Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am bemused by the amendment tabled in the name of Deputy Charles Flanagan. It proposes that we delay consideration of this significant reform of the way in which we conduct tribunals until after the completion of the current tribunals which, as I made clear several times over the weekend, will not be affected by this Bill. The Law Reform Commission has issued a report on tribunals and made recommendations to the House that would lead to more efficient and effective management of tribunals. The Bill before the House relies heavily on the commission's report. The Government believes it is important that future tribunals should be more efficient and cost effective. That view is shared by the vast majority of taxpayers who have expressed frustration at the mounting cost of tribunals time and again, yet the main Opposition party has tabled a motion seeking to delay the passage of this responsible Bill. This does not make sense. It is, therefore, not surprising that Fine Gael has been languishing on the Opposition benches for the past ten years.

Deputy Kenny accused the Government of trying to intimidate the current tribunals by bringing forward this legislation now. It is my job to ensure tribunals are efficient and cost effective. It is my duty to the taxpayer. That is why the legislation is before the House today. If it cannot be considered at the end of a Dáil session, surely it can be considered at the commencement of another.

Let me outline the details of this important legislation. The main legislative vehicle for the public investigation of matters of urgent public importance is the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, as amended by a sequence of legislative measures enacted between 1979 and 2004. It may be useful to recall the seven amendments to the original Act that were found necessary in this period. Usually, the need for the amendment became apparent in the course of the work of the relevant tribunal. In this regard, consider the following examples.

The Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) Act 1979 remedied certain defects that had emerged in the course of establishing the inquiry into the Whiddy Island disaster. That Act created a number of offences for non-co-operation with a tribunal. It provided a statutory basis for the establishment of multi-member tribunals. It also provided for the summoning of witnesses, compelling the production of documents, the issuing of a commission to examine witnesses abroad and, importantly, allowed a tribunal, where there were sufficient reasons rendering it equitable to do so, to make orders for the payment of the costs of a person represented before it.

The Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) Act 1997 was a direct response to the McCracken tribunal and included a power for the tribunal to direct that its own costs could be paid by a person who had caused those costs to be incurred through his or her non-co-operation. The Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) Acts, Nos. (1) and (2), of 1998 allowed for the changing of a tribunal's terms of reference at the request of the tribunal or following consultation between the tribunal and the Attorney General on behalf of a Minister.

The Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) Act 2002 included provision to enable additional members to be appointed to a tribunal, as was necessary in the case of the Flood tribunal. The Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) Act 2004 was necessary to ensure Mr. Justice Mahon, as the new chairperson of the tribunal to inquire into certain planning matters and payments, previously chaired by Mr. Justice Flood, could make orders regarding applications for costs incurred during the tenure of the preceding chairman.

The extensive powers of tribunals set up under the tribunals of inquiry legislation have facilitated the tribunals in establishing the facts in respect of certain matters of serious public concern. A tribunal of inquiry has a wide range of powers which, as I have outlined, have been strengthened in successive items of legislation to secure the co-operation of persons with their inquiries and there are significant sanctions for persons who fail or refuse to comply with a direction of a tribunal.

The Law Reform Commission carried out a comprehensive examination of tribunal legislation. In May 2005, it published its report on public inquiries, including tribunals of inquiry. The report provides a well-reasoned and well-informed basis for recommendations for reform. There are over 50 recommendations which are designed to ensure the efficient and effective management of tribunals and cover areas ranging from the establishment of tribunals, the setting of terms of reference for tribunals, membership of tribunals, procedures at tribunals, preparation and publication of reports of tribunals and, of course, an issue of major concern to the Government, namely, the costs, particularly the legal costs of tribunals. The Bill before the House has significant regard to that report. I pay tribute to the commission on its report, which has informed the Bill before the House.

I am happy to say the Bill, by providing a modern comprehensive statutory framework governing all aspects of a tribunal from the time of its establishment to publication of its final report, is also very consistent with the process of reform to which the Government committed itself in the 2004 White Paper, Regulating Better. The Bill is also consistent with the commitment in An Agreed Programme for Government to: "implement comprehensive reform of the legislation governing Tribunals of Inquiry so that all future Tribunals will operate in accordance with modern and efficient management practices, with focused terms of reference, and in a manner which ensures that the costs and duration of Tribunals are known and controlled."

The issue of legal costs associated with the operation of tribunals of inquiry, especially third party legal costs, has been to the forefront of public and political consideration. There is justified concern at the mounting legal costs of some current tribunals. Indeed, I recall some Members opposite expressing such concern. The need to control such costs is evidenced by the fact that, to the end of October 2007, the total cost to the Exchequer of completed and sitting tribunals of inquiry and other public inquiries was some €316.6 million. Of this, €228 million was in respect of legal costs and €88 million related to other costs. The figure for legal costs includes €110 million in respect of the third party legal costs awarded to date.

In respect of tribunals of inquiry and public inquiries which are yet to be completed or for which claims for costs still remain to be settled, the total cost to the end of October 2007 is €211 million, of which €137 million is in respect of legal costs, of which €42 million relates to third party legal costs. These third party legal costs are expected to rise sharply as eligibility for such costs is generally determined only towards the end of tribunal hearings.

We are all very much aware that the constitutional entitlement to legal representation for those whose good name or personal and property rights are at issue, combined with the necessity for a tribunal to be independent in its operations, means that it can be difficult to control costs once an inquiry is established.

The provisions in the Bill will not prevent legal representatives from charging whatever level of fees they wish to or can agree with their clients. It will, however, give a clear indication of the likely maximum level of fees for which the State will be liable. The payment of any amounts of legal fees over and above the levels set down by the relevant fees regulation will be a matter for the legal representative and client to resolve between themselves.

