A detailed report before an inquiry increases its efficiency and helps it to focus, according to the Bar Council. An editorial in the current Bar Review says the McCracken tribunal, the Finlay tribunal on the BTSB and the Public Accounts Committee inquiry into DIRT taxation all had in common the existence of prior reports into the area being inquired into.
The Public Accounts Committee had the advantage that all the institutions being inquired into co-operated fully with the Comptroller and Auditor General in the first instance, and later with the committee, it says. The existence of a detailed report from the Comptroller and Auditor General meant the committee had a detailed document from which to explore the issue further at the public hearings. The Bar Review says the McCracken and Finlay tribunals, both of which were widely praised, were preceded by the Buchanan inquiry and the Hederman report respectively.
Comparing the DIRT inquiry with the Flood and Moriarty inquiries, it says: "It must be remembered that the scope of the DIRT Inquiry was limited and focused. The scope of the inquiries which the Flood and Moriarty tribunals have been required to carry out are not."
It adds that while all the relevant parties agreed to co-operate with the DIRT inquiry, this was not the case with the Flood and Moriarty inquiries.
None the less, "the success of the DIRT inquiry should however prompt careful consideration in the future as to which form of inquiry is appropriate in any given instance. There will undoubtedly be cases where an inquiry by an Oireachtas committee will be the most suitable and efficient and there will be other cases where a full tribunal of inquiry will be required."