Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)

I thank the Senators. Senator Brian Hayes referred to all-party committees, which have been effective and efficient. I agree with him. My view has always been that the committees of both Houses have been much more effective, efficient and capable of getting to the bottom of matters than some of the tribunals, which seem to drag on forever. The Senator also referred to the tribunals as animals of the Oireachtas. He might have more benignly referred to them as children of the Oireachtas, although, given the desultory performance of one or two of them, it is amazing that anyone will claim parentage.

The points made by Senators Brian Hayes and Tuffy were key to the debate in the Dáil. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform stated that we are trying to create something which is essentially different from tribunals of inquiry and which will not be deployed as a simple substitute for them. They will still exist because this is not simply a question of implementing plan B.

These amendments would change the roles proposed by the Government and the specified Minister — Senator Brian Hayes said that was the essence of the issue. The issue was debated at length on Second Stage and in the other House and I recognise that the amendments reflect strongly held views. In addressing them, however, we must understand the point the Minister was making when he said this is a completely different type of animal.

The Bill arose from a need to provide a different mechanism for investigations that is quick, cost effective, flexible, and reassuring to the public about how matters of major concern are to be investigated. The Bill attempts to create an antidote to the present arrangements which are not quick, cost effective, flexible or reassuring in the way we hoped when they were established. It creates an alternative system of investigation. The Bill does not replicate arrangements that contributed to the present difficulties. That is the key issue — the manner in which the terms of reference were previously created left them loose and that has been the source of our current difficulties. The arrangements in the Bill must be read as a new mechanism.

The Government is anxious that the Oireachtas should continue to play an important role in the establishment of commissions. The Bill provides, therefore, that a commission must be established by government order but only after the order has been approved by the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is untrue to say this is being established by diktat, the Houses have a meaningful role. The draft order must be accompanied by a reasoned statement on the need for the commission and both Houses would have a clear idea of the likely terms of reference at the conclusion of the debate on the establishing order. The establishment of commissioners and the setting of their terms of reference will not take place in a vacuum that excludes Members of the Oireachtas. The opposite is the case, the Oireachtas and its Members will have a meaningful role.

Section 4 provides that the terms of reference will be set by the specified Minister or by the Government and amendments to the terms of reference will be carried out in conjunction with and the consent of the commission. It is not simply a ministerial diktat.

The provisions of the Bill for the establishment of the commissions and the setting of the terms of reference are different from the current arrangements, but that is positive. The current arrangements for tribunals of inquiry have not been models of speed, efficiency or effectiveness. There is a fundamental need for tight and focused terms of reference and one of the problems in the existing arrangements is that these have not been provided. The Oireachtas gave terms of reference to tribunals in the past that contributed to the extraordinary delays and mind blowing costs. No one at the outset of the current set of tribunals could conceivably have imagined the telephone number sums that are being paid in costs.

The proposals in the Bill take account of views expressed in the report prepared after the DIRT inquiry by the Office of the Attorney General and the Department of Finance and quoted in the Law Reform Commission's consultation paper. We should remind ourselves that the DIRT inquiry, which was initiated in a committee of the Houses, was efficient and got on with the job.

The proposals in the Bill result in tighter terms of reference than might arise if the terms were set under current arrangements. These proposals are to be preferred and I am not in a position to accept the Opposition amendments. Having been briefed on this by the Department, I am convinced that the arguments being put forward by the Department and the Minister are cogent and bear scrutiny.

The arrangements for the establishment of tribunals are not being altered in any way. The tribunal process exists, the fact that the different arrangements are being applied in the case of commissions underlines the fact that they are different mechanisms. We are not creating, as the Minister said in the Dáil, "tribunals-lite", we are creating a different form of body to carry out investigations. They are designed to achieve different ends and they apply different procedures. It is appropriate, therefore, that the terms of reference should be set in a way that allows for a tighter focus.

Senator Brian Hayes mentioned that the Minister would establish the commissions and would draft their terms of reference. Under section 38(i)(a), the Minister is under a statutory duty to publish a report as soon as possible after receiving it, subject to the need to avoid any intrusion into ongoing or proposed criminal proceedings. We all accept that. It will be available to the Oireachtas and may be the subject of questions or Adjournment debates or be taken up by a committee. The hearings on the Barron report by the Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights are an example of such practice.

The Minister has given thought to the points made and the issue was discussed at length. He has come down in favour of the existing proposals because the arguments in favour outweigh the points made by the Senators. We are not simply modifying the tribunals, we are establishing a mechanism that is more efficient and will produce timely reports and be better focused. Even if one does not subscribe to the view that barristers and lawyers will write their own terms of reference when they get into these mechanisms, we are creating a focused system that will give a timely response on issues under discussion. This does not create something to displace the existing tribunal mechanism. There may be a case for those being used but this is a different system working in different circumstances to produce something that is more focused and produces its work in a more rapid and cost effective manner. I thank Senators for their amendments but I cannot accept them.