Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

He stated it was his opinion the tribunal had gone beyond its brief, which is precisely what the Minister stated would be the type of instance the Government might consider with regard to exercising an order of suspension or an order of dissolution.

Last year, Judge Mahon felt compelled to write to Members of this House to contradict the assertion by one of the Taoiseach's most staunch apologists, the former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mr. McDowell, that the Mahon tribunal would cost €1 billion. The judge asserted the final figure would be closer to one third of this, at €300 million. This was a vintage Fianna Fáil approach which no doubt political scientists will be deconstructing for some time to come.

I remind the House that it was successive Fianna Fáil Ministers for Finance who set the fees being paid at tribunals. Fine Gael supports the efforts of the Minister for Finance to achieve agreement on fees in advance of further tribunals. However, I do not believe this is the major issue involved.

Another issue repeatedly raised by those who would like to see the tribunals closed down is the length of time they take. There are two reasons that the tribunals have taken a long time and neither has to do with costs or legal fees. The first reason is that the sheer scale of corruption the tribunals had to investigate was by its nature time-consuming. It had to be dealt with in a forensic way which may not have been envisaged when the tribunals were first established. This factor, combined with on the one hand witnesses' willingness to go to court at the drop of a hat to delay the tribunals and on the other hand their unwillingness to readily provide information to the tribunals, helped to significantly prolong the investigations. These are the real reasons for lengthy sittings of the tribunal, and they have added much to the costs mentioned by the Minister in the course of his address.

The Taoiseach belongs in the category of those who failed to co-operate fully with the tribunals from the start. I remind the House that on 14 September the Taoiseach accepted that he had not supplied the Mahon tribunal with comprehensive information it had requested concerning cash lodgements which the tribunal was investigating over a two and a half year period. The tribunal was not told that some of the Taoiseach's financial transactions involved sterling until more than two years after it began its inquiries.

Having regard to the fact that both existing tribunals have almost completed their investigations, there is a strong and sound argument in favour of allowing them to complete their work programmes in accordance with their terms of reference. Why not wait until they have finished completely before introducing this legislation, unless its real purpose is to wave a big stick at the tribunal's legal team in the weeks prior to the Taoiseach once again taking the stand or to shut down the tribunal altogether?

As the Minister stated, this Bill was removed from the Dáil Order Paper two years ago on the understanding that it would be inappropriate to introduce it in the context of the pending appearance of the Taoiseach before the tribunal. What has changed since then? The circumstances of the Taoiseach seem to be the fulcrum on which everything turns with regard to this proposed legislation.

For example, take the timing of this legislative venture. The Bill first emerged when it became apparent that the Taoiseach was to make his debut in the witness box at Dublin Castle. It was dropped from the Order Paper when the Government's bluff was called by the Opposition. We are now approaching the hour when the Taoiseach will once again take the witness stand and attempt to explain what to most independent observers and analysts appears the inexplicable. What an amazing coincidence that the Bill should reappear at this time.

If further evidence is needed of how desperately the Government wants to discredit the Mahon tribunal we need only consider the outlandish comments made by the Taoiseach's legal team. Earlier this year, counsel for the Taoiseach told the Mahon tribunal that it had created a serious risk of interfering with the democratic process when it circulated documents relating to Mr. Ahern prior to the general election. He went on to state that the tribunal was being used in a malicious campaign against the Taoiseach. This extraordinary attack led to Judge Mahon feeling the need to respond, describing the remarks as an opportunity to launch a wide-ranging and unprecedented attack on the tribunal.

If evidence were needed that the aim of this Bill is to browbeat and to punish we only need to examine the briefing document which accompanied its recent second coming. I have never seen its like on an official briefing document and I have been in this House a long time. The document states:

An issue that may require consideration is — in view of recent experience of the publication of confidential material in the possession of the tribunal, or required to be circulated by it to interested persons — how the draft Bill can or should be amended to seek to ensure the necessary level of confidentiality for persons who have complied with their legal obligation to provide information to a tribunal. The Bill currently provides, inter alia, that a person is guilty of an offence if he or she "obstructs or hinders the tribunal in the performance of its functions". The sanction on summary conviction is €3,000 and 12 months' imprisonment and €300,000 and five years' imprisonment on conviction on indictment.

I find it bizarre that a paragraph included in an official briefing document refers to an issue which may require consideration at some stage. It is interesting to note the Minister did not refer to these issues in his contribution.

See this speech in context