Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 17 Apr 2002

Vol. 552 No. 1

Abbeylara Tribunal: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Dáil Éireann:

resolves that it is expedient that a Tribunal be established under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts, 1921 to 2002, to inquire into the following definite matter of urgent public importance:

the facts and circumstances surrounding the fatal shooting of John Carthy at Abbeylara Co. Longford on 20th April, 2000;

and to report to the Clerk of Dáil Éireann and to make such findings and recommendations as it sees fit in relation to these matters;

and further resolves that:

(I) the Tribunal shall report to the Clerk of the Dáil on an interim basis not later than four months from the date of establishment of the tribunal and also as soon as may be after the tenth day of any oral hearings of the Tribunal on the following matters:

(a) the number of parties granted representation by the Tribunal,

(b) the progress which will then have been made in the hearings and work of the Tribunal,

(c) the likely duration (so far as might then be capable of being estimated) of the proceedings of the Tribunal,

(d) any other matters that the Tribunal considers should be drawn to the attention of the Houses of the Oireachtas at the time of the report (including any matters relating to its terms of reference);

(II) the inquiry shall be completed in as economical a manner as possible and at the earliest possible date consistent with a fair examination of the matters referred to it;

(III) all costs incurred by reason of the failure of individuals to co-operate fully and expeditiously with the Tribunal should, as far as it is consistent with the interests of justice and the provisions of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts, 1921 to 2002, be borne by those individuals.

–(Minister for Justice, Equality and

Law Reform).

Mr. Shatter: Are there copies of the Minister's speech? He started at two or three minutes to seven and at that point it had not been distributed.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Donoghue)

Copies are being distributed. As I was saying, I thank Members for agreeing to deal with this matter at relatively short notice.

From the outset I have expressed the view that the tragic death of Mr. Carthy required detailed, open and transparent examination in a manner which addressed issues of public concern. Once the Director of Public Prosecutions decided that charges should not be preferred in the matter, I obtained the agreement of both Houses of the Oireachtas to refer the report of the Garda Commissioner into the fatal shooting to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for its consideration. This was done and the joint committee submitted the report to both Houses in the form of an interim report, enabling it to be published, and established a sub-committee to consider it.

Even in the immediate aftermath of this sad event I did not rule out a public inquiry under the Tribunal of Inquiries Acts. I was of the view that a decision on such an inquiry, before hearing the views of the sub-committee on the report of the Garda Commissioner, would be premature. Members will also recall that after the initial High Court ruling in this matter last November I indicated my willingness to recommend to the Houses of the Oireachtas that the tragic death of Mr. Carthy be made the subject of a public inquiry under the Tribunal of Inquiries Acts in the event that further inquiries by the Oireachtas could not proceed on legal grounds. The option of proceeding with the Oireachtas sub-committee's inquiry into this matter cannot now be pursued in light of the recent ruling of the Supreme Court and in accordance with my previous statements in the matter I have obtained Government approval for moving this resolution.

Last week's Supreme Court ruling obviously has wider implications than those applying to the sub-committee's inquiry which need to be examined. The House will appreciate that the judgments were lengthy, detailed and complex and reaching conclusions in relation to what action might need to be taken will inevitably take time.

What is before the House today is a motion seeking an inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the fatal shooting of John Carthy at Abbeylara, County Longford on 20 April 2000. It should not be taken as a view of any wrongdoing by any member of the Garda Síochána. Indeed, along with other Members of this House, I have in the past expressed appreciation for the exceptional service to the State of the Garda Síochána. In light of the unfortunate events of last Sunday when two gardaí, Garda Anthony Tighe and Garda Michael Padden, lost their lives in the service of the State, it is timely to remember not only their unstinting service but also the continuing service afforded the citizenry of this State by their colleagues in the force.

However, the fatal shooting of Mr. Carthy clearly raises serious questions which must be answered and serious issues which must be addressed. The use of firearms by members of the Garda Síochána is, in itself, a relatively exceptional occurrence in what remains in general an unarmed force. This tradition of unarmed policing has been one of the great strengths of the Garda Síochána: there are, however, occasions where the gardaí must have the capacity to use firearms and the circumstances where this can occur are strictly regulated by the Garda auth orities. The use of firearms is an option of last resort and any incident involving their use is regarded by the Garda authorities as a serious matter. When, as in this case, the use of firearms results in a death, it is a matter of utmost priority to determine the facts leading to and surrounding the death in order to know what happened, why it happened and what lessons might be learned for the future.

