Are the tribunals good value for money?
NO:
I can't be exact about the cost of the tribunal, because no-one knows how many third parties will claim their legal fees from the tribunal and for what amount. So much about the workings and cost of the planning tribunal, and so many other tribunals, is shrouded in mystery, years after they were set up, that it is impossible to assess with precision the value for money they represent.
That doesn't mean we can't make value judgments about the performance of individual tribunals, as well as commenting generally on the structures and costing of all inquiries.
Does a scandal grow or diminish by not going away? If it was a scandal a decade ago that senior counsel at the tribunals were being paid up to €2,500 a day, what is it today - an even greater scandal or a bore? Is there really no price attached to seeking the truth, no matter how inefficiently? Lawyers in the private sector are, or course, earning large sums from their clients, but usually economies of scale apply and barristers quoting for a long-running job will reduce their quotes accordingly to reflect the greater security of income that applies. No such provision was applied at the tribunals, even for new staff, and so their billing clocks have spun around merrily at the same lively pace for the past 10 years.
Ministers have come and gone, and huffed and puffed, and still the high fees are in place. Charlie McCreevy trumpeted his scheme to curb the daily rates paid to barristers in 2004, but hightailed it to Brussels long before the inevitable unravelling.
Michael McDowell became outraged about the cost of the tribunals before the last election but not convincingly enough to ensure he held on to his seat. Measures are in place for reduced fees for future inquiries but with the tribunal model so debased, it is unlikely we'll see many of these.
Of course, high fees at the tribunals are only part of a wider problem arising from the excessive power of the legal profession, which has been plundering public funds for years.
Is it any wonder that Frank Dunlop and others with a less than distinguished record have decided to forge new careers in the law?
High fees are only part of the problem with tribunals. By their nature, these legally based inquiries are ill-suited to investigate many of the problems which have been sent their way. Lawyers have one trump power - superior access to the law - but they lack the technical and specialised skills needed to grapple with corruption.
The tribunals have clung stubbornly to legal tradition - the primacy of evidence, the short working days, the long holidays - instead of developing a multi-disciplinary approach.
They appear to have little institutional memory and few surprises up their sleeve; appearing in the witness box in Dublin Castle is still a daunting experience but not one that has cured many of amnesia. At times, the people running tribunals appear distant and inept. It was naive at best for the planning tribunal to circulate Bertie Ahern's documentation to third parties before the election. The inquiry then scheduled hearings during the campaign, only to cancel them at the first complaint. There will be no hearings into Fitzwilton's payment to Ray Burke thanks to the tribunal failing to comply with its terms of reference.
The effective investigation of corruption needs to be carried out by a standing commission of lawyers, accountants, gardaí and other relevant professionals with adequate powers to snare those involved in the crime. We'll get such a body some time, but only after further scandal, when it's too late.
I'd like to think that the tribunals have changed things, but I don't believe they have. The only people lambasted in tribunal reports are those - Charles Haughey, Ray Burke, George Redmond - who had already left public life.
The culture of corruption uncovered in a number of inquiries hasn't gone away; it has only taken on new forms. In planning, for example, it has moved out of Dublin and into other counties; yet the planning tribunal will finish next year without ever having conducted an investigation outside the capital.
Those who rally to the defence of the tribunals these days usually have a political motive. Bertie Ahern, we are told, is suffering death by a thousand tribunal cuts. In my experience, though, the fuss that surrounds high-profile appearance in the witness box dies away quickly, leaving little or no longer-term effect. It could be different this time with the Taoiseach, but I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't. With time, we will come to look on the tribunal era as just another excess of the Celtic Tiger. We had the money and we blew it; we all got a laugh, a few snippets of truth and the lawyers made a packet.
Paul Cullen is consumer affairs correspondent of The Irish Times. He previously covered the planning tribunal for this newspaper for an extended period.
