there are inquiries for the foreseeable future, we will have to engage highly-respected and highly-paid legal people to conduct them. If we do not do so and suggest that the funds be reduced, people will no longer be willing to participate.

Over the past year or more the opinion has been growing that commissions of inquiry are too expensive and should be discontinued. I disagree. Once they are established and under way it is incumbent on us to ensure they continue and reach a conclusion which identifies the cause or causes of the inquiry. Otherwise, the money spent will be wasted and there is enough waste at present.

Scarcely a day goes by when one cannot point out major wastage. I am not just referring to the odd overrun here and there but great wastage of public expenditure due to bureaucratic duplication or where the State and the taxpayer must pick up the tab. It is not related to this inquiry but such matters should be incorporated in an inquiry at the earliest possible date. I refer to such cost overruns as the Carrickmines Castle controversy that has dragged on interminably and run up a bill of approximately €50 million. In part of my constituency before it reaches Parlon country, on another road, a slug appeared a couple of years ago which cost in the region of €10 million by his mere appearance in the area. There seems to be no concern about this in any quarter. There is a right of appeal in all these circumstances but no one anticipated that such matters would continue for so long that the taxpayer would foot the bill to the present extent without raising questions.

See this speech in context