Following delay after delay, there is no prospect of significant evidence before the general election, depriving voters of crucial details, writes Paul Cullen
Regardless of what Government spokesmen say, there is no prospect that any meaningful new evidence will be heard by the Flood tribunal before the next election.
Even if the Government makes good its rabbit-out-of-the-hat promise to produce two new tribunal judges within the next month, there is little chance they will be ready to start hearing evidence by mid-April, the probable beginning of the election campaign.
The time needed to find the judges, secure the consent of the Dáil, take Easter holidays and allow the new members read themselves into their positions means nothing significant will happen before the summer, at the earliest.
That means no pre-election evidence from Liam Lawlor, and none from the councillors identified almost two years ago by the lobbyist (and former government press secretary) Frank Dunlop. The Taoiseach and other ministers will not be called to account for their relations with developer Tom Gilmartin before going to the country. The prospect of Sir Anthony O'Reilly answering questions about the success of his companies in obtaining MMDS licences from Ray Burke is receding into the distant horizon.
Voters will go to the polls not knowing whether the accusations made against a raft of politicians are well-founded or not. The innocent will have no immediate opportunity to clear their names.
This is nothing less than a subversion of democracy. It seems that evidence can only be heard after a suitable decontamination period, defined by the passage of time and loss of office. Just as Ray Burke was only investigated after he had resigned from politics, Liam Lawlor will give evidence when he has (as the political establishment hopes) parted company with his Dáil seat.
It is starting to smack of the Beef Tribunal fiasco, only longer and more expensive. Costs for the Flood tribunal currently stand at €18 million, or double that when legal fees are included. Senior counsel will continue to collect their €1,714 a day during the half-time break created by the delays in appointing the new staff requested by Mr Justice Flood last June.
Meanwhile, we are still waiting for the report into the tribunal's work so far. Hearings into James Gogarty's payment to Burke ended 18 months ago. The investigation of Century Radio was completed five months ago. The tribunal's probe of Burke's finances ended in December. Yet the word from Dublin Castle is that the report is still far from complete.
The tribunal was set up to investigate matters of "urgent public importance", according to its terms of reference. Incredibly, these terms express the hope that it would wrap up its work by December 31st, 1997! Instead, we haven't had a single recommendation or conclusion after over four years of work. Notwithstanding the challenges it has faced, the tribunal's approach has been desultory; in 2001, for example, it sat for no more than 17 weeks throughout the year.
Government representatives disclaim any responsibility for the reluctance of the legal profession to sit in the tribunal chairman's seat. Yet they protest too much. If possible candidates had been approached, you'd expect to hear rumours from the normally garrulous Law Library.
Instead, there has been silence since the end of last summer. If face-to-face approaches haven't worked, why not place an advertisement seeking applications from suitably qualified lawyers (including solicitors)? And if it really is the case that barristers and judges are not interested, then what does that say about the profession? The posts carry a salary of about €150,000 a year, plus perks.
This is cutting-edge work, of immense public importance. Both Mr Justice Flood and Mr Justice Moriarty enjoy widespread public recognition and approbation for their work. What more can the profession want? Meanwhile, the Opposition hasn't exactly reacted swiftly to the disappearance of its best chance of ousting Fianna Fáil in the next election.
Until this week, it said nothing, even though it has been obvious for months that the tribunal was heading for a prolonged break until it got new staff.
Could it be that Fine Gael's reluctance to press the issue is related to the fact that some of its members, past and present, will feature in the tribunal's evidence? Politicians of all hues were not keen on the tribunal when it was being set up. Then they realised it could be used to park allegations, at least for the lifetime of the current administration.
How many times have we heard the refrain: "I'll deal with that at the tribunal"? When Mr Justice Flood sank into a morass with the Gogarty allegations, it suited all those who wanted to put matters on the long finger. But then Frank Dunlop made his dramatic disclosures about money in brown-paper bags, and the alarm bells started ringing.
However, the tribunal took a year to investigate Burke's links to Century Radio, and almost another year to examine the former minister's finances. When Tom Gilmartin finally got to tell his story, it was in a libel case in the Four Courts, not the tribunal. Mr Justice Flood will be 74 this summer, and it still isn't clear what would happen if he were unfit to continue.
You wouldn't run a tuckshop in this manner.
Paul Cullen is an Irish Times journalist and has been reporting the Flood Tribunal since its inception