After a decade of tribunals, there is something of a sense of history about the public hearings into the DIRT controversy which open next Tuesday. It is the first time in the history of the State that a parliamentary committee has embarked on such an inquiry.
It is not an exaggeration to say that whether we will see such inquiries in the future by committees of Dail Eireann - as distinct from, say, tribunals of inquiry - will largely be determined by the conduct of the current investigation by a special sub-committee of the Public Accounts Committee.
The matters at issue go to the heart of what kind of democracy we have built. In the matter of their tax obligations, have all of our citizens, including corporate citizens, had the law applied to them equally? Have the Revenue Commissioners applied our tax laws rigorously, fairly and without favour as between taxpayers and as between categories of taxpayers?
In particular, in the matter of DIRT, was there a shortfall in the amounts of tax paid by the financial institutions and, if so, what are the reasons for and the circumstances of the shortfall? To what extent, if any, was there political or Government involvement in what transpired? Did the relevant agencies of State know of the allegedly - industry-wide - practice of using bogus non-resident accounts for purposes of tax evasion?
To say that what is at stake is the future of parliamentary inquiries as compared to tribunals is not to denigrate the latter, nor is it to avoid the possibility that in the future in some definite matter of public importance, only a tribunal will be sufficient to the task. However, there is no doubt but that ordinary citizens are concerned at the duration and cost of tribunals and are hoping for alternative mechanisms to conduct such investigations.
Whether parliamentary committees prove to be speedier and sufficiently effective remains to be seen but it is certain that they will be less expensive. For these and other reasons, an immense amount of work and planning has gone into preparing for next month's public hearings.
The Public Accounts Committee, under the chairmanship of Mr Jim Mitchell, persuaded the Government that its existing powers would not be sufficient to investigate certain matters relating to the efficacy of revenue procedures that had come to light in the print media.
New legislation was speedily enacted and the Dail by way of resolution requested the Controller and Auditor General to carry out the investigation that is detailed in his hugely significant report: Report of Investigation into the Administration of Deposit Interest Retention Tax and related matters during the period January 1st, 1986, to December 1st, 1998.
It can be said that the C&AG report will in the main constitute the book of evidence for the public hearings now scheduled to get under way. The Public Accounts Committee is the first committee to be conferred with these extensive powers that derive from the Compellability Act. That legislation, as amended, clearly provides for fair procedures and that the requirements of constitutional and natural justice are observed.
Hence the painstaking preparation, not just by the elected members but by a small dedicated secretariat.
It is evident therefore that these proceedings have an importance for parliament and for public accountability way beyond the limits of the committee's remit. If the committee is seen not to be equal to the task then it is unlikely that another committee of the Dail will take on similar responsibility for a long time. Legislators, I suspect, would then be asked to turn their attention to reform of the law relating to tribunals.
On the other hand, if the committee succeeds in doing a competent job it will enhance the relevance and prestige of Dail Eireann.
It follows that the public and commentators must understand that we are a parliamentary committee, not a court of law and not a tribunal. Normal parliamentary procedure, therefore, will be followed, changed only insofar as compliance with the new legislation requires.
What was the extent of knowledge of the relevant State agencies in relation to bogus non-resident accounts? What is the actual basis for the capital flight explanation for inaction? Is it true that the bogus non-resident accounts phenomenon was industry-wide - and was a blind eye turned?
How high did knowledge go in the financial institutions and what actions, if any, were taken to address the problem? Given the evidence marshalled by the C&AG what are the facts related to the purported settlement, arrangement or understanding that may have been entered into between the Revenue Commissioners and certain financial institutions?
Citizens will for the first time have the opportunity to form their own informed conclusions about these and other matters due to the initiative of TnaG which will broadcast the proceedings live. Anyone interested in the history of modern Ireland will view a story not often told.
Pat Rabbitte is Labour Party spokesman on enterprise and employment.