Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

The Deputy has raised a number of points. Following the July 2004 decision, the Government asked that the relevant tribunals would specify a date by which they expected to finish public sittings. Having given a reasonable estimate of that time, they were to be told that beyond those dates a reduced rate of fee would come into play. In the case of the Moriarty tribunal, as events unfolded the envisaged date was extended on two occasions. The strong view was that the imposition of the reduced rate could lead to the departure of counsel to the jeopardy of the money already expended on the work of the tribunal. In those circumstances, while the reduced rate applied in new appointments and inquiries, it was not applied in existing tribunals.

I am not here as a defender of the cost of tribunals or their duration. I am here as Taoiseach to recognise that it is the decision of this House they are set up. Quite apart from the merit of having tribunals or using them as a mechanism, we have learned from our experience that the House needs to take things slowly before deciding to deal with an issue of urgent public importance in this way in the future. We have responded legislatively in the House by providing for a statutory basis for commissions of inquiry. These seem to provide a far more cost effective means by which issues of urgent public importance that require investigation in the public interest can be dealt with differently, while at the same time engaging in the sort of scrutiny and respect for procedures that must be accorded to any citizen, whatever the issue, so we do not do anything prejudicial to people's constitutional rights. At the same time this would ensure that matters of public interest are inquired into, reported on here, discussed and lessons learned and that policies are changed, amended or modified according to the needs of the day. These were the practical issues that informed how we were to proceed.

With respect, I suggest that had the Government pushed the issue at the time, that might have led to the departure of counsel and many here would have conjured up another conspiracy theory around that, such as political interference with the tribunal or that the Government was seeking to influence the tribunal in some way. Once a tribunal is established, it is very difficult for the Government to deal with these matters. I agree it has been open to the House for some time to deal with the issue, but only if consensus is achieved on how Members wanted us to proceed. Obviously, there are other considerations before we reach that conclusion as well.

The lesson that must be learned is that we have provided a legislative alternative to the 1924 Act. I do not believe as a general comment that matters of urgent public importance should be taking as long as they are taking to come to a conclusion. I also know that, in many cases, legal challenges, non-co-operation or other issues that arise can cause issues to be prolonged and many detailed investigations and cross-examinations take place.

I am not making any prejudicial comment; I am trying to explain that these are the realities as we have seen them unfold. While we look forward to these reports, and they are investigating matters of public importance the significance of which I do not diminish for one moment, the House must be mindful in the future as to how we deal with issues as they arise in this way and avoid, if possible, a partisan political atmosphere when deciding how to proceed.

See this speech in context