As regards the proposed terms of reference, they are sufficiently specific and comprehensive to allow for a full and complete inquiry into the tragic events at Abbeylara in April 2000. In this regard, it should be noted that the proposed tribunal is being empowered to make such findings and recommendations as it sees fit in relation to the matters falling within its remit.

Section (I) provides that the tribunal shall report to the Clerk of the Dáil on an interim basis not later than four months from the date of establishment of the tribunal and also as soon as may be after the tenth day of any oral hearings of the tribunal on the following matters: (a) the number of parties granted representation by the tribunal, (b) the progress which will then have been made in the hearings and work of the tribunal, (c) the likely duration – so far that may then be capable of being estimated – of the proceedings of the tribunal, and (d) any other matters that the tribunal considers should be drawn to the attention of the Houses of the Oireachtas at the time of the report, including any matters relating to its terms of reference. This is a standard provision and need not detain us.

Section (II) provides that the inquiry shall be completed in as economical a manner as possible and at the earliest possible date consistent with a fair examination of the matters referred to it. Section (III) provides that all costs incurred by reason of the failure of individuals to co-operate fully and expeditiously with the tribunal should, as far as it is consistent with the interests of justice and the provisions of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts, 1921 to 2002, be borne by those individuals. I am not yet in a position to announce who will conduct the inquiry but I hope to make the necessary arrangements as quickly as possible.

The circumstances surrounding the events in Abbeylara in April 2000, which have given rise to this resolution, are matters of public concern. We need to establish what happened there and what lessons may be learned for the future. I believe that the tribunal, as provided for in this resolution, will be able to effectively discharge this obligation. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Shatter

I welcome the fact that this motion is before the House and I agree with the background explanation for the motion which the Minister gives. The circumstances surrounding the events in Abbeylara in April 2000, which have given rise to the motion, are indeed matters of public concern and there is a need to establish what happened there and what lessons may be learned for the future. It is clear in the context of the decision of the High Court and the Supreme Court that it is no longer possible for a committee of this House to conduct the inquiry and the appropriate mechanism is the tribunal of inquiry that the Minister is now appointing.

This is the second tribunal which this Minister is having to appoint to inquire into matters relating to An Garda Síochána. I do not believe it is in the public interest that when issues arise that are of genuine public concern we should keep on having to put in place a new tribunal on each occasion. This Minister should by now have realised the need to put in place new permanent structures to address issues in a comprehensive, fair and considered manner which ensures that where there are public concerns they can be speedily addressed and where issues arise relating to individual members of the Garda, they are, in the interests of the Garda Síochána, addressed in order that members of the force do not find themselves unfairly working under a cloud, particularly in circumstances where false allegations have been made. The lesson of recent years is that we must have a Garda ombudsman and an inspectorate and I regret the fact that the Minister still has not realised there is a need for a permanent structure to be put in place through which comprehensive inquiries can be conducted in relation to matters of public concern regarding members of the Garda Síochána.

I agree with the Minister on one point. No one in this House has made any decision of any nature whatsoever in relation to the Abbeylara incident, as it has been called. The death of John Carthy was a tragedy. There is no doubt that particular difficulties arose for members of the Garda Síochána in dealing with the events that took place in Abbeylara and it is regrettable, in the context of the inquiry that the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights commenced, that a perception grew on behalf of members of An Garda Síochána that any member of the committee had made any prejudgment or drawn any conclusions.

As a member of that committee, I can say quite categorically that each member of that committee approached the task that they understood they were to undertake with an entirely open mind. They also approached it clearly aware of the fact that the late John Carthy had very serious psychiatric difficulties and that the gardaí were confronted with very substantial difficulties on the fateful days in Abbeylara when they had to deal with the incident that occurred. There was no question of anyone not recognising the nature of the difficulties, but each of the members of the committee, on foot of the Minister referring the issue to the committee, was of the view that we had a duty to address in the public interest the concerns that had arisen. Those concerns will now be addressed, comprehensively I hope, by the tribunal of inquiry.

