Modern legal systems, including the Irish one, have come to rest on two fundamental requirements for public acceptability: legitimacy in the eyes of those over whom they exert authority, and power or influence over the conduct of the people whom their norms regulate. The degree of public cynicism about the outcome of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Industry has now been compounded by the Taxing Master's rulings on huge legal fees for the span of the tribunal's work, which have been awarded irrespective: of its findings on the allocation of blame, as was laid down in Mr Justice Hamilton's decision to award costs to Mr Larry Goodman and his companies.
As it contemplates whether to appeal these legal costs, the Government should pay full attention to the public disrepute into which such awards bring the law - lawyers are in danger of becoming as unpopular as economists were in the 1980s, even though in each case only a minority of individuals contributed to the arrogant, self regarding public stereotype involved. Far more important than the damage to the reputation of lawyers, is that to the legal system as a whole, notably to its legitimacy and authority.
How has it happened that the only people to have been prosecuted as a result of the tribunal have been six relatively lowly employees and the journalist whose investigation triggered off the tribunal in the first place, despite the fact that Goodman International was showed to have engaged in a whole series of frauds and malpractices? How does this square with the fact that the State is being penalised to the tune of £68 million by the European Commission for mismanagement and malpractice in the beef industry in the years 1990 and 1991 a cost that will be borne by the taxpayer and not sought back from the company? And how has it happened that the formula adopted for fees when the tribunal was established, has allowed such unconscionable amounts to pile up? No doubt there are explanations, more or less convincing, more or less legalistic, to each of these questions. But a deeply sceptical public will require a lot more than what has so far been offered if they are to be satisfied that the law is fairly and equally administered as between this greatest piece of white collar crime and the more usual crime concerning a more disadvantaged segment of the population. The determination of legal fees has now passed to the Department of Finance from the Attorney General's office. It must be expected that the department will take a more parsimonious attitude, including the application of sliding and standard scales, and the setting of more rigorous deadlines. The degree of self regulation tolerated in the legal profession will in any case be harder to sustain after this experience.
Lessons must also be learned about how to frame and mandate such inquiries in the future to ensure that they do not assume such gargantuan proportions. The rapid development of the Oireachtas committee system opens up alternative methods of dealing with many issues, but may be incompatible with the tighter rules of cabinet confidentiality that have emerged from this tribunal.
It would still be a mistake to rule out special tribunals in the future if sufficiently grave matters require investigation or to conclude that the unsatisfactory outcome and cost of this one mean that it should not have been set up in the first place. Agriculture is Ireland's largest industry, after all. It is essential that it be seen to be administered within the European rules that govern it, and on balance this has been achieved. It remains to repair the damage done to the credibility of the legal system which is highlighted by this decision on fees.