I propose to outline the provisions of the Bill. I should say that many of the provisions restate, with minimal or no amendment, certain existing provisions of the current legislation concerning the operation of tribunals. Part 1 of the Bill contains standard provisions dealing with preliminary matters such as the short title, commencement and interpretation.

Part 2 contains many new provisions dealing with the establishment, terms of reference, suspension and dissolution of tribunals. Section 3 provides that the Government may, by order approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas, establish a tribunal to inquire into any matter of urgent and significant public importance. The order must specify the matter considered by the Government to be a matter of urgent and significant public importance, the terms of reference of the tribunal and the Minister who is to have responsibility for the tribunal.

Clarity is provided at section 4 of the Bill as to the inquisitorial nature of a tribunal and its independence — aspects of a tribunal which are often misunderstood. It is important for tribunals to be able to function properly and to be resourced for this purpose.

Section 5 enables the responsible Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to provide the tribunal with the administrative support, including counsel and solicitors, and resources considered necessary. With a view to ensuring efficiency and value for money, the administrative support may consist of public servants by way of secondment or persons engaged from the private sector by the responsible Minister or the tribunal, if necessary by way of a competitive tendering process.

It is important that the terms of reference for a tribunal should be drafted as precisely as is practicable and that they can be amended as required following approval by both Houses of the Oireachtas. Sections 6 and 7 of the Bill deal with this aspect and update the current provisions in the 1921 Act.

Section 8 is a new provision which requires a tribunal within 30 days of, and not later than 60 days after, its establishment, in consultation with the responsible Minister, to prepare a statement containing an estimate of all the costs, including third party legal costs, likely to be incurred by the tribunal in performing its functions and an estimate of the timeframe for the submission of the final report. This statement must be amended where it becomes apparent that the estimate is no longer appropriate. The statement, or amended statement, must be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

It is my intention to bring forward a technical amendment to section 8 on Committee Stage. As currently drafted, the section could be interpreted as requiring a tribunal to include in the statement only such third party legal costs as may be incurred by the tribunal itself rather than such costs incurred by, for example, witnesses who have been granted legal representation before the inquiry. The intention of requiring a tribunal to prepare a statement of estimated costs is to provide the State with a realistic estimate of the cost to the Exchequer of the inquiry. The proposed amendment will copper-fasten this intention by clarifying that the statement must contain an estimate of all third party legal costs likely to be incurred in consequence of the inquiry and not just third party legal costs which may be incurred by the tribunal itself.

A tribunal of inquiry can only be established by the Oireachtas. However, there is no statutory basis whereby the Oireachtas, should it so wish, can suspend or dissolve a tribunal. Thus, having received the advice of the then Attorney General on this matter and in line with the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission, the Bill provides, in sections 9 and 10, that the Government may, for stated reasons and on foot of an order approved by each House of the Oireachtas, suspend an inquiry in whole or in part to allow for the completion of any other inquiry or the determination of any civil or criminal proceedings relating to matters to which the inquiry relates or dissolve a tribunal.

Before the Government makes an order under either of these sections, the responsible Minister must consult with the tribunal. I also intend to bring forward on Committee Stage, a technical amendment to section 10 which will ensure the chairperson will not be required, on dissolution of a tribunal, to deposit material which would prevent the tribunal from performing its functions in respect of preparation of its report or in respect of the making of an order for costs.

Section 11 is a new provision which provides that an inquiry comes to an end when a tribunal, following submission of its final report to the responsible Minister, notifies the Minister that it has fulfilled its terms of reference. Again, I intend to bring forward on Committee Stage a technical amendment to section 11 which will provide that the suspension or dissolution of an inquiry will not of itself cause any civil or criminal proceedings pending or in progress in respect of that tribunal to be discontinued or otherwise to fall.

Part 3 of the Bill deals with issues of civil and criminal liability. Being inquisitorial in nature, a tribunal cannot determine any person's civil or criminal liability. Section 12 acknowledges this fact but in order to ensure that a tribunal can fulfil its terms of reference, provides that a tribunal is not to be inhibited in the performance of any function by any likelihood of liability being inferred from such performance. Section 13 restates existing legislative provisions governing the non-admissibility in criminal proceedings of evidence given to a tribunal.

Part 4 of the Bill modernises existing legislative provisions dealing with membership of tribunals and the appointment of experts and researchers. Section 16 is new and provides that the responsible Minister may, by notice approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas, terminate the appointment of a member or reserve member of a tribunal for specified reasons. Before terminating an appointment of a member, the responsible Minister must inform the member of his or her intention, take into account any representations and consult with other members of the tribunal if requested by the member concerned and with the chairperson. As with the provisions relating to the suspension or dissolution of a tribunal and in line with recommendations of the Law Reform Commission, termination of the appointment of a member or reserve member of a tribunal requires approval of the Oireachtas.

Section 17 is also new and provides for the appointment, subject to ministerial approval, and termination of appointment of experts by a tribunal. Experts will not be members of the tribunal concerned and must not disclose information, documents or material obtained in the performance of their functions except where required by the tribunal, with the consent of the tribunal or on foot of a court order.

Part 5 of the Bill contains many new provisions dealing with the proceedings of tribunals. Section 18 requires a tribunal to carry out its functions as efficiently, effectively and expeditiously as practicable having regard to its terms of reference. A tribunal is precluded from inquiring into a relevant matter unless it is satisfied that the cost and duration of that inquiry are likely to be justified by the importance of the facts that are likely to be established in consequence of the inquiry.

Under section 19, a tribunal must establish rules and procedures, which must be given to all persons likely to be affected by them, relating to receiving evidence and submissions. Section 20 allows uncontested evidence, which is essentially evidence in a written form and circulated to those persons who have a right to receive it, to be simply taken as if it had been read into the record. A party who insists on such evidence being taken orally, notwithstanding the opinion of the tribunal that it should not be so taken, may be liable for any additional costs incurred as a result of the evidence in question being taken orally.

