Even if the negative views expressed by the Taxing Master, Mr James Flynn, on the operation of tribunals of inquiry had not been expressed in such colourful language, they were bound to attract public attention.
Leaving aside such phrases as "the Frankenstein of modern Irish society" and "Star Chamber", his allegation that tribunals have "absolute power" to "deny basic fundamental rights" is clearly nonsense. Everything tribunals do is open to challenge in the courts, and there have been many such challenges, some of which have been successful - including the very challenge in respect of which he was ruling when he made these comments.
Again, the statement that "public disquiet" about the issues tribunals have been investigating "was a product of the media" simply does not stand up.
The media did not invent Ansbacher deposits, nor did they simply imagine the payment of large sums to a few politicians. They published evidence that these evils existed, and we should all be very grateful for this timely exposure, without which the rot of financial malpractices in parts of our political system could have undermined our democratic system.
Equally, even including all the tribunals of the past 10 years, their costs would not add up to "hundreds of mil lions of pounds", a figure which Mr Flynn conjured out of the air.
In any event, whatever the actual cost may turn out to be, it is likely to be more than offset eventually by the very large sums of tax, interest and penalties which will be recovered by the Revenue Commissioners from tax evaders. There are lessons to be learned from our experience of recent years in relation to tribunals. Some of them have recently been identified in an article in the Bar Review by Rory Brady SC.
Mr Brady says that while many bodies can conduct investigations - the Dail, Seanad, the Garda and the Revenue Commissioners, as well as "a vigilant media" - "such bodies appear not to have satisfied the requirements of certain situations . . . the plain fact is that it was only through a tribunal that facts of cardinal importance relating to the BTSB inquiry and the Dunnes payments inquiry were revealed to the public".
In a measured analysis, he draws some lessons from this experience of the working of tribunals. Now that people have learned from recent experience that no one can escape the vigilance of a tribunal, "only a fool would fail to co-operate with a preliminary investigation carried out on behalf of a government" by a suitably appointed person, the report of which would be published when completed.
Statutory bodies and financial institutions should be legally obliged to co-operate with such preliminary investigations and to discover documents sought by them. If such a system of preliminary investigations were to be introduced, a costly tribunal would henceforth be required only when an investigated person did behave like a fool. If such a person was found by a tribunal to have engaged in misconduct in public affairs or in matters of public interest, he or she should be required to pay all or part of its costs.
Mr Brady also proposes that to control better the costs of tribunals, they should be required to observe a deadline to report on the state of their investigation to the Oireachtas, which should have the power to suspend a tribunal if the costs become disproportionate to the issues involved.
He says the terms of reference given to a tribunal should be precise and, if it finds difficulty in interpreting them, it should have power to seek further guidance from the Oireachtas. He also suggests that any future legislation giving effect to such proposals should specifically confine tribunal membership to the judiciary, which is not the case at present.
These suggestions deserve early consideration by the Oireachtas which, by taking them up now, might head off the kind of comments we have heard from Mr Flynn.
Meanwhile, the material which has already emerged from the work of the current tribunals has already made it clear that the health of our society certainly requires systems of inquiry and investigation which are outside the political arena.
This is not in any way to denigrate or devalue the remarkable work done by the Public Accounts Committee under Jim Mitchell's chairmanship. For matters not involving politicians, that committee showed it could do as good a job as any tribunal, at much lower cost. However, the committee's decision to delegate to its lawyers the questioning of Ministers showed its appreciation of its limitations when politicians' actions are at issue.
THERE remains the sore issue of the cost of lawyers employed to represent the public interest and the interests of involved parties during the course of tribunal hearings.
We all tend to resent other people being paid more than ourselves. TDs, conscious of the fact that they are paid at the salary level of assistant principals in the Civil Service (which is five grades down from the secretary-general grade at the top of the administration), are particularly sensitive on this issue.
It is only when our attention is drawn to particular instances of what we regard as high rates of pay that our irritation really surfaces. In general, professional and business rates of pay come into the public view only when these emerge from parliamentary questions about professional people employed by the State or when, on the occasion of the annual general meetings of public companies, the total amount paid to a small group of directors, executive and non-executive, is published.
Because of the tribunals, the rates paid to top lawyers have been heavily publicised. It is not perhaps sufficiently widely recognised that citizens have a constitutional right to be represented in court or at a tribunal. Many companies and some individuals (including people whose activities are being investigated) are prepared to hire the services of solicitors and/or barristers with particular skills - and are prepared to pay the cost.
Where the State is involved in litigation or where the Oireachtas has established a tribunal, it would be counter-productive for it to be represented by lawyers with lesser skills than those of people it is investigating, so the State has to pay broadly similar rates. However - although some people will choke in their soup on having this drawn to their attention - lawyers are unusual among the professions in that their rates of pay are subject to control.
If anyone questions the bills submitted by solicitors or barristers, they are examined meticulously by the Taxing Master, who can cut them substantially. If someone still thinks they are too high (or if the lawyer thinks he has cut them too much), an appeal can be made to the High Court. Many may regard the outcome of these controls as unsatisfactory but, so far as I am aware, lawyers are the only group of people whose charges are subject to control of this kind.
The final point I want to make is that while lessons can be learned from our continuing experience of tribunals, and while the Law Reform Commission might usefully be asked to examine this subject, it is of vital importance that nothing be done to damage or diminish their crucial role in providing us with a method of monitoring the manner in which a very small minority of politicians may sometimes conduct themselves.
The integrity of our political system, and thus of our entire society, ultimately depends on the availability of this powerful weapon of last resort.