John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. This is a short but important and welcome Bill. Why has it taken so long to provide tribunals with the discretion necessary to allow them do their work more expeditiously? Nobody would agree to the original and untenable proposition that they might continue to 2014 or 2015. There has been widespread public dissatisfaction with the length of time and cost of the tribunals. We owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Justice Flood and Judge Mahon and members of the Judiciary involved in other tribunals for the work they do. However, there is understandable public disquiet. The public sees no concrete outcome; it sees tribunals dragging on interminably and lawyers getting fat in the process. However, the tribunals have carried out a valuable public exercise and the money has been well spent. Indeed, money has been derived for the Exchequer which it would otherwise not get. The net cost is perhaps not as dramatic as it could be.

As Senator McCarthy said, the tribunals have shone a light into areas of public life that otherwise might never be subjected to such scrutiny. That is to be welcomed. Irrespective of the detailed outcome of the tribunals, their work has helped improve public governance, the relationship between Government and private enterprise and developers as well as the relationship between local authorities and those in private enterprise in pursuit of rezoning. In that regard, they have had a beneficial effect.

The legislation is eminently sensible. I welcome the discretion conferred on the tribunal in paragraph J(6) of its terms of reference, as outlined by the Minister, with regard to deciding whether preliminary investigations take place in private or whether to initiate a preliminary investigation. Why did this not happen earlier?

One cannot say, as Senator Bannon did, that tribunals are terrible, while all the parties in both Houses were vocal about the need for such inquiries. There was unanimity in establishing them and providing them with terms of reference. There is a question mark as to whether to use such a vehicle. The terms of reference were expanded at the request of the tribunal, but in future we may need to look more critically at drawing up more narrow terms. Otherwise the tribunal becomes open-ended.

People have constitutional rights and they exercise these rights. It can be a frustration and impediment to the workings of tribunals. However, these rights must be vindicated, if necessary, through the courts.

We must look at other ways of dealing with matters of this nature. The committee of investigation has been mentioned. One was recently and expeditiously carried out in the House of Commons and reached firm conclusions in a matter of a few weeks, rather than years. Much can be said about dealing with some of these matters by way of parliamentary inquiries or commissions, notwithstanding the case of Abbeylara which created its own difficulties. There are other methods of dealing with these matters and perhaps we must give them prominence. This is, however, based on hindsight. The original momentum to establish the tribunals was irresistible, and there was widespread public demand. It has, as Senator McCarthy said, shed light on certain areas.

I agree with Senator Bannon's point about legalised corruption. If farmers, trade unions or any other group in society tried to defend actions similar to those of the legal profession, they would be shouted out of court. However, the Houses seem transfixed, like rabbits in the headlights, when confronting the legal profession. In terms of budget speeches, there was widespread and correct dissatisfaction with the small number of wealthy individuals and millionaires in this country who avoided tax. However, we allow enormous fees to be paid. Why can a tribunal not be like any other organ of State, in that it applies, works and sits office hours? Why is it tied to the terms of the court? Obviously, people must have holidays and I do not dispute that. However, it is based on the judicial system and the way matters are dealt with in the Four Courts. This is not appropriate for a tribunal. I do not know whether it is necessary and cannot be changed.

I want to speak about penalties which might accrue from tribunal findings. Tribunals make findings of fact, people have a constitutional right to defend themselves and the court has a different way of doing things. Compared to other jurisdictions, such as France, the penalties applied here indicate a defect in the law.

Senator Bannon spoke about money for good planning. There is no question about the issue. Local authority planning departments have not been well endowed with funds and there have been many hold-ups and difficulties. However, it is wrong to say that if tribunals did not exist the money would be allocated to planning departments. It does not work like that. The money might go to planning departments, but I doubt that would happen. It has been said that the sum of €160 million was the cost of bad planning. There is a lack of conjunction between the cost of the tribunal and what is required in terms of money for planning, and the cost of the planning system.

The State is entitled to ask that highly paid and privileged people have some degree of morality. There is not much morality in the fees earned by extremely privileged individuals. There is a lack of conjunction between what they are paid and the resources of some of the people who must enter the doors of the Four Courts. However, that might be beside the point.

The tribunals have been effective, irritating, frustrating and costly. However, they have performed a useful service. This legislation will improve how they operate and it is appropriate we give the tribunal the necessary discretion to expedite its work and reach its findings as quickly as possible.