By their very nature, tribunals of inquiry are held in public. However, there may be instances where, in the opinion of the tribunal, it is in the public interest not to do so or where there is a risk of prejudice to criminal or civil proceedings that are pending or in progress. In line with a recommendation of the Law Reform Commission, section 24 builds on existing legislative provisions in section 2(a) of the 1921 Act which prohibits a tribunal from refusing to allow the public to be present at any of the public proceedings of the tribunal except in cases such as those I have outlined.

Part 6 of the Bill deals with representation before tribunals and is a matter which has given rise to much publicity in the context of the cost to the Exchequer of such representation. Section 25 empowers a tribunal to grant, or refuse, an application for legal representation. The person seeking representation must state the reasons why he or she considers that representation should be granted, the number of representatives required and whether junior counsel, senior counsel, solicitors or otherwise, and to the extent practicable, the particular proceedings, or the particular parts, modules or other divisions of proceedings before the tribunal for which representation is required. A tribunal can only grant representation where it is satisfied the person's constitutional or legal rights are likely to be affected by the proceedings before the tribunal, or where there are exceptional circumstances for granting representation. The tribunal must provide written reasons where it refuses an application for representation.

Section 26 is new and empowers the tribunal, where it is authorising representation under section 25, to specify the maximum number of representatives which it considers may need to be retained by the person. The tribunal can specify, to the extent practicable, the particular proceedings, parts, modules or other divisions of proceedings for which the tribunal considers that representation should be granted. In the case of two or more persons, it can specify whether they should be represented on a joint basis in proceedings before the tribunal. The tribunal can specify whether counsel for the inquiry could represent the person concerned.

The person concerned is not obliged to follow the determination of the tribunal in this regard but, where he or she does not do so, the tribunal is prohibited from allowing costs over and above those which would have arisen had the person complied with the original determination. Deputies will appreciate that this is a significant new provision which will assist the chairperson of a tribunal in determining the total amount of costs likely to be incurred by the tribunal for the purposes of the statement of estimated costs required under section 8 of the Bill. Section 26 will also provide an indication to the person applying for representation as to the amount of costs which may be reimbursed if he or she co-operates with the tribunal.

Part 7 of the Bill deals with the powers of a tribunal and enforcement matters. Section 30, in line with a recommendation of the Law Reform Commission, provides for judicial review in respect of a challenge to a decision or determination of a tribunal. Section 31 enables a tribunal to apply to the High Court for directions on the performance of its functions.

Part 8 of the Bill, containing sections 32, 33, 34 and 35, provides a framework for the preparation of the report of a tribunal, an interim report at the request of the responsible Minister or of the tribunal's own volition, publication of the report or interim report and the admissibility of the report or interim report in civil proceedings. This part of the Bill has been drafted along the lines recommended by the Law Reform Commission. I intend to table an amendment on Committee Stage to clarify the timeframe within which a tribunal must prepare its report upon dissolution.

Part 9 of the Bill deals with costs and I propose to outline the provisions of this part in some detail. Section 36 modernises the arrangements currently contained in section 6 of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) Act 1979 dealing with costs and provides that an application for costs by any person who has incurred costs as a result of co-operating with a tribunal may be made, at the discretion of the chairperson, on the conclusion of particular proceedings, or on the conclusion of particular parts, modules or other divisions of proceedings, or on the conclusion of all proceedings, before the tribunal. It is a matter for the chairperson to determine if costs are to be paid and at what point.

In determining whether to award costs to a person, the chairperson must have reference to the following criteria: the nature and extent of co-operation given to the tribunal, including whether false or misleading information was knowingly or recklessly given to the tribunal; the findings of the tribunal; the appointment or other retention of persons with professional expertise which was unnecessary or excessive; the extent to which any costs incurred by a relevant person would have been incurred whether or not the relevant person had any dealings with the tribunal, including any case where the relevant person's co-operation with the tribunal was given in whole or in part through an employee of the relevant person; the extent to which any costs incurred by the relevant person were disproportionate in respect of the nature and extent of co-operation required by the tribunal of the relevant person and all other relevant matters falling within the terms of the resolution passed by each House of the Oireachtas or within the terms of the order establishing the tribunal.

Section 20 contains a provision which requires a tribunal to refuse, unless exceptional circumstances exist, to grant the additional costs incurred as a result of taking evidence orally where it has ruled that such evidence should not be given orally. Section 26 contains a similar provision which provides that the tribunal shall not, unless exceptional circumstances exist, allow costs over and above those which would have arisen had the person complied with the tribunal's original determination as to the level of representation required.

The chairperson may award costs against a person for the benefit of the Exchequer, either of his or her own motion or upon application by the responsible Minister or the Minister for Finance, where that person added to the duration of the hearings by knowingly or recklessly providing false or misleading information to the tribunal or otherwise failing to provide appropriate co-operation when it was in that person's power to do so. If the chairperson refuses an application for costs, he or she must give reasons for the refusal.

In all of the considerations in section 36, it should be noted that the award of costs is also subject to maximum amounts to be set out under the provisions of sections 38 and 39. I intend to bring forward technical amendments to section 36 on Committee Stage to make it clear that costs to be reimbursed by the State in the context of tribunals of inquiry will be costs that were necessarily incurred for the purposes of assisting the tribunal in its inquiry. For example, in the past, costs have been awarded for the engagement of public relations consultants by persons appearing before a tribunal. Such costs, which can fall to the State, must be circumscribed. Therefore, an amendment on Committee Stage will clarify that one of the factors which the chairperson must have reference to will be the appointment or other retention of persons with professional expertise that was unnecessary or excessive for the purposes of assisting the tribunal with its inquiry.

