Seanad report: A number of members questioned whether a retrospective provision in the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) Bill would be effective.
Initiating the debate on the Bill, which passed all stages, Mr Tom Parlon, Minister of State for Finance, said its primary purpose was to expressly provide certainty to the chairman of the planning tribunal, Judge Mahon, to deal with issues relating to the award of costs.
The Bill had been prompted by issues of concern that had become apparent following the resignation of Mr Justice Flood as chairman of the tribunal to inquire into certain planning matters and payments.
It was proposed to amend the 1979 Act to enable the presiding member of a tribunal to make an order in relation to any costs that were incurred before his or her appointment and that had not already been determined.
It was also proposed to provide for an express power for a tribunal, or its own volition, to seek the direction of the High Court relating to the performance of the functions of the tribunal, "including relating to costs".
In addition, there would an express statutory power, vested in the chairman, to direct other members of the tribunal to sit as separate divisions and to determine the conditions that would apply, including the preparation of reports.
Mr Jim Walsh (FF) said he could understand the reason for the retrospection provision in the present circumstances but it involved retrospective legislation, which was often neither welcomed nor countenanced by the Oireachtas, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform nor the court authorities.
Mr John Dardis (PD), deputy Government leader in the House, said he shared Mr Walsh's concern regarding the retrospection aspect.