Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

If there are no current plans why is it included in the official one-page briefing sheet that normally contains the kernel of the issues at stake and provides a summary for Members of the House of the main and principal issues involved? We now find there are no plans. It is an extraordinary expression in a Second Stage briefing note. What is interesting about this issue is that we have had leaks from tribunals for many years and the Minister and his colleagues in Fianna Fáil scarcely batted an eyelid. However, when a leak occurred which directly affected the Taoiseach and revealed less than flattering information about his personal finances we had an immediate response. We now have an official response in that the matter will be dealt with by this Bill. We do not know how or when, but we know it will not be tolerated by the Minister or his colleagues.

Initially, the Government attempted to divert attention from the substantive issue at hand by accusing no less a body than the Fine Gael Party of smearing the Taoiseach. Now, we have this heavy-handed, menacing approach to leaks as evidenced by the quotation from the briefing note. In the meantime, those who comply with their legal obligations — it is clear that the Taoiseach sees himself in this category — are to be protected.

Once again, we have evidence of the championing of personal interest above the public good. It seems that when anything displeases the Taoiseach, his fellow Fianna Fáil TDs and his colleagues in Government, the Green Party and the Progressive Democrats, are willing to indulge his petulant vengeance.

The Government's idea of justice is that where a newspaper editor happens to come into possession of tribunal evidence that may be damaging to a politician but is in the public interest, he or she could face up to five years' imprisonment in addition to a €300,000 fine. Contrast this with the treatment of a former leader of Fianna Fáil who brought the office of the Taoiseach into major disrepute by taking millions of euro and pounds from wealthy businessmen over a long period of time to fund a lavish lifestyle. The Government deemed that this man merited a State funeral and a graveside eulogy by the country's leader. Fianna Fáil must inhabit a parallel universe if it thinks this approach is honourable or acceptable. Fine Gael is concerned this Bill is an underhand mechanism to allow new sanctions to be brought against certain journalists who are currently before the tribunal for obtaining leaked papers concerning the Taoiseach.

I have suggested that the Second Stage reading of the Bill should be deferred until the Mahon tribunal has completed its work, which will be in the near future. However, it is appropriate to ask whether this legislation is necessary if, as the Minister suggested earlier, we can debate it but there is no hurry and it might not need to be progressed. If it is not to be used in the manner which I have already suggested, for what purpose will it be used? I can imagine many of the Ministers who are now clamouring about the unacceptable costs of the Mahon tribunal while also claiming this Bill in no way hinders current tribunals will be happy to justify a motion to shut down the tribunal with the favoured Fianna Fáil refrain, "that was then and this is now". The guillotine will thereby be used on the Mahon tribunal in the same way that it is used on many of the Bills presented to this House.

The Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 addresses issues that have been highlighted by those who wish to see an end to tribunals in Ireland, namely costs, duration and tight terms of reference. This legislation provides that when issues of significant public concern emerge which heretofore would have necessitated the establishment of a tribunal of inquiry, they can instead be dealt with by a commission of investigation. That more straightforward and efficient approach was deemed appropriate by Members of this House several years ago. Therefore, we are unlikely to see many, or any, new tribunals being established in the future. Accordingly, one may conclude that, contrary to the assertions made by the Taoiseach last week, this Bill either intends to target existing tribunals or the Government lacks faith in its own legislative initiative.

The Government is legally and constitutionally accountable to the Oireachtas, yet it has sought to evade parliamentary accountability for its action, or in most cases inaction, by establishing quangos left, right and centre. If the Government wants to remove the need for future tribunals, why does it not take a lead from the Constitution, which states the Government shall be responsible to Dáil Éireann? The Administrations of the past ten years have done more than any of their predecessors to undermine that constitutional provision. However, even people sitting on the Government benches recognise that such undermining of the role of Parliament does little to strengthen democracy or respect the will of the people. Therefore, in place of this proposed legislation, I would like to see a strengthened parliamentary role in investigating matters of urgent public importance.

I will conclude by making two simple points. The timing and tone of this Bill indicates that, far from being an attempt at reform, it is an attempt to intimidate and dictate in a manner that was never envisaged when the tribunals were first established by this House. If the Government wishes to prove that its intentions are honourable, it can easily do so by agreeing to remove this Bill from the Order Paper until the existing tribunals complete their work. It can then proceed with the backing of this House on an all-party agreed basis.

See this speech in context