Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. This Bill, which is overdue, is welcome. When Mr. Justice Flood resigned in June 2003, my party leader asked the Taoiseach to bring forward legislation to deal with his resignation and the subsequent fallout. While six months is not too long to wait, this is an urgent matter and I am glad it is being dealt with now.

I remind the House of the circumstances which give rise to the need for some aspects of the Bill. There was a considerable degree of delay in the Government's handling of Flood. In June 2001, Mr. Justice Flood requested extra judges. That request was only acceded to in March 2002. On 16 June 2003, Mr. Justice Flood announced his decision to step down as chairman but to remain on as an ordinary member, thus enabling him to determine the question of costs. After a series of meetings and correspondence between Flood and the Government, Mr. Justice Flood announced his decision to resign completely on 29 June 2003. It appears that up to a certain point in time Mr. Justice Flood was willing to remain on and determine the issue of costs but following a meeting with the Attorney General he announced his decision to resign fully.

Like the subsequent resignation of Ms Justice Laffoy, the Government's handing of the resignation of Mr. Justice Flood gives rise to many questions. Both resignations were remarkable and surprising. However, the same Government's mishandling gave rise to both resignations. The Government's contempt for the inquiry headed by Ms Justice Laffoy is palpable from the correspondence from her to the Government.

This Government consistently tried to discredit the tribunal mainly by disseminating the notion that its work would last a further 15 years. This assertion is without foundation and certainly does not originate from Mr. Justice Feargus Flood. As recently as last month, the Taoiseach told the Dáil the work of the Flood tribunal would run for 30 years.

The amendment effected by section 2 marks a significant departure from established practice, whereby the judge who determines the substantive matter determines also the question of costs. If put into practice, section 2 will require Judge Mahon to adjudicate on the costs of the past five years' work of the tribunal. The last thing we want is a further delay in the work of the tribunal but legislation of this nature represents an opportunity to disrupt it. I will not say anything to provide encouragement to those who will challenge the legislation, but a well drafted provision would deter potential challenges.