In welcoming this resolution, I hope the tribunal when it commences its work will be able to undertake that work not only in a manner in which there is no doubt about the fairness of the approach taken, but also in a manner that ensures conclusions are reached within a reasonable period of time. I also hope it can conduct its work in such a way as to make recommendations to ensure that any lessons from what occurred in Abbeylara are learned and that any necessary action is taken on foot of those recommendations.

I particularly resent as quite outrageous a comment made by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in the speech he delivered a short time ago in reply to the Private Members' motion. I am well used to political charges, as is the Minister, that go across the floor during Private Members' time when debating issues of genuine public concern and on which people have strong views. I have also no difficulty in coping with any particular charges that the Minister may make, but there was one comment in his speech which was singularly inappropriate in the context of what we are now dealing with. In attacking the critique I and Deputy Howlin gave of his failure to deal with street violence, the Minister, in respect of the gardaí, alleged that neither of us was slow to "trumpet alleged shortcomings" within the Garda Síochána and that we abandoned what he alleges to be our so-called "go soft" policy on crime. I reject entirely the suggestion that we have a "go soft" policy. I treat that with the same contempt as I treated his sloganeering about zero tolerance. There were serious issues of public concern in respect of the Abbeylara incident. They were raised by Deputy Howlin and me in a legitimate form, which resulted in those issues being forwarded to an Oireachtas committee. Now the Minister agrees they should be dealt with by a tribunal. That has nothing to do with the trumpeting of alleged shortcomings of the Garda Síochána. It is about this House responding to issues of public concern, which the Minister acknowledges must be addressed. The only other issue the Minister would have in mind in this context is the other tribunal, which he has now recognised as necessary and which has been appointed to look at issues relating to the gardaí in Donegal. If Members of this House failed to respond to genuine issues of public concern relating to An Garda Síochána, we would be doing a disservice to the people, betraying our mandate as elected Members of this Parliament and doing a disservice to the Garda Síochána.

In the context of the two aforementioned issues, the Minister, in reference to Donegal, had to acknowledge belatedly the need for a tribunal. In this respect he is now at one with the Opposition parties in bringing forward a motion to provide for a tribunal of inquiry.

I do not mind what charges the Minister wants to lay in the heat of electioneering and campaigning. In terms of the two issues in respect of which tribunals have now been appointed, it goes beyond the boundaries of acceptable political attack to suggest that, because either I or Deputy Howlin acted in the public interest resulting in two tribunals of inquiry being appointed with the full support of the Minister, we were trumpeting shortcomings within the Garda Síochána. No doubt the charges were devised by Fianna Fáil public relations advisors and political strategists more with the forthcoming election campaign in mind than dealing with issues with any semblance of the truth.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has one minute remaining.

Mr. Shatter

After the next election, should I have the honour still to be a Member of this House and should the Minister and Deputy Howlin be in this House, it will be of great importance that the House gives detailed consideration to the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court, which has profound implications for the future workings of this House with regard to the committee system and inquiring into issues of public concern. That is an issue to which we will have to return on another day. For initial consideration it should be referred to the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution. I hope that committee will be reconstituted after the next election and that, immediately thereafter, the implications for the operation of the Houses of the Oireachtas of the judgments will be considered by it and that it will make any recommendations it sees appropriate.

Mr. Howlin

The justice spokespersons are busy today. I welcome this motion. It is a very difficult issue. I regret that it has hung as an unresolved issue for so long because I can only imagine the pain, trauma and difficulties it has presented to the family of the late John Carthy and the members of the Garda Síochána who were involved in the operation. Also, for all those related to them it has been a traumatic and difficult time. The sooner the issues are addressed, the facts discovered and whatever lessons that need to be learned are learned the better. Therefore, I hope the tribunal of inquiry will be a speedy affair.

I said the issue is very difficult for all concerned. I hope the Minister will find a suitable member or members for the tribunal expeditiously. Will he indicate if he intends to have consultation with the Opposition parties in relation to the person who will be invited to be the sole member, if there is to be a sole member, or in respect of how the tribunal is to be constituted? I would welcome that.

Will the Minister consider the location of the tribunal? It does not necessarily have to be in the city of Dublin. It might be more convenient to all concerned and have an implication for the scale of the tribunal to have it elsewhere, and the Minister might examine that possibility. Unlike many of the tribunals we have had the net issues of this one are not as complex because it concerns a series of events that need to be examined. The duration of this tribunal need not be overly long. I hope we will be able to convey that view of the House to the tribunal.