Other planned amendments to section 36 will introduce time limits for the submission of claims for costs and the possibility to request a tribunal to reconsider its order for costs in any given case. Section 37 repeats the provisions of section 6(1A) of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) Act 1979, as amended by the 2004 Act, which empowers the chairperson of a tribunal to make an order for costs in respect of any costs incurred, but which had not been determined, before his or her appointment. The chairperson must have regard to, inter alia, any final or interim report of the tribunal relating to its proceedings in the period before his or her appointment.

Section 38 is a new provision which provides that an award of costs under section 36 must not exceed the relevant maximum amounts applicable to various categories of costs specified in regulations under section 39. This section will provide a statutory basis for schedules of costs payable by the State on foot of tribunals of inquiry. The provision at section 38 will apply to any tribunal to which regulations under section 39 are expressed to apply, and to all future tribunals, and all costs incurred under those tribunals which fall into any of the categories of costs specified in those regulations. The Taxing Master of the High Court will not be permitted to allow any costs in excess of the maximum amounts specified in the regulations under section 39. Section 39 includes a provision, suggested by the Taxing Master, for a Taxing Master of the High Court, where practicable, to assist a tribunal in making an order for costs or assessing and measuring any costs to which such an order relates.

Section 39 is new and provides a regulation-making power for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, with the consent of the Minister for Finance and having regard to what would be reasonable remuneration for services, including legal services, provided in or in respect of inquisitorial proceedings, to determine the maximum amounts of various categories of costs which may be paid, pursuant to section 36, to counsel or solicitors engaged by parties appearing before the tribunal or to the tribunal's counsel or solicitors. The regulations may specify different categories of costs; require the chairperson to provide reasons for granting or refusing costs; set the maximum amounts which may be paid by reference to, for example, a yearly, daily, hourly or other rate; and be expressed to apply to a particular tribunal, to particular proceedings or modules of proceedings or to specified costs or categories of costs.

Part 10 of the Bill contains section 40, which modernises existing offences and the penalties attaching thereto.

Part 11 contains sections 41 to 44, inclusive, which are technical provisions dealing with expenses, repeals and transitional matters, restriction of section 4 of the Data Protection Act and consequential amendments to other enactments respectively.

The Bill represents a comprehensive reform of the tribunal legislation consistent with the need for reasonable updating and modernisation. In summary, it contains the following significant features: the process for setting and amending terms of reference of a tribunal is clarified; within three months of its establishment, a tribunal will be required to produce a statement of estimated costs and duration of the tribunal which must be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas — this statement must be subsequently amended after significant developments; the Government, for stated reasons and following a resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas, will be able to suspend or dissolve a tribunal; provisions governing the taking of evidence, including a provision regarding the "reading-in" of evidence already available in written form and not disputed; the position with regard to the granting of legal representation before a tribunal is clarified to the effect that a relevant person must apply for representation and the tribunal will only grant the application where the person's legal or constitutional rights are likely to be significantly affected by the proceedings; the tribunal will state its opinion as to the numbers of the representation to be retained by a person that it will certify as being recoverable from the State; the responsible Minister will be able to request an interim report on the general progress of an inquiry, or of a particular aspect of an inquiry, from the tribunal; tribunal reports will be admissible in civil cases — the findings of facts in a report or the opinions expressed therein are prima facie evidence unless the contrary is shown; the position with regard to award of costs by a tribunal is clarified and co-operation with the tribunal remains the key determinant for an award of costs; and regulations, to be made by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, will set out maximum amounts of legal costs recoverable.

I am confident the Bill will contribute positively to the future effective operation of public inquiries. I am willing to consider any amendments that might strengthen it. By putting in place a comprehensive statutory framework governing all aspects of a tribunal, from the time of its establishment to the publication of its final report, along the lines of this Bill, the interests of justice and public accountability will be advanced.

In commending the Bill to the House, I ask the Opposition, even at this late stage, to withdraw the amendment it intends to move so that, united in the House, we can proceed to make changes that are clearly in the public interest. I reiterate what I made clear in the brief debate that took place before Second Stage was formally moved, namely, that there is no intention to apply this legislation to the current tribunals, which have indicated the timeframes they envisage for their completion.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

Dáil Éireann having regard to the fact that existing Tribunals of Inquiry established by the Oireachtas have not completed the entirety of their work, declines the second reading of the Tribunals of Inquiry Bill 2005.

The Bill and the circumstances that surround its origin and timing tell us everything we need to know about the Government. It suggests an abundance of arrogance and a fair measure of deviousness, together with a disdain for democratic norms. These all result from its having been in power for far too long.

The justification used by the Government for its efforts to empower itself to shut down tribunals is to wring its hands and refer, as the Minister did, to a huge level of costs and an inordinate waste of taxpayers' money. We have been treated to the appearance of bizarre amounts of euro in media reports on an almost daily basis and the implication is that it is the tribunals, rather than a depressed housing market and an inept and helpless Government, that are responsible for the economic downturn. The Government's newfound interest in saving taxpayers' money is fascinating, not to mention seriously overdue.

I wonder why we only hear of the Government's desire for financial prudence in respect of the health service and cutbacks relating thereto or the tribunals. I do not recall any desire for financial prudence being expressed in recent weeks in the context of ministerial salaries, which now outstrip those of the majority of world leaders, or when, a few years ago, the Government felt like buying a second ministerial jet at a cost of €50 million. There was no question of value for money for the taxpayer when the Government agreed to provide indemnity for religious orders at a total cost of €1.1 billion, when over €200 million was spent on PPARS or when the site for a new super-prison was bought for €30 million, twice the market value. The Government is happy to hand over €700,000 of Exchequer funds every year to pay for the storage of useless electronic voting machines that cost taxpayers over €50 million to purchase in the first instance. Each year, the Department of the Taoiseach spends just short of the average industrial wage to pay for the Taoiseach's make-up needs. Well over €1 million is spent each year on the services of special advisers who provide him with advice of a purely political nature that is given over and above that proffered by civil servants in his Department.

