Tom Parlon (Laois-Offaly, Progressive Democrats)

I thank Deputies for their contributions to the debate and I am pleased to see that the Bill has been broadly welcomed on all sides of the House. That indicates that it is not only a timely measure but that it addresses many of the major concerns about current arrangements. The Minister said in his opening remarks, "This Bill is a very significant piece of reforming legislation and in the fullness of time it will be seen as a major step forward in the way we conduct public investigations in this State." We are all aware of the increasing demand for public investigations as a means of dealing with issues of major concern. There is a reasonable expectation that such investigations will produce quick and satisfactory outcomes. However, these expectations have too often been frustrated and, as a result, the investigation process has been damaged by perceptions of delay, obstruction and serious cost implications. I believe the structures and processes provided for in this Bill will go a long way to remedy many of problems associated with the present arrangements.

No one has said that this Bill represents a solution to all the problems associated with public inquiries and investigations. However, I am satisfied that it provides the State with an effective additional means of carrying out such inquiries and investigations. More importantly, the new procedure is flexible and can be applied in a very wide variety of circumstances. It is user friendly in so far as it creates a less adversarial environment and facilitates witnesses who are anxious to co-operate with the commission. The Bill also provides a comprehensive framework for dealing with legal and other costs. Timeframes are established at all stages of an investigation, thus ensuring timely delivery of results. Overall, there is a balance between the public's right to know and the protection of witnesses' evidence. I believe that a commission of investigation established under this Bill will represent good value for taxpayers' money. It will be cost effective and timely, deliver a satisfactory result and help restore faith in the effectiveness of public inquiries.

I assure Deputy Costello that I will look again at section 31(2)(b) in light of his remarks. Several other Deputies raised concerns about the role of the Oireachtas, especially its role vis-À-vis the Executive in the establishment, operation and reporting of commissions under this legislation. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe in particular listed several examples of how, as he saw it, Ministers will exercise too great a role, to the detriment of the Oireachtas. It is necessary to consider this in light of practice. Under current arrangements for the establishment of tribunals of inquiry, the Executive brings the proposal before the Houses. This will continue to be the case in the new system. Under this Bill the reports are to be presented to the Minister. However, it must also be noted that under this Bill there is an obligation to publish the report, unless the High Court directs that publication should be delayed. Once published, a report can be raised in this House by way of questions, matters on the Adjournment, etc. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent the Minister from referring the report to the Oireachtas for further consideration. The recent inquiry into the Barron report is an example of how such an arrangement could work.

The question of a parliamentary inspector has also been raised, based on the idea that arose from the PAC's DIRT inquiry. The essential benefits of that proposal have been captured in the present Bill. A commission established under this Bill will perform factfinding functions similar to those envisaged for the parliamentary inspector. There is then the possibility of further inquiries by a tribunal or the Oireachtas based on the report produced by a commission.

The Bill contains new proposals regarding the setting and amendment of the terms of reference that differ from current practice. Unlike current practice, the Oireachtas is not being asked to approve the terms. As I said in my opening remarks, well-defined and tightly-drawn terms of reference are often the key to successful investigations. Terms of reference that are too broad or imprecise can lead to prolonged and costly investigations. As a result, public confidence in the investigations process is damaged.

The Law Reform Commission considered this issue and at pages 110 and 111 of its consultation paper it cites the comparative study carried out by the Office of the Attorney General in conjunction with the Department of Finance following the DIRT inquiry. That study outlined the steps currently followed by the draft terms of reference and notes, "There is a tendency for the terms to become wider as each step is taken." This is despite the requirements of the Tribunals of Inquiry Act 1921 that the tribunal must inquire into "a definite matter".

The present proposals were drawn up in an attempt to overcome these difficulties. However, I think it unlikely that the role of the Oireachtas in setting up or amending the terms of reference has ended. Section 3 requires that the draft establishment order must, when it is submitted to the Houses, be accompanied by a reasoned statement as to the need for a commission, etc. It is likely that that statement will give a very clear idea of the terms of reference. In any event, the Houses can demand details about the terms of reference before they approve the establishment order. In other words, the terms will not be drawn in a vacuum from which the Oireachtas is excluded.

I am satisfied that the Oireachtas will continue to play an important role in investigations. I agree with those Deputies who see this as a very significant element of the role of the Oireachtas in ensuring accountability. I look forward to further detailed discussion on the Bill on Committee Stage. I commend the Bill to the House.

See this speech in context