I reiterate strongly the views and comments of Deputy Shatter in respect of the sub-committee. The sub-committee sought to do a job in a very proper way. All the members of the committee, which was chaired by a distinguished member of the Minister's party, came to it with an open mind, sought to probe issues that were of public concern and learn what lessons we could put into practice either by way of legislation or otherwise, a very important point.

Since I have published legislation in this regard myself, I am strongly of the view that dealing with ongoing difficulties, public concerns or controversial matters that relate to the Garda Síochána by way of tribunals is not something we can continue. I hope the Ombudsman proposal I brought forward nearly two years ago will be accepted by the Minister or that he will bring forward his own version, the Garda inspectorate, which I understand is still promised, and that it will be enacted expeditiously so that we will have a standing committee to deal with matters like this expeditiously because they are traumatic for the families and members of the Garda Síochána concerned. Controversy surrounds an issue which is difficult for them and it might be appropriate if there was no such controversy.

I will conclude by making a general comment on the Supreme Court decision which has implications not only for the Abbeylara sub-committee but for the workings of the House. Those of us who have been directly involved have had an opportunity to reflect on it but my view, unlike that of Deputy Shatter, is that it should not be referred to the committee on the Constitution because it has fundamental implications for the workings of the House in that we will have to determine the type of committee system we want. We made a series of decisions at the beginning of the last Dáil and the Government has proposed a parliamentary commission. That is a good basis on which to expand away from the financial and structural matters the parliamentary commission Bill envisages and examine the way in which the Dáil will operate in the 21st century, mindful of the checks and balances that are required in terms of the rights of individuals.

Deputy O'Kennedy is in the Chamber and I presume he intends to contribute to the debate – I am aware of his views on this matter. I am struck by a pattern developing in modern Ireland where more people are gathering, vindicating, pronouncing and defending rights with fewer responsibilities, and it is becoming more difficult to examine action. It appears that the only people remaining who are open to full scrutiny are Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas, but as a society we have fundamental questions to address on that matter and I hope they will be addressed by a parliamentary commission in due course.

I hope this tribunal of inquiry will be in operation very quickly, that it will conduct its business expeditiously and comprehensively and that those who are directly involved in this matter can finally bring closure to the difficult issues that continue to concern them and need to be addressed.

Mr. O'Kennedy

First, as a Member of the Oireachtas for 37 years, my sole purpose at this stage of my career, which has approximately another week to run, is to do all I can to vindicate the role and responsibility of the Oireachtas and to ensure that we fulfil our constitutional function properly and that we adhere to the constitutional limits of that function. That has been my position over the years and it is the position that binds all of us. Second, I want to express our personal concern for the Carthy family in terms of this incident. I want to make clear that nothing I say should take in any way from the sorrow and the trauma they have suffered.

Deputy Howlin said he is aware of my position in relation to this sub-committee that purported to do certain matters. For Deputy Shatter, particularly, and Deputy Howlin to take unto themselves powers that we do not have in the Oireachtas—

Mr. Shatter

It was a joint committee of all the parties.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Shatter, please allow—

Mr. O'Kennedy

I will not be interrupted by Deputy Shatter.

Mr. Shatter

I do not want Deputy O'Kennedy to say that—

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Shatter, resume your seat.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Deputy is very sensitive about this issue.

Mr. Shatter

I am because of the Fianna Fáil tactic to target me—

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Shatter, the time is limited in this debate. If you disrupt the proceedings in the House again, you will leave the House.

Mr. Shatter

—for sitting on a committee of the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Shatter, when the Chair is on its feet, Deputies do not continue to interrupt. If you interrupt once more, I will ask you to leave the House.

Mr. Shatter

If my position is being misrepresented I am entitled to raise the issue.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There are other ways of dealing with it, Deputy. You will be asked to leave the House if you interject again.

Mr. Shatter

I am entitled to raise the issue if my position is being misrepresented.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

You are not entitled to raise it.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. When this committee initially sought powers to conduct an inquiry of this nature, I received a request, as chairman of the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body, to allow some of my staff to be seconded to the committee to enable it—

Mr. Shatter

The request was made by the chairman, Deputy Ardagh.

