Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

Members will be aware that four or five weeks ago I circulated a copy of Mr. Justice Hardiman's judgment in the case of Murphy v. the Mahon tribunal. I believe I said at the time that I would draft and bring forward a motion which I have now done. I have decided, however, not to table the motion in the House but to bring it to the attention of Members. I have spoken about it to certain Members and circulated it to all Members with a covering letter. There is an onus on us at this stage to take action. I had the motion prepared two weeks ago, but, as I was not due to be here last week, I decided to hold it over until now. I welcome the comments made by the leaders of the parties in the other House. I remind Members that on 18 September 1997 and 8 October 1997 we asked the tribunals to inquire urgently into matters regarding planning and payments to politicians. I have used copious extracts from Mr. Justice Hardiman's judgment to support some aspects of the motion and set out that we should convey our concerns regarding costs to the two tribunals. In that regard, I quote from the judgment:

Of the various tribunals of the last two decades, the Flood Tribunal is by far the best known. In part this is due to its unprecedented length (with the possible exception of its contemporary, the Moriarty tribunal) and its consequent unparalleled expense.

It would be wholly unrealistic not to acknowledge that these costs can only be described as truly enormous.

In response to other comments made, we take money from people who are working hard to earn a living and meet their obligations. We take money at the point at which they earn their income. There is a commensurate obligation on us to ensure that money is spent prudently and cost effectively. The time has come for the House, collectively, on a cross-party basis, to deal with the issue. I ask the leaders of the parties and groups to come together, either on this or an amended motion, or at the very least to have a debate next week-----