There is plenty of scope for belt-tightening in all of these areas. However, there is no evidence of a desire at Government level to engage in this. To date, the Government's efforts to save a few euro have centred on our beleaguered hospitals and on the tribunals at Dublin Castle.

Fine Gael recognises that the costs of tribunals must be addressed. This issue has been pursued in the House for some time. We are, however, concerned that the Government is using the costs issue as a smokescreen to disguise the fact that it wishes to suspend or shut down the Mahon tribunal before anything else unsavoury about the peculiar finances of Fianna Fáil and its leader enters the public domain.

Hard-pressed taxpayers also want to see their money spent in an appropriate manner. They do not want to pay for tribunals of indefinite duration. However, that is not to say they want the Taoiseach to be able to cast a shadow over judges and barristers who are legitimately investigating his personal finances, that they want newspaper editors jailed for printing information that is in the public interest or that they want normal democratic behaviour subverted to suit the needs of the Taoiseach and his Government. The constant drip-feed of information and speculation regarding the cost of tribunals is a rather subtle ploy by the Fianna Fáil Government and its associates to obfuscate the real issue at hand, namely, their belief that a particular tribunal is not dealing with a matter in a way that pleases them.

In the short debate that preceded Second Stage, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform made a telling admission when he stated that any tribunals already under way would not be subjected to a suspension order. He indicated that tribunals would not be suspended if there was a belief that they were going beyond their brief. I may have misquoted him but that is what I understood the Minister to have said.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I referred to their going beyond their envisaged timescales.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I put it to the Minister that his Cabinet colleague, the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, is reported to have said on more than one occasion that it is his belief, and that of sources close to the Taoiseach, that the Mahon tribunal had outstripped its brief and had already gone beyond what was envisaged when it was originally established.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy O'Dea was referring to the views of the Supreme Court.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are no current plans. I outlined a number of amendments which I will introduce on Committee Stage.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Flanagan spoke at some length about the growing public perception that the introduction of this Bill at this time is designed to empower the Government to shut down the planning tribunal. I mention the planning tribunal because the other tribunals, Morris and Moriarty being the main among them, are in their concluding stages. The target, therefore, is the planning tribunal. That public perception is abroad because the timing is regarded as odd given that the Taoiseach, having ensnared himself in conflicting stories to the tribunal, is due to reappear at Dublin Castle in a matter of weeks.

However, it is not a conclusion I have been inclined to share. No Government in its right mind would seek to terminate the Mahon tribunal at this stage of its inquiries into the Quarryvale modules. In addition, the decision was made for the Government in a recent High Court case, in that the court prevented inquiry into new modules that might be a source of embarrassment for current or former Government figures or other powerful interests in our society. Inquiries have been shut off in controversial circumstances because of a failure to comply on the part of the tribunal itself.

If my conclusion is correct, why did the Minister work so hard over the weekend to leave the impression that the Bill does not apply to existing tribunals? Why was it thought necessary to convey such an impression when the opposite is the case?

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

You tried to convey the opposite impression.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I made no comment on the matter whatsoever. I was elsewhere.

Section 10 of the Bill permits the dissolution of a tribunal for stated reasons. Section 42(3) states plainly this power of dissolution applies to existing tribunals. If this Bill is being introduced now because the Government has no legislation ready, why seek to misrepresent its contents? It is remarkable at present that if the Opposition asked for a debate on the state of Irish soccer, the request is likely to be granted if it fills a day.

Were it not for obstruction and calculated delaying tactics the investigation into the Quarryvale development would have concluded at least three years ago. The Moriarty and Morris tribunals are both concluding. Why insert provisions into this Bill that would enable the Government to shut down the Mahon tribunal? If for some good reason we have not yet heard it is important that the Bill contains such provisions, why deny them in public? The Minister knows better than me that his claims that he does not intend to apply the Bill to existing tribunals carry no weight in law. I do not question his intentions for one minute but, if there is one thing we know in politics, it is that situations change. If, for example, the Government's lifespan suddenly depended on using a power in this Bill to stay in office, does the Minister, who has joined us in the House more recently than some of his colleagues, seriously believe that Fianna Fáil would refrain from using it?

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am happy to discuss the legislation for the lifespan of the Government.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If that is the case, the Government Chief Whip needs his head examined to determine the reason he permitted the legislation to be brought before the House three weeks before the Taoiseach's reappearance at Dublin Castle.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government ran out of issues on which to have statements.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Either the Government has the sinister motive others are ascribing to it or it is simply hamfisted and can no longer conduct the business of the House competently.

If the Minister wants to agree to excise the provisions which make the powers of dissolution applicable to existing tribunals, the Labour Party will support the broad principles of the Bill. It is accepted by all sides that it is necessary to consolidate and update the law regarding public inquiries. The House of Commons took this step two or three years ago. After a generation of experience of tribunals, we have all the jurisprudence we need to update and modernise the law in this regard.