Mr. O'Kennedy

—to conduct the inquiry of the type it thought it was sufficiently competent and authorised to conduct. I wrote immediately to the Head of Administration stating that I would normally feel obliged to co-operate with every chairman of every committee in the discharge of his or her functions in this House but that in this instance I could not agree to seconding any of my staff to this committee because it was operating ultra vires and setting itself up as judge and jury on an issue on which it was neither competent nor qualified to do under the Constitution. I put that on the record at the time and when the High Court gave its decision, seven of the eight points in its conclusion related specifically to the manner in which the Abbeylara sub-committee, on which Deputy Shatter was very active in acting as a cross-examiner and ballistics expert, conducted its business.

The High Court decision clearly stated in regard to all those points that the committee was functioning outside its powers and that the manner in which it was conducting the inquiry was inappropriate and unconstitutional. The eighth point referred to whether all committees of the Oireachtas could make findings which might impugn the good name and character of someone outside this House, something which could have serious implications for all of us.

Deputy Shatter will remember the day the committee decided, without consulting any of us, to appeal the High Court decision to the Supreme Court, which cost more money, created more doubt, caused additional anxiety to the family and cast a shadow over the Garda Síochána. I went before the committee, which I am entitled to do as a Member of this House, and told its members that they were, to say the least, ill-advised, unqualified to do the job, acting outside the Constitution and wasting further taxpayers' money. Deputy Shatter attacked me in the committee for saying that but I told the members there was no possibility of them overruling the High Court decision in these matters.

At that time I also wrote to the Ceann Comhairle because I was concerned that this committee, particularly Deputies Shatter and Howlin, were losing the run of themselves—

Mr. Shatter

What about Deputy Ardagh who chaired the committee?

Mr. O'Kennedy

Yes, he was the chairman.

Mr. Shatter

Deputy O'Kennedy should stop playing foolish politics with a serious issue.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Shatter, do you want to leave the House?

Mr. O'Kennedy

I remember Deputy Shatter going on the public airwaves and speaking to the press following the decision of the High Court. He said this was a matter of the gravest significance and that we had to have a constitutional referendum.

Mr. Shatter

As did members of Fianna Fáil.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Deputy Ardagh did not say that. Deputy Shatter said it, and he was wrong.

Mr. Shatter

The Deputy's old Fianna Fáil colleagues made the same comment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Shatter, you will leave the House.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I wrote to the Ceann Comhairle and asked him, in the interest of all the committees of the House, if he would protect us from the self-righteous, omniscient attitude of people such as Deputy Shatter, although I did not use those terms in my letter. He and I have engaged in public debate on this issue which he remembers well. Unfortunately, I have been proved right. We have a Supreme Court judgment which could never have been any other way. There is no basis for the appeal suggested by the committee. We have wasted time and money and caused further anxiety and doubt to the family at the centre of the affair. There is a shadow over the Garda Síochána which should never have been there.

I welcome the motion which will enable us to do properly what we should have been doing for so long: to establish a tribunal, which we are authorised, as legislators, to do, to inquire into these matters. Deputy Shatter made some statements about how there would be grave consequences for the House and said that after the general election we would need to reinvestigate the matter. The implication was that I would not be here at that stage. I will, however, be watching with great interest if we hold a constitutional referendum to correct the Supreme Court decision. What a self-righteous, pompous attitude to have. The Supreme Court and all the other courts have their own powers and we have ours. It came to a decision about whether a supposedly omniscient, self-righteous sub-committee in which Deputy Shatter, as he knows, played the lead role, should continue. I see no reason the people should have to vote in a constitutional referendum to give Deputy Shatter the power of being witness, ballistics expert, cross-examining counsel and judge, as he wishes.

I have only had the opportunity of reading the Supreme Court decision very briefly as I have been away. However, it does not surprise me any more than did the original High Court decision. It does not go as far as Deputies Shatter and Howlin would have us believe. It does not state – this does not surprise me – that the Oireachtas and its committees cannot conduct inquiries of the kind we need from time to time to ensure there is no wrongdoing in the organisations for which we are responsible. The parliamentary legal adviser, confirming my own views, has said clearly the Supreme Court decision dismissed the appeal taken by the State and the committee against the High Court decision but that it narrowed the principal declaration of the High Court to the circumstances of the case in order that a wide range of parliamentary inquiries is still within the scope of the Oireachtas. The principal order is limited to the Abbeylara inquiry – surprise, surprise. It is limited to the inquiry in which Deputies Shatter and Howlin set themselves up as ballistics experts and cross-examining counsel.

