The future of tribunals: The Minister for Justice foresees more closed doors and less lawyer involvement in the tribunal of the future, writes Paul Cullen.
When they were established, tribunals were charged with delivering results as economically and as quickly as possible. Experience shows, however, they have been anything but cheap or quick.
So is there another way of doing things? The Dáil Public Accounts Committee's six-week investigation into DIRT tax is frequently cited as the model for speedy, successful inquiries, but this forum would hardly work when, as in the case of the Mahon tribunal, politicians are the ones under scrutiny.
The Hutton inquiry currently underway in Britain shows that not all investigations have to be long-winded and lawyer-heavy. One of the reasons for this is that Hutton has quite specific terms of reference, in contrast to the meandering remit of many of our own tribunals.
This lesson has not been lost on the Minister for Justice, Mr McDowell, who will shortly introduce legislation to create a new form of inquiry for matters of urgent public importance.
It is likely that the McDowell model will give rise to tribunals with a specific remit, with an initial report being carried out to determine whether it is necessary to convene a full tribunal. Some or all of the evidence is likely to be heard in private, and the role of lawyers is likely to be diminished.
Mr McDowell says this model will serve as the vehicle for all future inquiries of the type currently undertaken by the tribunals. However, the big question is whether it may, at some stage, be used to take on some of the workload currently before the Mahon tribunal, and possibly others.
It's a politically sensitive point, with the Opposition eager to cry foul if it seems that allegations are being buried or dealt with behind closed doors. Arguments over the suggested changes to the remit of the Laffoy inquiry also points towards potential legal difficulties.
But any common sense analysis could only conclude that some reforms are necessary to speed up the work of the tribunals. The Mahon tribunal, for example, has completed 3.5 out of over 20 modules of investigation. It has taken six years to do this, so at these rates it could be sitting for decades.
Appointing skilled investigators to work largely in private would speed up the work considerably, as well as cutting costs. Expensive barristers would then only be used specifically for the type of legal work they were trained to do.
Mr McDowell also foresees a greater role for the Criminal Assets Bureau in fighting corruption. However, it isn't clear how this is to be achieved. In the past, the Garda have struggled to make any impact on corruption; indeed, their repeated failure to bring in any prosecutions directly led to the crisis which gave birth to the tribunals.
Many of the events under investigation today relate to transactions carried out many years ago, for which there is little or no "money trail". In other cases, the money trail leads to far-off banking havens that are reluctant to co-operate with Irish authorities.
While Mr McDowell considers his options, the meter keeps running. So far, the Mahon tribunal alone has cost the taxpayer 25 million, with another 50 million or so due in legal costs for the various witnesses. While the tribunal's inquiries and those of CAB have resulted in payments of over 34 million being made to the Revenue Commissioners, it's unlikely that this windfall will continue at such a level.