Tribunals of inquiry have shone a torch into many dark corners of Irish society. The actions of politicians, planners, priests, doctors, police and others have been, or are being, subjected to unprecedented scrutiny, and some unacceptable practices have been uncovered.
It is to be hoped that they will not occur in future, though critics have pointed out that the main beneficiaries of tribunals so far appear to be members of the legal profession.
There is no doubt that any benefits accruing from tribunals have been at great cost to the taxpayer, and often following an inordinate expenditure of time and effort. It is hardly surprising that many are wondering if there is not a better way of finding out what goes wrong when a public, or publicly-supported, institution fails to live up to the public's expectations.
The latest publication from the Law Reform Commission attempts to answer this question in its Consultation Paper on Public Inquiries, including Tribunals of Inquiry. The Commission points out how the duration of tribunals, the extent of legal representation and the costs are all interlinked.
The first thing to get right with a tribunal is its terms of reference. The report makes useful proposals. It then points out that the right to legal representation has its origins in the constitutional protection afforded to a citizen's good name. It questions whether the levels of representation granted have been excessive, and suggests that those who make allegations, for example, should not have representation. More controversially, it argues that victims of wrong-doing should be represented by counsel for the tribunal. It points out that witnesses in court cases are not routinely legally represented, even though the conclusion of the case may cast doubt on their credibility as witnesses. This reduction in representation, if it were followed through, would reduce both time and costs.
The Commission also argues that much more of the work of tribunals could take place in private, thereby removing the need for the defence of the good name of people named before it, along with proposing changes in the way in which legal representatives are chosen and paid.
In its totality, the report poses a valid question: do we want tribunals to concentrate on finding out the facts and preventing failures in the future, rather than naming and shaming? It marks the beginning of a consultation process. Its recommendations should be debated soberly, with a minimal defence of the vested interests that have become embedded in the tribunal culture, so they can form the basis for reform.