Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill, which is very timely given what is happening in other parts of the city. There is no doubt that the public is very concerned. I do not wish to cast aspersions on any ongoing tribunal in saying that cynicism is creeping into the public attitude to tribunals, particularly because of the cost of payments made to the legal profession and third party costs. If one adds up the tribunal costs to date, one will find that almost €100 million has been spent on them. It is possible that hundreds of millions of euro more will be spent on costs associated with third parties attending the tribunals. Therefore, we must welcome the provisions in this Bill, which is trying to establish a streamlined position in which we can have commissions of inquiry that will allay the concerns of the public.

I also welcome the fact that we have not changed the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act. That Act remains and can be used if the Commissions of Investigation Act does not facilitate an investigation which can be referred to a tribunal of inquiry. That provision is necessary if there is great public concern about an issue on which we must determine facts, reach conclusions and implement recommendations. This Bill has set out to streamline this process and bring about a more effective and efficient way of inquiring into issues of grave public concern.

In recent years tribunals have caused concern because they do not issue enough reports with recommendations and there are suggestions that some may run for another ten or 15 years. The public deserves a more speedy form of investigation, no matter how complex the issue the tribunal investigates. Tribunals are often set up in a politically charged climate and the terms of reference are set by this House but that creates a difficulty because the Opposition may set terms of reference too tightly, alleging that there is some form of cover-up. However, with broad terms of reference tribunals can roll on for many years without coming to any conclusion in a reasonable period. We need to set terms of reference on which everyone can agree without political charges being made at a later date if they are not broad enough to encompass almost every aspect of the issue raised.

This Bill tries to address the adversarial effect of tribunals by holding hearings in private, in a less adversarial manner. If the first commission established under this legislation runs smoothly and effectively that will encourage co-operation in the future and forestall the development of an adversarial mode even under the terms of the Act.

Some people propose televising tribunals but they exist to establish facts on issues of public concern. If tribunals are televised the process could become an entertainment, with a great deal of posturing and the editing could affect the public perception of the running of a tribunal. If tribunals are to be televised certain issues must be clarified first, such as whether broadcasters would have editing rights or have to report the full tribunal because the editing process could be used in a political way. I urge that we do not televise tribunals of inquiry.

Some Members have noted the provision that the members of a commission will be appointed by the specified Minister and that staff with relevant expertise may also be appointed to assist the commission. They have also noted that commissions will be required to establish or adopt rules and procedures and the primary focus will be on seeking and facilitating the voluntary co-operation of witnesses.

For the Bill to function its independence must be sacrosanct. If a Minister investigating an issue that falls within his or her remit, appoints a commission before which he or she might appear, that could undermine the independence of the commission. Is there some other mechanism for appointing the commission such that in the event of a Department being investigated for whatever reason by a commission, some other body would appoint the commissioners? The Minister is doing this to streamline the process and to ensure that there are tight controls so the terms of reference are set as to ensure there is a focused investigation guideline set down. However, if the public is to have confidence in this new format of investigation he should perhaps look at this point again.

In general this Bill is very welcome. It will work only if there is co-operation from witnesses called before a commission of investigation, something that has not happened at many tribunals. Witnesses have used every tactic possible to ensure almost no co-operation with the tribunals. That undermines the public's confidence in how tribunals work, with people regularly going to the High Court trying to stall the tribunals. I hope that in the various sections the powers will hold up if challenged in the courts to ensure that people will co-operate and that there are no loopholes through which they can escape the order to attend.

We must streamline the present process for establishing facts on issues of public concern. In recent years tribunals have lost the public's confidence because they have been so many, so expensive, and so lacking in focus due to their wide terms of reference. This Bill must take into account that the terms of reference should be tight. The terms of reference are set by Government order, with the approval of the Oireachtas. It would be important to have a cross-party consensus in setting terms of reference as well. Politicians of all hues say when an allegation is made at a tribunal, that it is for the tribunal to investigate it but the allegations often come into this House. Opposition Members have on many occasions used the tribunals for political reasons. That undermines the integrity of the tribunal which is set up statutorily by the Oireachtas to investigate something and that is where it should stay until the tribunal has reported and established the facts of the matter into which it is inquiring.

Everybody in the House welcomes this Bill which tries to streamline and reduce the costs of the tribunal process. People on the street regard members of the legal profession involved in the tribunals as obscene when they see the large sums paid to them. That too has done untold damage to the integrity of the tribunal system and is why we are discussing this Bill today.

We must consider how to address the issue of appointing the commission because no doubt if a commission is established, the Opposition will automatically claim that the Minister has set it up, appointed the members and set the terms of reference and the public cannot have confidence in it if it is not seen to be fully independent. Oireachtas committees do have a role to play in investigating issues of public concern that warrant some investigation. Certain constitutional issues must be addressed first. Given the nature of politicians we could arrive at a point where every committee was investigating something because each would like to be seen as the committee of investigation on some issue. It would be necessary to establish a committee of this House that would review the issue and then allow the committee proceed with the investigation. If it were up to the committees themselves, every committee would have an investigation ongoing, simply because it is in the nature of the politician to maximise publicity. This may not be in the public's interest but in the politician's interest. If we are to establish a system whereby committees have powers of compellability and if a change to the Constitution is required on foot of the High Court decision in the Abbeylara case, we should establish an independent group of Members of this House and others to consider a request by a committee to investigate a matter and give permission if an investigation is warranted.

I thank the Minister for presenting the Bill to the House and outlining its detail. I hope it stands up to any challenges that might arise. The purpose is to serve the public interest and ensure we have a streamlined system of investigation. While I commend the broad thrust of the Bill, the Minister might address some of the matters I have highlighted concerning the independence and appointment of the commissioners. There may be a problem if a Department were being investigated and its Minister had to appear before a commission he or she had appointed. I commend the Bill and look forward to its passage.

See this speech in context