Jimmy Devins (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)

I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this welcome legislation, namely, the Commissions of Investigation Bill 2003. We live in an era dominated by tribunals. At present, the news is dominated by the workings of some of those tribunals.

All of the tribunals were established to inquire into aspects of life in Ireland, some from the immediate past and others which date back much further. They were set up because of high public concern about various matters. It is right and proper that they exist. Aspects of life, political and social, have emerged that have shocked and amazed everyone. In that regard, the work of the various tribunals has been welcome. However, it has also become apparent that, at times, the progress of some tribunals has become slow and has proved extremely expensive. Recent estimates that some of the tribunals may take many more years to reach conclusions have been greeted with amazement and shock.

With this slow rate of progress, allied to rising costs, which, in one or two instances, have hit very high levels, it is no wonder that there is a growing sense of resignation among members of the general public. This resignation is, in some cases, developing into a sense of anger. This anger has many sources. In the first instance, there is anger at revelations about conduct that is unacceptable, be it at a social, political or professional level. I do not wish to discuss any particular tribunal, especially those that are currently sitting. Suffice it to say, however, that many people are upset at some of the news that has emanated from these tribunals.

There is also anger about the cost of tribunals. It is perceived that a small number of lawyers are earning disproportionate amounts of money from the workings of some of the tribunals. A considerable amount of this money is being earned from the public purse. When other demands on the public finances — such as those relating to health, education and social welfare — are considered, it is easy to understand how public anger and, in some cases, antipathy is developing in respect of the long, drawn out workings of the tribunals.

People are also angry about the length of time some tribunals are taking to reach their conclusions. Six months or even one year might be a reasonable period for a tribunal of inquiry to reach a conclusion. However, where it is forecast that it may be many years before a tribunal will be able to publish its findings, a sense of weariness develops among members of the public.

I reiterate that I do not intend what I have said to be a criticism of any specific tribunal. Each tribunal was established by the Oireachtas with a specific mandate and it is important for public confidence in all aspects of life that all of them reach their conclusions. However, as an increasing number of tribunals have become bogged down in legal arguments, the reason for their establishment has tended to get lost and the need for alternative or supplementary methods of investigation of matters of public concern has arisen. That is why I welcome the Bill. I particularly welcome the fact that under the establishment order, there must be statements referring to timescale and costs when any such commission is proposed to be established.

There are two areas in respect of which there is growing concern among members of the public. If details are given at the commencement of a commission regarding how long it is proposed that its deliberations will take and how much they will cost, the public will be reassured that the work of each commission will be carried out in an effective and speedy manner.

I also welcome the fact that the proposed commissions will focus, in the first instance, on seeking and facilitating the voluntary co-operation of witnesses. In that regard, the fact that evidence will, in the main, be received in private should be of considerable assistance. In the event that such voluntary co-operation is not forthcoming from witnesses, however, the commission will have power to compel a witness to furnish evidence and that is welcome. It is all too easy to envisage circumstances in which a potential witness may not be willing to co-operate with the commission or may take steps to hinder or obstruct its workings. The availability of penalty provisions when a person is found to have hindered the work of a commission is welcome and should help clarify the mind of any person so disposed.

It is not inconceivable that inaccurate or malicious evidence may be given to a commission. The provision whereby a person named in evidence will have to be informed of such evidence is correct and proper in the cause of natural justice. It will then be open to such persons to give their side of the story if they so wish. Having all this done in private will, I hope, lead to a speedier resolution of a commission's work and put an end to the practice in some tribunals by which people go to the High Court to have their side of a story vindicated.

It is a perception that the workings of certain tribunals have proved to be a financial bonanza for certain members of the legal profession. The fact that the issue of costs must be addressed at the start of a commission is a worthwhile step in helping to address this thorny issue. While nobody denies the right of any individual to arrive at an estimation of the value of his or her work, a sense of proportion must be maintained, especially when costs are borne by the public. It is particularly worrying that certain people are reputed to have earned enormous sums of money during the proceedings of certain tribunals.

Likewise, I welcome the provision that before taking evidence, a commission will issue guidelines as to the limitations on the legal costs witnesses may recover. Each commission will be established to do a specific job, namely, to investigate and inquire into a specific matter of public concern. They are not intended to be a means by which people make large sums of money. This clear curtailment of excessive costs is, therefore, an aspect of the Bill which I particularly welcome.

The provision that any commission which exceeds its time limit — as may occur when unforeseen circumstances arise — must issue an interim report is a welcome step, as is the requirement that the a commission must respond to the relevant Minister should he or she request such an interim report.

Last night, I listened carefully to Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's contribution, particularly his request that the Oireachtas be fully involved in commissions. The mechanism whereby a Minister responsible for a commission may only establish a commission on the authority of the Oireachtas and said Minister may request an interim report ensures that the Minister and, by extension, the Oireachtas, will take a hands-on approach, while, at the same time, allowing the commission to fulfil its brief efficiently and effectively.

I welcome the fact that reports of a commission's findings will be sent, in advance of publication, to affected parties, who may request alterations if it is their belief that fair procedures have not been followed. This is proper and fair and will ensure that all those affected or involved in the process will be treated equally.

The Bill will be of enormous benefit in investigating matters of serious public concern without incurring high financial costs and will enable the findings of commissions to be presented to the relevant Minister in a speedy fashion. I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill and commend it to the House.

See this speech in context