I was surprised to discover in the Minister's speech the extent to which he relied on making an argument about controlling costs. There is no doubt that since the Goodman tribunal in the early 1990s, Irish taxpayers have direct experience of the fact that tribunals under the 1921 Act are slow, cumbersome and very costly. Given the decision of the High Court in the In re Haughey case, it does not appear that it could be otherwise. The cost and duration of tribunals are, however, greatly exacerbated by the tactics, sometimes tantamount to obstruction, engaged in by parties to the tribunals, in particular the planning tribunal. In this regard, it was reasonable to expect the Taoiseach to show good example. Instead, we learned that his protestations about being anxious to get into the tribunal to tell his story were in sharp contradiction of the truth. While it is for the tribunal and not the House to decide whether the Taoiseach obstructed, he certainly engaged in obfuscation and delaying tactics and when eventually he presented at the tribunal he told not one story but several stories.

Mr. Justice Fergus Flood, in his second interim report, makes a relevant point in this regard. He stated:

All parties from whom the Tribunal legitimately sought information had an obligation to provide such information truthfully and expeditiously. The provision of misleading information or the withholding of relevant information has the capacity to hinder and obstruct the Tribunal, and inevitably leads to delay. The conduct of a statutory public inquiry is a complex and costly exercise, and this Tribunal has endeavoured to carry out its statutory functions with expedition and as economically as possible, so as to comply with the express wishes of the Oireachtas contained within its Terms of Reference.

This Tribunal continues its work more than four and a half years after its inception, not only because of the multiplicity and complexity of matters which it is obliged to investigate under its Terms of Reference, but also because of the failure of persons who have been required to provide information to the Tribunal, either documentary or otherwise, to provide such information expeditiously or, in some instances, at all.

Here, he notes the obligation on citizens to co-operate with the tribunal in a reasonably expeditious manner. It is not my job to find whether the Taoiseach, for example, obstructed the tribunal or to make any such allegation. However, as the holder of the highest office in politics, one would have expected him to co-operate with the tribunal. We find that, like a man outside the pub after closing time who takes off his jacket and calls on others to hold him back, the Taoiseach engaged in a form of shadow boxing. He could not understand the reason he was not being given access to the tribunal to tell his story. Eventually, when he appeared before the tribunal it emerged that the delay was his responsibility. That fact tells its own story.

Some of us will cast our minds back to the extraordinary circumstances in which the general election was called. The Taoiseach's furtive journey to the Phoenix Park in the early hours of a Sunday morning when nobody but the deer was up was, I believe, inspired more by his imminent appearance at Dublin Castle than by the requirement that the Dáil be dissolved.

I agree with the Minister on one issue, namely, that no ordinary taxpayer can be comfortable with the huge costs that will eventually come home to roost from the tribunals established in recent years. Deputy Flanagan made a good point in enumerating the instances of extraordinary waste of public money over the past decade and the apparent lack of Government concern about the matters he spelled out. The Government is now exceptionally concerned about the costs of tribunals. If one examines the pattern on this issue, one finds that Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats have at various stages over the past decade competed for attention about how upset they were about the costs of various tribunals. The decibels of indignation were in direct proportion to the proximity to elections — if an election was in prospect, the Government became very concerned about tribunal costs.

Some Members will recall the former Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy, express concern about what he called "this gravy train". This occurred before he left us for his own gravy train, as he was entitled to do. While no action was taken, the Government knocked two or three good weeks of publicity out of the issue. The former Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mr. Michael McDowell, who is now a private citizen, then followed Mr. McCreevy's example and joined the chorus. However, he did so only after he, as Attorney General, negotiated increases in lawyers' fees at which point he became extremely agitated about the cost of tribunals.

One must be sceptical. When we reached the point at which action became unavoidable the Government, having settled on a new schedule of fees, backed off and let the status quo obtain. One formed the impression that there was an informal Government policy to beat the drum of indignation about tribunal costs in public while privately assenting to increased costs and the status quo.

Having expressed my scepticism about the argument that there is something sinister about the timing of the introduction of this Bill, its introduction is odd, given that the horse has well and truly bolted. Why introduce it now? Hundreds of theses will be written by students about our experience of a generation of tribunals. Have they been worth it? Have they changed the culture? Is there a more effective, speedier, less costly way to inquire into certain matters of public interest?

What about inquiry by parliamentary committee. Why has the Government, in all its complexions, allowed inquiry by parliamentary committee to fall below the radar. The DIRT inquiry was praised by objective analysts and commentators. It is not true, as the Minister knows, that the subsequent judgment in the Abbeylara case vetoed inquiry by parliamentary committee. It made a specific finding that where a citizen's reputation could be adversely reflected on, in such extraordinary and unique circumstances as in Abbeylara, inquiry by parliamentary committee was not appropriate. I accept that as it is common sense. The judgment was not that inquiry by parliamentary committee was not appropriate in many other cases. However, parliamentary inquiry has been allowed to wither. No effort has been made by the Government to look at that judgment and to get inquiry by parliamentary committee up and running again.

The legal profession was not in favour of the DIRT inquiry repeating itself. As legal people see the world, that is their business, not the job of Parliament and parliamentarians. The senior public service share that view, but for different reasons. The senior Civil Service thoroughly disapproved of the DIRT inquiry. How dare a committee of parliamentarians hold senior civil servants to account in public, worse still, on live television. Uniquely, the Civil Service had no role in compiling the report. The word went out that this could be the end of civilisation as we know. There would never be another DIRT style inquiry. So it has happened. In the everyday polite trade-off that happens between the Executive and the mandarinate, a meeting of minds on no further inquiry by parliamentary committee was not difficult. One party in permanent power makes such trade-offs almost routine. The Green Party is as ineffective as the Progressive Democrats Party before it in challenging the suppression of inquiry by parliamentary committee.

The former Attorney General, Mr. Michael McDowell, was probably correct when he told the DIRT inquiry on the question of tribunals versus parliamentary inquiries:

Many people sitting on a bar stool would say "surely the DIRT inquiry shows us there is a different and a better way." Yes, it has shown up very important things, but it does not mean that it simply cannot be transferred holus bolus and applied to areas which are much more contentious.

