Sure, there has been a bit more detail about the famous lodgements and absolutely, we have seen Bertie Ahern's story change more often than Ireland's scrum halves. But how has all the highly forensic, probing, and mind numbingly boring questioning actually helped in achieving the goal of the tribunal which is to get to the truth of what happened?

And let's not forget that this must be the goal of the tribunal . . . it's not about it justifying its existence or its modus operandi; it's not about Ahern having a good day or a bad day in the witness box (as if the public gives a monkey's); it's not about the media; it's not about signaling what a mature democracy we are that our prime minister has to take his turn in the witness box; it's about getting to the truth.

After 10 years of its investigation, the only logical conclusion to be drawn is that the tribunal of inquiry process is absolutely not the means of achieving that.

Just to clarify, this is not, repeat, not an argument for ending the investigation into Bertie Ahern's finances. It is very hard for anybody to argue that the Taoiseach's version of events is credible.

But the problem is that we seem to be as far away as ever from finding out what really happened. And worse, you get the feeling that no amount of days spent on the witness stand by the Taoiseach will change that.

That's not necessarily a criticism of the many no doubt fine people involved in the tribunal . . . although serious questions do arise about how they have gone about their business, not least the faith they have put in Tom Gilmartin . . . more of the limitations imposed on them by a public inquiry.

It is this very public aspect of the tribunal that is at least part of the problem and a major factor in the snail-like pace.

Once accusations are made in public, people's constitutional rights kick in. It is understandable that this has caused lengthy delays in the whole process.

But less plausible is the argument that the tribunal has taken so long because of the lack of cooperation from those it is investigating. The naivety of this argument is breathtaking. Are we seriously saying that, in this far from perfect world, we expect those being investigated, particularly those with something to hide, to roll over and fess up the tribunal?

It would be churlish to deny the positive impact the tribunals have had on the Irish public life since they were set up 10 years ago. Politics now is cleaner than it has been in 40 years and for that credit is due to the work of the tribunals.

But at some point . . . it's impossible to say when exactly that happened . . . their raison d'etre disappeared. In terms of value for money, they no longer justified their quite staggering costs.

A few obvious questions arise about their operation. If it is the public dimension of the investigation that prompts the constitutional issues, would it not make sense to carry out investigations out of the public spotlight and then publish a report on the investigation's findings?

The argument has been made it is the images of the 'walk of shame' through the grounds of Dublin Castle, as much as anything else, that will serve as a deterrent to would-be future wrongdoers. It's a fair argument.

But if it's a choice between a neverending public tribunal that largely loses the confidence of the public or a short, snappy non-public investigation with a hard-hitting report published at its conclusion, there seems to be little contest.

The other obvious question concerns the excessive fees paid to tribunal lawyers and, more particularly, why there is no built-in incentive to do the job quickly? No sane person would employ a builder to construct a new house on the basis of a daily rate until the builder decides the job is finished. Yet that is effectively what government did with the tribunals.

It is also legitimate to question why barristers are running the tribunals at all? Surely forensic accountants or retired bankers, for example, would be much better qualified to do the job of following the money trail. They presumably could also be paid a more modest annual salary for doing the job.

The reality is, of course, that despite their obvious shortcomings we are stuck with the current tribunals until they complete their work. No government would dare to try and shut them down for fear of being accused of a cover-up.

That's the real world and there's nothing that can be done to change that. But we can, and we must, ensure that when, in the future, some major issue emerges demanding investigation, we avoid the mistakes that were made this month 10 years ago. It is vital for democracy that any suspicion of wrongdoing is fully investigated without fear or favour. But there simply has to be a better way of doing so than the current system.