The use of diverse talents in public inquiries - not just lawyers - is key to improving efficiency and saving money, writes Eugene McMahon
The Consultation Paper on Public Inquiries, recently published by the Law Reform Commission, is an interesting addition to the ongoing debate on how best to conduct public inquiries. It gives careful and thoughtful consideration to many of the issues relevant to these inquiries.
The legal and procedural issues relating to the operation of public inquiries are complex and, coming as I do from a non-legal perspective, many of the suggestions proposed by the Law Reform Commission appear both reasonable and sensible. To my eye, implicit in the consultation paper is a route map for running inquiries that achieves the twin objectives of understanding and learning from past mistakes and doing so in an economically efficient manner.
Having had direct experience in a number of recent public inquiries a key observation is that inquiries, like their subject matter, inevitably involve a number of different disciplines. It therefore seems logical and efficient, that the support teams to the tribunal, committee or commissioner, as appropriate, must reflect an expertise in these relevant disciplines, including, for example administrative skills, IT, financial, accounting and research, in addition to legal expertise.
In fact, such multidisciplined teams have been successfully used in a number of recent Oireachtas inquiries and have been commonplace in the court system for some time through the use of expert witnesses.
Public inquiries are distinguished by the large number of parties involved, each with an interest in core issues under consideration and, consequently, by the enormous volume of documents requiring review.
A team of individuals with appropriate skills, working together under the supervision of the inquiry chairperson, to collate, examine, analyse and produce a set of core documents relevant to the inquiry, is the only efficient way of processing the volumes of paper that will be presented at the outset. The phase identified by the Law Reform Commission as the "information gathering" stage of an inquiry would seem an obvious point at which well-marshalled multidisciplinary teams would match core skills to the work at hand, thereby creating a more efficient process.
The benefits of such an approach are many and include enhanced focus and cost efficiency. In terms of focus it is obviously more efficient to deal with large volumes of documentation privately, prior to the commencement of the "public" phase of an inquiry's work, thereby ensuring that only what is relevant is afforded the status of evidence and dealt with in the course of hearings.
Documents should be reviewed by personnel, drawn from whichever discipline is appropriate, with the competence and skills necessary to assess the relevant issues. The consequent streamlined process and enhanced focus can contribute significantly to time saved.
The other obvious benefit of using a multidisciplinary team and the application of appropriate skills to the tasks, is cost. Historically, a broad range of inquiry activity has been undertaken, or at least supervised almost exclusively, by legal personnel. While there is no doubt that significant legal expertise (and its related costs) will always be required as part of these inquiries, it is not cost-effective, or reasonable, to incur high legal costs where the output could be more efficiently produced by someone with more appropriate skills.
A team consisting of a combination of skilled administrators, IT experts, researchers, auditors, economists, forensic investigators and, as and when necessary, accountants doctors and lawyers, should be able to produce an equivalent or better result at a substantially lower cost than a team staffed solely by members of the Bar. It is simply a question of horses for courses.
An inquiry, by its very nature, requires a determination of facts. The question that then arises is whether it is always necessary to filter all relevant facts, at all stages of an inquiry, through members of the legal profession. I am not sure that my views accord with the current body of legal procedures applied to public inquiries, but it seems to me no more than common sense to suggest that a system that insists all facts are reviewed by lawyers, irrespective of whether they require particular professional appraisal in the first instance, runs the risk of incurring unnecessary expense.
Equally, while I agree with the view of the Law Reform Commission that it is often prudent to appoint a judge as chairperson of an inquiry, I endorse as markedly sensible the commission's recommendation that a tribunal should be capable of being set up with members drawn from different fields where appropriate.
Public inquiries are a feature of society's desire to regulate itself and to account for its actions. If you believe, as I do, that it is appropriate to try to understand where and why things have gone wrong in the past, an inquiry system is a useful tool.
However, in carrying out an inquiry we equally have an obligation to apply another element of modern-day accountability - the need to ensure value for money. It is imperative to introduce practical and common sense steps to ensure that the costs of inquiry don't outweigh the benefits - otherwise, we run the risk of inquiries being ridiculed by future generations as little more than an exercise in throwing good money after bad.
• Eugene McMahon is the head of Corporate, Institutional and Governance Services at Mazars. He acted as a forensic adviser to the Oireachtas inquiries into DIRT and Mini-CTC Railway Signalling.