On that occasion, Mr. McDowell, giving evidence in a personal capacity, went on to say:

In short, I do not believe — and in the absence of a binding Supreme Court decision on the issue — that it is possible to state with total confidence as a matter of law that the establishment of a tribunal is always a mere policy choice, open as an alternative to conducting an inquiry by parliamentary committee. Nor is a parliamentary committee necessarily always available as an alternative to the establishment of a tribunal of inquiry.

I agree with that. Neither can apply in all circumstances, but the suppression of inquiry by parliamentary committee is to be regretted and would have saved the taxpayer enormous sums of money.

I am reminded of what Ted Heath said to the House of Commons in July 1982 on the appointment of the Falkland Islands review when he said the plain fact is that we have never succeeded in finding the perfect form of inquiry. That is true. However, we have had the opportunity to learn a great deal since the beef tribunal. The most remarkable aspect of that tribunal for me — I appeared before it — was that it never made a single order for discovery.

Ever since the beef tribunal, up to and including today, we have had an opportunity to learn a great deal about public inquiries, their suitability, terms of reference, procedures, costs, reports and so on. From that point of view, I welcome the Bill. Just because tribunals have been inordinately expensive, this does not mean taxpayers, in their capacity as citizens, are not interested in ensuring that matters of public interest are properly inquired into. However, I am surprised at the extent to which the Minister's speech is almost entirely devoted to the costs issue.

The Minister said that the cost to the Exchequer of completed and sitting tribunals of inquiry and other public inquiries was €316.6 million. What did he include in that? Which inquiries are included? Did that amount start with the beef tribunal and does it go up to the present day? He said that of that sum, €228 million is in respect of legal costs. He goes on to say that with regard to tribunals which are yet to be completed and for which claims for costs remain to be settled, the total cost at end October is €211 million. Does that €211 million come on top of the €316 million? I am not sure. All I know is that the tribunals are inordinately expensive. Many people believe that the figures they read in the newspapers are the cost of the tribunals, but they are not. They are the cost of counsel for the State and related parties. They do not include third party costs, which in most cases will not be calculated until the end of the tribunals. Tribunals are expensive and it is incumbent on us to find a more efficient, speedy way to do our business.

I have not taken the course of commenting on the extraordinary appearances at the tribunal of the Taoiseach or on his Byzantine financial affairs. One does not have enough time here to go through that. In any event, we are saved that challenge by it being the task of the tribunal. I was, however, struck by the remarkable evidence last week of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Micheál Martin. I admired his chutzpah when he went in railing and ranting about the outrageous nature of the allegation that he was in receipt of a six figure sum, when he only received a five figure sum, albeit some of it for charitable purposes. The remainder was for his purposes, political purposes I presume. It then became apparent that the Minister had set up a meeting for the donor with Mr. Bertie Ahern, who was Minister for Finance at the time. Then we learned that the Minister for Finance had been in Los Angeles with the donor on business, which presumably was to the benefit of the State. We know fact No. 4, that the tribunal is of the opinion that a very large amount of dollars was lodged to an account of the Taoiseach's. There may be no connection between these four facts but, as an example of the most recent appearance before the tribunal, it shows that if we were to go back over the conflicting stories we have heard, we would be here all night.

It ought to be enough, if the Government was not so remote, out of touch and arrogant, that it would not introduce this Bill at this time. The Mahon tribunal is grinding to a halt — by that I mean it looks like continuing for another nine months in any event. Given that we have waited this long and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform insists that the Bill is not aimed at any existing tribunal, we can wait that bit longer. We have waited for ten years without taking action on spiralling tribunal costs. We saw it before our eyes, yet we had the hypocritical situation of the Minister of the day ranting and raving about costs while, in his other capacity, in his prior capacity as Attorney General, he had agreed an increase in fees for the lawyers concerned.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will have to accept there is good cause this side of the House should be sceptical. We will have the opportunity to go into the detail of this on Committee Stage but I was struck by a number of things the Minister said in his contribution. I note that he has promised some additional amendments between now and Committee Stage. I wonder, given the freedom that chairpersons of tribunals have had up to now, what a prospective chairperson of a tribunal would say when asked by Government in future whether he or she would be prepared to chair a public inquiry. There is no doubt that it is far more of a strait-jacket into the future than it has been up to now. I am not complaining about that. I would like time to consider the balance involved but it certainly is very different.

I wish to point, in passing, to the Minister's script where he draws our attention to section 18 which requires a tribunal to carry out its functions as efficiently, effectively and expeditiously as is practicable having regard to its terms of reference. A tribunal is precluded from inquiring into a relevant matter unless it is satisfied that the cost and duration of that inquiry are likely to be justified by the importance of the facts that are likely to be established.

I am reminded, for example, of a decision of the Moriarty tribunal to inquire into the acquisition of Doncaster Rovers. The remarkable thing about that is that at the time this House established the Moriarty tribunal, the purchaser concerned had not even acquired Doncaster Rovers. Doncaster Rovers was only purchased after the tribunal was established so it could not have been in the minds of the Members of the Oireachtas that caused the tribunal to come into existence. Yet we find that quite some time has been devoted to inquiring into the acquisition of something that was not in the minds of the Members of this House when the tribunal was set up. There are many other examples throughout the Minister's script where questions can be raised about whether we have got the balance right. Nobody is disputing that we have to modernise the law in this regard. The year 1921 precedes the foundation of the State and that is a long time ago.

I am amused at the Minister's pointing out that costs were awarded for the engagement of public relations consultants by persons appearing before a tribunal. I remember that well. They were paid. The man retaining them was not short of staff at the time, yet the open-handed State paid a fortune to PR consultants to spin the story from the tribunal. It is remarkable when one thinks about it, it is an incredible waste of money. At least in that regard I am at one with the Minister that it is time to call a halt.

