John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. This is important and essential legislation. I am pleased its passage is being facilitated through this House and I hope it will be facilitated through the other House so that it will quickly become law because it is required. It will remove the uncertainty regarding the issue of costs, which arose when Mr. Justice Flood stepped down from the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments and for that reason it is to be welcomed. However, it raises broader issues which have been well debated in the media, within these Houses and elsewhere.

It is unquestionably correct to say that there has been widespread cynicism and dissatisfaction concerning the costs of tribunals, the length of time they take to complete their work and that it seems to be the case that people can repeatedly go to the High Court to try to frustrate the intentions of the Oireachtas in that regard. It is important to state that the tribunals were established by the Oireachtas. I take Senator Tuffy's point in that regard. It is important that the imprimatur of the Oireachtas is dominant in the setting of the terms of reference of the tribunals and the way in which they are constructed. There is a definite desire by some people to frustrate them, which is understandable, and perhaps it is one of the few deficiencies of the fact that we have a written Constitution.

It was notable in the recent past in the case of a major public parliamentary inquiry in Britain into the suicide of a public servant that it seemed to be possible to dispose of it in a short period. Admittedly, it was about a specific incident and the circumstances surrounding it, but there were broader issues concerning defence, the conduct of the Iraqi war and why the United Kingdom went to war in the first place. It seemed possible, through the mechanism of that inquiry, to conduct the investigation speedily and effectively. It is unfortunate in the case of the Abbeylara inquiry, which was conducted by a committee of these Houses, that there is a question mark over that type of inquiry, as there is a possibility to do much more within the ambit of the parliamentary system.

Another reason for such cynicism was a widespread belief that nobody was ever punished, that the tribunals would run their course and that they might point the finger in certain directions, but nothing would happen. However, recent events have shown that to be manifestly not the case. One senior official has been jailed and a former Minister is being charged with offences under the tax amnesty regulations. We cannot prejudice the outcome of that, but it appears there is a follow up to the work of the tribunals, which is to be very much welcomed.