I wish to ask the Taoiseach two questions on the planning tribunal. It is fair to say that Mr. Justice Flood has done a great deal of good work in his interim report but the public is appalled at the prospect of the tribunal continuing for a further 15 years and the massive costs involved with this inquiry. In his letter, Mr. Justice Flood has indicated he wishes to step down as chairman of the tribunal. My understanding is that it is the Government's preference, as it is mine, that he should deal with the issue of costs, and he can only deal with the issue of costs as chairman, under the legislation as currently constructed.

Has the Taoiseach responded to the letter from Mr. Justice Flood and, if so, will he provide the Opposition leaders with copies of that correspondence? In the event that Mr. Justice Flood is prepared to deal with the issue of costs as an ordinary member of the tribunal, which is allowable under the legislation, will the Taoiseach introduce a simple amendment to that legislation to allow for Mr. Justice Flood to deal with the issue of costs as an ordinary member of the tribunal, because the legislation would have to be amended to enable him to do that?

A matter which is causing some concern is the proposal by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to have certain sections or modules of the planning tribunal carried out by a new body in private. The Minister has indicated that legislation in this area will be introduced next week. The concern of many would be that potentially embarrassing modules of the tribunal would be heard under these proposals in private. This could be a reason for some people to diminish the credibility of the public element of the hearings of this very important tribunal. Before any decision is taken in that regard, I ask the Taoiseach to consult fully with the Opposition Leaders to ensure nothing is done to undermine public confidence. Were the Government to follow on the proposals of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, it would be regrettable if it used its majority to bring about that situation. Will the Taoiseach respond to those two elements of the planning tribunal?

I have answered these questions very simply and straightly. I assured the leaders yesterday that I would consult fully on aspects of this matter because it was the Oireachtas that set up these tribunals. No decision will be taken without full discussion. It is the Government's wish that Mr. Justice Flood, in whatever capacity, deals with the issue of costs, although it would be better if he did so as chairman, because that would avoid legal complications. Some people feel one can do this and that there would not be difficulties while some other person would have a challenge on it because they may take a counter view. Quite frankly, I have no doubt this will be argued by legal people. The way to avoid that is if Mr. Justice Flood deals with the issue of costs, in whatever capacity, and we will make the arrangements for that.

I do not want to release the letter sent to Mr. Justice Flood yet because he received it only yesterday, but it states that it is the Government's wish that he consider that issue. It asks some questions and there is nothing strange in the letter. It asks about the duration of the modules, the likely duration to completion, the legal costs and the likely costs to be incurred in investigating all matters within the terms of reference. The points raised are general and I am sure we will get an answer. If it is in order with the judge at that stage I will release both letters.

On the other issue, I take the point made by Deputy Kenny. We have lived with all the tribunals for six years and it is good for politics that all these issues are dealt with. We have a good deal of legislation and I do not want to change the position now. I have discussed this issue with the Attorney General. The legislation which the Minister, Deputy McDowell, is bringing forward was originally intended to deal with other tribunals outside this set of tribunals. Perhaps there are modules that could be moved to it but that would only be done if there was agreement here and with the legal team. Given that they have done a certain amount of work, we cannot deal with the matter in isolation. My advice is that this matter could continue for 15 years and I do not want that either.

The tribunals legislation of 2002 specifically envisages the chairperson continuing to sit as an ordinary member. The proposed change will not preclude the Flood tribunal from hearing the module before it, which includes dealing with allegations made by the lobbyist Mr. Frank Dunlop. It is important to emphasise that where allegations have been made in public before a tribunal, those who are the subject of the allegations should be entitled to a public hearing – Deputy Rabbitte made this point yesterday at Question Time – and, if the evidence so justifies it, a report vindicating them. The House must consider the full implications of this development. The issues raised by the lobbyist, Frank Dunlop, which are before the tribunal will have to be dealt with by it. If we talk of any modules moving over, they will be later modules and we must discuss whether this is possible.

I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. Mr. Justice Flood indicated in his letter that he would like to see this matter resolved before the House rises for the summer recess, which is tomorrow week. That leaves time for a simple amendment to be introduced to the legislation to allow him continue as an ordinary member of the tribunal and deal with the costs issue, if he is willing. It is unprecedented for a High Court judge not to deal with costs involved in a High Court action.

If Mr. Justice Flood decides that he does not want to deal with the issue of costs, it leaves us in uncharted, complex legal waters where the Government could be faced with legal challenge after legal challenge, perhaps eventually leading to it having to concede costs across the board on every issue. This leaves us with a serious legal problem. It could be sorted out if Mr. Justice Flood consents to deal with the issue of costs, either in his capacity as chairman or as an ordinary member of the tribunal, in which case amendment to the legislation would be necessary.

Will the Taoiseach reconfirm that the Government has no intention other than to see that those who obstructed the tribunal will not evade their responsibilities in terms of costs? Will he also confirm that no obstacle will be placed in the way of the truth being found out in regard to the reasons for the setting up of the tribunal? No price can be put on truth.

I agree and confirm that is the position. The module before the tribunal must be dealt with by it. I am legally advised that there is no other way to proceed. Having talked to the Attorney General and the Ministers directly involved, we do not think this can be resolved before the end of next week. The issue of costs is important and has been so for several months – it will have to remain important for some more months. I am not being difficult but that is the advice I have been given. We will have to resolve the issue. The Government, the Oireachtas and the tribunal have to deal with this matter. We will have to keep each other informed, and I will do that.