Martin Mansergh (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am supportive of the Bill on the basis that it is properly and thoroughly discussed and not rushed because it is very important. I was encouraged by the broadly constructive contribution of Deputy Rabbitte who, if I understand him correctly, said he would support the Bill provided there was written into it an assurance that it did not apply to sitting tribunals. In response to one of his points, if, as is the stated intention, the main existing tribunals will draw to a close over the next 12 months or so, this is the proper time to consider the basis on which such tribunals will be conducted in the future. From my knowledge of the academic world, I think there might be about a dozen theses written about tribunals. I do not think there are hundreds — that might exhaust it.

That contribution contrasted with the previous contribution of Deputy Flanagan which seemed to show a total inability to treat the issue on its merits and was simply unremittingly partisan in nature and with little constructive content about the reform of tribunals or any recognition of the necessity of it, apart from a passing reference to commissions of investigation.

Nothing I will say is a reflection on the good work done in tribunals or the conscientious efforts made by lawyers, judges or other parties to attain or ascertain evidence and to try to draw secure conclusions. It is normal in debates, where relevant, to declare an interest. This immediately raises a slightly awkward problem in that tribunals wish to keep their correspondence with witnesses confidential. Some years ago one of the tribunals was in correspondence with me in relation to a matter I dealt with as a special adviser on Northern Ireland. Needless to say, nothing I say will be influenced in any way by that. In passing, some derogatory reference was made to special advisers by Deputy Flanagan. I was a policy adviser not just a political adviser and I believe that I provided some value for money. It is a complete distortion to think that they are solely or mainly spin doctors giving partisan political advice. They are people who are genuinely concerned to solve problems. That was just as true of, say, the programme managers and advisers that served the Labour Party when we were in government with that party.

It is obvious tribunals need reform and the problems extend beyond this jurisdiction. At a media conference a few years ago, a well known journalist declared there was tremendous competition among journalists to find material for the next tribunal. I, of course, draw a distinction between tribunals that are related to mainly political matters and other tribunals which, while perhaps having great social importance, are not as politically sensitive.

The Flood-Mahon and Moriarty tribunals have lasted nearly ten years, a length far beyond anything envisaged when they were being set up, and the Bloody Sunday tribunal in Derry has also lasted many years. All of them have cost hundreds of millions. It is safe to say that while people will continue to demand them, and in certain instances in regard to the North the Government has supported them, as a matter of practical reality there will be no more such tribunals unless the basis on which they are conducted is reformed. The notion that they are a shortcut to truth through curtailing legal procedure has proved to be something of a mirage.

Much has been said inside and outside this House — I am not referring to anyone present — about the immense superiority of the English common law system, which we in this country share. As one who spent time studying the French legal system, I am not so sure. Indeed, as I stated previously in the House, I have huge admiration for the work of the investigating judge in Spain, Baltasar Garzón. It would be interesting to explore whether the system of an investigating judge or magistrate could be grafted on to our system, although probably the Law Library hands would go up in horror at the suggestion.

Some of the best tribunals and commissions are ones that are admirably short. I thought the report of the McCracken tribunal, which sat for no more than three or four months, was admirable and its conclusions were universally accepted. I can think of an analogous body, although it was not a tribunal, namely, the Mitchell commission which reported on decommissioning. That took about six weeks and it stood the test of time. It is not necessarily the case that tribunals and commissions which last a very long time, go into vast detail and cost a great deal of money are the best.

The problem with tribunals, certainly so far as some of the principals are concerned, is that the rights of individuals come into play. The way tribunals are conducted is potentially seriously prejudicial to people's reputations, a point that has been made in various recourses to the High Court and so on. There is a sense that no appeal is possible, except perhaps to public opinion, from a judgment of a tribunal and that the usual recourses are not available. In some way, from a humanitarian point of view, I am glad the Moriarty report on Charles Haughey was not produced until after his decease.

We all extend our sympathies to Deputy Michael Lowry on the recent loss of his mother. Deputy Lowry has suffered Chinese torture over the past ten years, during which his reputation has been in suspense because the tribunal, for various reasons, not all its own fault, has taken so long in coming to a conclusion. Such inordinate delays are very unfair, although they are not entirely peculiar to tribunals and can happen in courts of law. The case of a constituency colleague in south Tipperary is being deferred repeatedly, which is not fair to him.

There is also the fact that tribunals can come to very trenchant judgments — sometimes one might even consider them cavalier and crowd-pleasing judgments. Although it is not in the least a popular point to make, I was shocked that the Flood tribunal report on the former Deputy and Minister, Ray Burke, simply came to the conclusion, which was vociferously welcomed in the press, that he was corrupt even though it stated it had not been able to find any actions corresponding to the funds he had been given.

Naturally, it is never an opportune time to reform the law on tribunals. The Government is now doing so but that does not protect it from the accusations it is trying to control criticism or acting for some short-term partisan advantage. In the case of the Opposition there may be no particular advantage for it in this regard. I welcome the Minister's courage in bringing forward the Bill.

We have had much debate inside and outside this House with regard to costs and the remuneration of higher civil servants, office holders and so on. However, some of the tribunal lawyers are better paid than any of the categories mentioned. The former Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, and the former Deputy, Michael McDowell, as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform rather than as Attorney General, attempted at one point to rein in from a certain date lawyers' fees but found they had to pull back. Our Attorney General is not paid a daily rate on the basis of what he could earn in the courts, nor, for that matter, are judges. While this is only hinted at in the Minister's speech, there is much to be said for having salaried barristers work for tribunals for two or three years. There would then be an automatic limitation of at least some of those costs.