The Minister for Justice, Mr O'Donoghue, speaking on a Bill to strengthen the law in relation to Tribunals of Inquiry which was passed last night, said the move to introduce the legislation followed the McCracken tribunal when two issues of costs arose.

The first was whether the tribunal had the power to order individuals to pay the costs of others appearing before the inquiry. The second was whether the tribunal had the power to award costs to itself against the former Taoiseach, Mr Charles Haughey, because of the expense incurred due to his failure to co-operate.

Mr O'Donoghue said the need to strengthen tribunal legislation quickly was evident because of the establishment of two tribunals. Under the orders of the Oireachtas the two tribunals should have the powers to compel a person who fails to co-operate to pay their costs.

The Bill gives tribunals additional powers to order costs to be paid by individuals appearing at inquiries. It also allows a tribunal's orders to be enforced and it grants immunity to people who supply written statements or documents to a tribunal.

Outlining the details of the Bill, the Minister said that a witness appearing before a tribunal has the same immunity as one appearing before the High Court. Under the Bill, a witness who produces documents under order from a tribunal also has the same immunity as a witness at the High Court.

He thanked the Labour Party leader, Mr Ruairi Quinn, for furnishing the text of an amending Bill in November. This was taken "fully into account" when the Bill was drawn up.

The Fine Gael spokesman on justice, Mr Higgins, said the forthcoming tribunal must get to the bottom of "all aspects of the funding of the affairs of Mr Haughey and Mr Lowry".

He was "not saying this out of political vindictiveness" but he believed "we are at a watershed in Irish political life". If there was a well-founded public suspicion that all aspects of the finances of both individuals had not been dealt with when the tribunal's work was completed, then "more damage than good will ensue for the process now being undertaken".

Comparing the McCracken tribunal to the beef tribunal, he said the beef inquiry had cost millions of pounds. "The irony is that apart from a few fingered relatively minor individuals, none of the major managers or manipulators were really brought to book".

Mr Larry Goodman, a major beef processor, "through an elaborate financial arrangement which was facilitated by legislation in this House, has now worked his way back into being one of the major players in the beef market".

"Major and criminal irregularities were uncovered but none of the principal perpetrators, including Mr Goodman, was asked to pay the costs either literally or metaphorically".

Mr Higgins called for the Central Bank's role in the so-called Ansbacher accounts to be fully investigated. He commended the tribunal's work in publicising the existence of "the dodgy £38 million Ansbacher Accounts and the Guinness and Mahon (Ireland) Bank link" with the accounts.

It was clear Central Bank regulations were flouted, particularly in the breaching of exchange controls. Major questions were raised about what sanctions "if any, did the Central Bank in its role as banking policeman and licensing authority impose on Guinness and Mahon? Did it make a formal report to the Minister for Finance? Did it believe that tax evasion was afoot and if so what did it do about it?"