Michael McCarthy (Labour)

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Roche, to the House. I was not present on the last occasion on which this matter was debated but I contributed to a debate on planning following the Minister's appointment. These are related issues. I welcome the legislation and I will be supporting it. The tribunal must be given as wide an ambit as possible. Back in 1997 nobody would have envisaged the amount of time, effort and expense put into the then Flood tribunal, now the Mahon tribunal. If the wisdom of today had prevailed at that stage, it is possible the House would not be having this debate. It is important that we broaden the terms of reference and scope of the tribunals.

For nearly ten years, tribunals have been a permanent backdrop to politics and public life. The public, by and large, wear tribunal glasses, so to speak, when looking at the body politic. It is sad for politics and many politicians of all political persuasions and none that a handful of people were corrupt. We need be mindful that of the 1,500 or 1,600 parliamentarians, Deputies and Senators, since independence, only a small, albeit unacceptable, number were corrupt. The vast majority of politicians have always been hard-working, decent people.

The cost of the tribunals is an important factor in determining how people judge their performance. Rightly or wrongly, this is the yardstick by which some people measure their workings. People are not ready to sift through a great deal of fine detail. Several interim reports have been published and much of the language used has been difficult to understand for the layman. Nevertheless, the value of the tribunals is being realised, particularly when one considers the manner in which Mr. Justice Flood was able to call a spade a spade in his interim report. He was able to state that Mr. X or Mr. Y was corrupt and took payments while abusing his public position to advance the cause or positions of private individuals. To reach the point at which the tribunal has correctly pointed a finger was a positive development.

For many years, rumours abounded about corruption in the planning process in Dublin. The dogs in the street knew of them. Although the Garda investigated corruption in the early 1990s, it was unable to find someone who could provide names or proof that corruption took place or link corrupt payments with specific planning decisions. Thankfully, the tribunals have been able to do this. While costly, the tribunals have proved vital in exposing the corruption and dishonesty which characterised a number of individuals, particularly in the Dublin area, during the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s.

Mr. Justice Flood, who has retired, deserves special mention, not least because he worked beyond retirement age on the tribunal he chaired. In addition to chairing many public hearings, he spent many days and weeks locked away in private investigation. With his distinguished legal career and expertise, he did considerable work and brought structure to the operation of the tribunal. His achievements as chairman of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments since its inception in 1997 went above and beyond the call of duty. The House must single him out in that regard.

Mr. Justice Flood proved that private interests were advanced by those who abused public office and that some of the people who gave rise to the establishment of the tribunal deliberately obstructed and lied to it. He had no bones about calling a spade a spade and identifying the individuals responsible for the filth emanating from the tribunal.

We can thank the inquiry for creating the culture of recent years whereby a light is shone into the area of planning, in particular, and public life in general. The element of transparency and expectation would not prevail had it not been for the work of the tribunals. It is, at a minimum, disappointing to learn in the interim reports of what everybody knew but nobody could prove until Mr. Justice Flood took the chair of the tribunal, namely, that a number of people, primarily developers, politicians and, specifically, one senior official of a local authority, worked hand in hand to ensure their material vested interests would be served at the price of honesty and transparency in public life.

Senators know many public representatives working at local and national level. We know the amount of energy, commitment, hard work and effort invested in this role despite the absence of a guarantee that one will have one's job after the next election. One of the direct consequences of the behaviour of a small number of people involved in corruption was to bring opprobrium on all politicians of all persuasions.

With regard to the costs of tribunals, the Mahon tribunal is in its seventh year, which is a long time. While we all realise the benefit of the tribunal and we hope it will achieve its overall objective, we must also be mindful that it is extremely expensive. Members of one profession have made millions out of the process. In April this year, the Secretary General of the Department of Finance told the Committee of Public Accounts that all tribunals and inquiries had, by that date, cost the State €144 million, of which €103 million was spent on legal costs. A further €300 million was estimated for third party costs, which brings the total cost of tribunals at that date to well over €400 million.

Let us consider the efforts made by the Tánaiste, while Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, in the area of insurance and what has been achieved since the Personal Injuries Assessment Board was established, on the recommendation of the Motor Insurance Advisory Board chaired by Dorothea Dowling. The Government considered the legal costs of insurance claims, namely, litigation and associated costs, the profits of the legal profession and the manner in which it made money out of young people from insurance policies. Having examined the issue, it decided the system was not fair and established two excellent boards, one as the consequence of the other. As a result, the price of insurance premia have fallen, albeit not on the scale which would make us all happy.

Some representatives of the insurance industry and the legal profession did not want to know about the creation of the Motor Insurance Advisory Board or its successor. While insurance and the tribunals are different areas, the same principle applies. We need the services of solicitors, junior counsel and senior counsel but we need to examine the issue with a view to ensuring value for money is obtained and the amount of money spent on tribunals is worthwhile in terms of what they achieve. A good case has been made in favour of introducing a process of tendering. Provided the approach to the manner in which the costs of the tribunal are negotiated and settled is mindful and coherent, the process will be worthwhile.

One of the satirical political television programmes of recent years concentrated five minutes of its 28-minute weekly production on two men in wigs and black gowns counting out money. While the programme took the mickey out of the system to an extent, it also displayed in no small way the mindset associated with the involvement of the legal profession in the tribunals and the manner in which the costs of the tribunals have escalated at an alarming rate in recent years. That said, the process is worthwhile. If we must admit it is a painstaking process, so be it. The work carried out by Mr. Justice Flood and, in the past year, Judge Mahon has helped to establish that we have confronted the issue. Proof is available that people corrupted the system.

Senators must ensure the tribunal is allowed to operate within the remit it requires. We can amend its terms of reference to give it the powers and scope necessary to tackle the issues before it in a constructive fashion. That is a follow on from the debate in the Dáil with regard to the appointment of two additional judges. This measure is expensive but absolutely necessary. When one considers the projected dates of the tribunal's conclusion, it reinforces the requirement for us to deliberate and ensure the enactment of legislation which will give the tribunal the powers it needs.