Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)

On principle, this side of the House will support the motion. It was initiated by the chairman of the tribunal, Judge Smithwick, who wrote formally to the Clerk of the Dáil seeking an extension for the tribunal because of certain outstanding issues.

Will the Minister tell me, if not today on another date, the cost of the tribunal to date given that it was originally set up in 2005? I have hang-ups about tribunals which I have recorded in this House and the other House. Some seem to have outlived their purpose and cost much more than was ever envisaged. This is a broader issue than the concept of the motion. As I stated, I am supporting the motion on principle.

I am concerned that, approximately 12 months ago, the Minister fired a shot across the bow expressing his concern, recorded publicly but perhaps taken out of context, over the delay in the completion of the work of the Smithwick tribunal. He may have had very good reason for having said so, and I do not deny it. The matter was raised in the House last November, at which time we agreed unanimously the tribunal would be given an extension of six months. This extension seems to have been insufficient. If we agree to a further extension, what will be the timeframe? Will it be open-ended? Is a specific date set? Will this be the final ultimatum to the tribunal and the chairman, based on the view the work must be concluded in the time allocated? The work of the tribunal is obviously very sensitive and important and I am not in any way denigrating it. It is most necessary. I hope some answers required by the public will be in the tribunal's findings when they are eventually published.

I have a number of queries which I have put to the Minister. My concerns were expressed on this side of the House far more vehemently by my colleague, Senator Thomas Byrne, who is not present today. The Minister will be aware of his having done so. While I have queries and concerns, I believe the request by the chairman of the tribunal to the Clerk of the Dáil cannot be ignored. It is reasonable. One of the key witnesses is currently ill and recovery may take some time. I have no problem granting a short extension to the life of the tribunal provided it will not be open-ended or drag beyond the end of this year. If it does so, it will be entering its eighth year, which is far too long for any tribunal.

Too many tribunals lasted far too long and cost the taxpayer huge sums of money. I have often stated on the record of this House that two tribunals during my lifetime were merited, one of which was the Stardust tribunal, which inquired into considerable loss of life, and the other of which was the Whiddy Island disaster tribunal. As a young apprentice, I worked for the latter. The two tribunals were effective and did their work in a short period. The catalyst for their formation was an immense loss of life. They did not last five, six or seven years and they did not cost even a fraction of what the most recent tribunals, such as the Mahon and Moriarty tribunals, have cost the State. The cost of the beef tribunal far outweighed the benefits. In future, we should be mindful about setting up tribunals and set them up only in extreme circumstances. A better means of investigation must be found to deal with these issues.