The Supreme Court decision states – Deputy Shatter thinks this is wrong also – that there was no inherent parliamentary power to conduct the inquiry. How right it was. That was obvious to anyone except those who did not want to see it, those whose egos were so inflated that they had decided to act as judges at a tribunal of inquiry and bring about a conclusion which was not necessarily favourable towards the Garda Síochána and might be unduly distorted in respect of the family. The Ceann Comhairle will be aware of my concerns as I wrote to him at the time, but I regret to say that the consequences of the sub-committee's and Deputy Shatter's egomania in going far beyond their powers have led to a prolonged shadow over the Garda Síochána, much anxiety for the family and, to the extent that this is any concern of Deputy Shatter's, very considerable cost. For this reason I vigorously support the Minister's motion.

Mr. Belton

I welcome the establishment of this tribunal, but I am extremely disappointed at Deputy O'Kennedy's contribution. When the Garda report was given to the Minister he passed it on to the committee. It is quite obvious that at that time the Minister had the option of doing what he is finally doing now and establishing a tribunal. I am surprised that a man of Deputy O'Kennedy's experience did not make that very obvious point. I come from the county where this tragedy occurred. Initially there was huge con cern among the people of Abbeylara and the surrounding area, rightly so. In the past, whenever there was a fatal shooting and the Garda was involved it had always been something to do with a terrorist group or an armed robbery. Understanding that the Garda would have to have its own inquiry – as has always been the case whenever there has been a fatality – I asked that the findings of the Garda inquiry be made public and after some deliberation the Garda authorities agreed. That, to some extent, was a welcome development.

The Garda inquiry was detailed and carried out over a long period. After receiving a copy of the results of the inquiry the family was still not satisfied. The Minister then had the option of taking the action he has taken today. Much has been said here about reducing the burden of anxiety for the family and so on. The Government had an opportunity then of doing so. I welcome the inquiry and hope the Minister will appoint a chairman as soon as possible. I hope the inquiry will establish the facts of what happened that day and give an insight to the Garda and society in general into how to deal with a person who has a firearm and is a danger to himself and the public. The Garda was initially called under circumstances such as these. Without anticipating the result of the tribunal, I welcome the fact that Government has now realised that this was the way to go after the Garda report came out.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I thank Deputy Belton for sharing his time. I also welcome the motion for the establishment of a tribunal of inquiry into the fatal shooting of John Carthy by members of the Garda Síochána at Abbeylara, County Longford, on 20 April 2000. Mr. Carthy was a man of 27 years, a labourer living in a small country house with his widowed mother. He had no criminal record. He was suffering from the kind of turmoil which can only be understood by those who have experienced mental illness. He had previously received residential psychiatric treatment. John Carthy was at times a troubled young man, but a young man who had the support of his family and, quite obviously, that of his community. They testified after his death and have maintained that he was not a man who posed a danger to anyone except perhaps himself.

On the fatal day, John Carthy barricaded himself in his own home. He had a shotgun in his possession, but there was no hostage. There began a sequence of events and, crucially, a sequence of decisions at senior Garda level which led ultimately to the tragic death of John Carthy. Even before John's death, and while the siege at Abbeylara was ongoing, major questions were being raised about the nature of the Garda operation.

In my opinion, the response to what was essentially a limited and containable incident was extremely excessive. A minor civil disturbance involving a young man whose mind was troubled and who needed, above all, reassurance and assistance, was turned into a full-blown armed siege. We must question and challenge the decision at senior Garda level to send in armed special branch gardaí and, even more questionably, the elite, secretive and highly armed emergency response unit. Ranged around the little house in which John Carthy was alone with a shotgun were dozens of gardaí armed with Uzi submachine guns, Heckler and Koch submachine guns, pump-action shotguns and pistols. The members of the ERU wore heavy combat equipment and were arrayed around the house with all the paraphernalia necessary for a small-scale military engagement.

The decision to send in these forces was fatal. It meant that John Carthy was, in effect, treated as an armed enemy rather than a man who clearly needed help. It is obvious that such aid was denied and that those who could have helped were, very worryingly, denied access to him. The result was the fatal shooting of this young man. Even with the overbearing presence of armed gardaí, this was by no means an inevitable outcome. The key question the tribunal must answer is how and why gardaí fatally shot John Carthy outside his own home and if they could have avoided this death.

The inquiry is long overdue. I support the call of the Carthy family, which I hope it is taken up by the Minister, that the proceedings be held in County Longford. The tribunal must also consider larger but very much related questions. The Abbeylara affair, like the Donegal Garda scandal, shows the need for fundamental reform of the Garda Síochána. Successive Governments have failed to address the totally unacceptable situation where gardaí investigate wrongdoing by other members of the force. There is a need for a Garda ombudsman with extensive powers to act on behalf of citizens and to safeguard their rights.

For decades in this State, the elite in politics and the church enjoyed power without accountability. Recent years have seen a light shone on those institutions as never before. Many who enjoyed positions of power and privilege have been held accountable at last, and that is to the good of both and of society as a whole. The Garda has been a highly centralised force in which elite groups have wielded excessive power. This has served neither the real interests of gardaí themselves nor those of the communities they serve. This type of practice must be brought to an end and I hope that the process of establishing this tribunal is proof that real change is beginning to take place.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I thank all the Members who contributed to the debate. I also expect accountability from the Garda Síochána and it is my sincere wish that the people, in the course of the general election, will hold Deputy Ó Caoláin and his party accountable in respect of any activities in which they may have been involved.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I am sure the Minister knows we are involved in democratic politics. I hope we have that at least in common.

Mr. O'Donoghue

Contributors asked whether there is a need for a new mechanism in order to deal with the situation where inquiries are needed in respect of the Garda Síochána. I have stated that a new Garda inspectorate will be established which will have the capacity to examine every aspect of Garda operations policy from the point of view of best policing practice. For the purpose of carrying out its various functions, the inspectorate will operate completely independently and its staff will be appointed by and be responsible to the inspectorate. The overall purpose is to introduce new, independent and transparent procedures which reflect modern conditions in order to maintain and enhance public support for the Garda Síochána.

The powers of the inspectorate will be extensive. It will be open to the inspectorate to undertake an inspection on its own initiative or at the request of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform or the Garda Commissioner. To ensure transparency, the results of reviews carried out by the inspectorate will be published unless this would not be appropriate for security or other important reasons. One of the requirements for securing public confidence in a police force is to ensure that where a member of the public believes he or she has a legitimate ground for complaining about the behaviour of a police officer, there is available a procedure which will enable his or her complaint to be properly and fully investigated in as open and transparent a way as possible. This applies fully to the Garda Síochána which also has a vital interest in having this type of procedure available.

One of the most significant aspects of the new arrangements for handling complaints will be that the inspectorate will undertake that function completely independently of any other body, including the Garda Síochána. In particular, the inspectorate will conduct investigations into complaints itself and for that purpose will use its own personnel, resources and powers. Measures will also be put in place to address the issue of vexatious complaints, which can undermine a complaints system and delay the processing of legitimate cases.

I wish to reply to Deputy Shatter's assertion that I was not correct in stating that he had been critical of the Garda Síochána. In a press statement dated Thursday, 31 August 2000, the Deputy stated "There must be a radical change in policing methods. Too frequently gardaí are nowhere to be found and some, when informed of incidents, have a limited interest in responding to requests for intervention." If that is not a criticism of the Garda Síochána, will somebody tell me what is? Deputy Shatter was as wrong in criticising my statement in this regard earlier this evening as he was wrong about the Patrick Naughton case. However, I do not anticipate that—

Mr. Shatter

I was dealing with it in so far as it was relevant to the tribunal now being established.

Mr. O'Donoghue

—he or his party will ever admit that.

I thank Members for their co-operation in respect of this matter. We all appreciate the widespread desire to establish fully the facts of what transpired in Abbeylara in April 2000. Both Mr. Carthy's family and representatives of the Garda Síochána have welcomed the public inquiry to be established. As I acknowledged in my opening remarks, the Supreme Court's ruling has implications which need to be considered. I know that the parliamentary legal adviser has recently prepared for Members an overview of the Supreme Court ruling, which we will all no doubt consider carefully.

Question put and agreed to.