I move:
That Dáil Éireann, having regard to the motions passed by Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann on 28th March, 2002, providing for the establishment of a Tribunal of Inquiry into certain garda activities in Co. Donegal and the concerns that have since been expressed about the inadequacy of the terms of reference for the Tribunal:
– instructs the Government to use the powers available to it, under section 1 of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1998, to have the Attorney General consult with Mr. Justice Morris with a view to seeking his consent for an amendment to widen the terms of reference by the inclusion of the following paragraph;
‘(k) The response of the Garda Síochána, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Office of the Attorney General and any other relevant State agencies to the allegations arising from the foregoing paragraphs and, in particular, the extent to which they exercised the powers and functions available to them fully, properly and in a timely manner.';
and
– requests the Attorney General to enter into discussions with the McBrearty Family with a view to meeting their concerns regarding legal costs, through an arrangement similar to that reached between the Minister for Health and Children and the Irish Haemophilia Society in April, 2000 regarding legal representation at the Lindsay Tribunal, so that they can be legally represented for the duration of the Tribunal.
I propose to share my time with Deputies Howlin and O'Sullivan.
I am aware of the sensitivities and importance of this issue. If the Chair allows me the latitude Deputy Gildea was given the last time this matter was raised in the House I will have plenty of scope.
The purpose of the Labour Party's Private Members' motion tonight is to direct the Government to use the powers available to it to seek the consent of Mr. Justice Morris for a widening of the terms of reference of the tribunal of inquiry into certain Garda activities in County Donegal and to require the Government to enter into discussions with the McBrearty family to agree acceptable arrangements to enable them to be legally represented for the duration of the tribunal.
Given the seriousness of the allegations, it is unthinkable that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, and the Department, who have overall responsibility for the Garda Síochána, as well as the key State agencies, such as the Office of the Attorney General, should be excluded from the remit of the tribunal. When the Lindsay tribunal was established two years ago to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the infection of haemophiliacs with HIV and hepatitis C, the role of the Minister and the Department of Health and Children was specifically included in the terms of reference of the tribunal. Why should the role of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and his Department be immune from examination by the Morris tribunal?
The second area the Labour Party's Private Members' motion seeks to address is the question of legal representation for the McBrearty family. More than any other group of people, the McBrearty family are at the heart of the Morris inquiry. There is prima facie evidence to suggest that a serious injustice was done to the McBrearty and McConnell families and their relatives over the years since the arrest of Frank McBrearty senior in December 1996 for the murder of a man, Richie Barron, who, it transpires, was not murdered at all.
There is now a real danger of a double injustice being done if the family is not allowed to be legally represented for the duration of the tribunal. I am confident that at the end of the tribunal, the McBrearty family will be awarded their legal costs. However, it is entirely unreasonable to compel them to produce in advance the large amount of money that would be required to pay lawyers for a tribunal that could run for a number of years, especially when we consider the substan tial financial losses they have already incurred. The Minister, as a senior counsel, knows how expensive senior counsel can be.
The Labour Party again points to the precedent in the Lindsay tribunal where the Irish Haemophilia Society faced similar problems regarding the funding of its legal team. On that occasion, the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, offered money to the society to enable it to meet 75% of the legal costs in advance of any decision by the tribunal on the awarding of legal costs. In a press release on 14 April 2000, the Minister stated:
I think it is important that the Irish Haemophilia Society can participate in this Tribunal. I am delighted and happy that we have arrived at a solution regarding costs, and that the Society now feels that it can take part with confidence in the Tribunal.
The Labour Party motion calls for similar arrangements to be made for the McBrearty family. Government sources have repeatedly suggested that the terms of reference of the tribunal can be changed only if there is a request from Mr. Justice Morris. This is not the case. The consent of Mr. Justice Morris would certainly be required for any change. However, there are specific procedures set out in the Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Amendment Act, 1998, which allows the Attorney General, on behalf of the Government, to consult a tribunal to seek its consent for a change in its terms of reference. Mr. Justice Morris was at pains to make this point at the tribunal hearing last week.
The Labour Party motion, if passed, would instruct the Government to initiate this process of consultation. There is already a precedent for such a consultation. The then Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, in October 2001, requested Ms Justice Lindsay to consent to a widening of the terms of reference of her tribunal after she declared that she did not think they were broad enough to cover the role of the multinational drug companies in the infection of more than 260 haemophiliacs with HIV and hepatitis C. On that occasion the present Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, then serving as Attorney General, acted as the go-between, relaying the request of the Minister for Health and Children to Ms Justice Lindsay and her reply to the Minister. Less than a week following the request, Ms Justice Lindsay had replied, declining to extend the terms of reference on the grounds that they would be unfair and unjust to various parties. In the light of the present furore over the Government's failure to deliver its promised inquiry into the role of the multinational drug companies, and the Minister's unhelpful intervention, perhaps in hindsight it would have been better to have amended the terms of reference of the Lindsay tribunal in 2001 and to have got on with pursuing the multinational drug companies and holding them accountable as other countries have successfully done.
After opening statements by the Morris tribunal inquiry team to the tribunal, Mr. Justice Morris declared on 19 November that he would not be seeking an extension of the existing terms of reference as he did not think it appropriate for him to do so. He said: "I would have no business reversing the decision of the people of Ireland". He did, however, sympathise with the financial burden placed on the McBrearty family. A couple of days later in the Dáil the Taoiseach stated that he would not be seeking an extension to the terms of reference either but that he was prepared to consider a request from the tribunal chairman. Neither party to the proceedings was prepared to take the initiative though both appeared willing to move forward if the other moved first.
The Labour Party motion facilitates a meeting of minds on the matter. It allows the elected representatives of the people to address the issue once more in the Dáil and to vote on it. If adopted, the Labour Party's motion would satisfy the expressed concerns of Mr. Justice Morris about changing the terms of reference and would enable the Attorney General, on behalf of the Government and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, to consult with the tribunal chairman to seek to widen the terms of reference and to consult with the McBrearty family with a view to meeting its concerns about the cost of the tribunal.
Unless the terms of reference are widened at this point in time before the substantive work of the tribunal begins, there is a danger that the deliberations of the tribunal could be frustrated and the inquiry run into the sand as has already happened with so many of the individual Garda investigations and internal Garda inquiries to date. Neither justice nor the Exchequer can afford another inconclusive inquiry.
I pay tribute to the excellent parliamentary work of my colleague and former spokesperson on justice, Deputy Howlin, and the former Fine Gael spokesperson on justice, Senator Higgins. They did Trojan work for democracy in highlighting the issues and arguing the case for a tribunal of inquiry.
The terms of reference of that tribunal of inquiry, established in March of this year, read like the chapter headings for a macabre, blood-curdling novel. The tragic death of Richie Barron in 1996 and the subsequent Garda investigation gave rise to allegations of cover up, wrongful arrest and detention, harassment of the McBrearty family members and others, planting of explosives and finds of bomb-making equipment, hoax telephone calls, an arson attack on a telecommunications mast and a plethora of internal Garda inquiries and investigations. Each allegation was more bizarre than the next.
No report of any investigation or inquiry has been revealed publicly to date. Already in the tribunal the opening statements by Peter Charleton SC reveal further startling allegations, namely, that the signature of Frank McBrearty junior confessing to the murder of Richie Barron was forged by a garda, that two gardaí refused to co-operate with the inquiry by assistant commissioner Kevin Carty in regard to their activities on the night of the death of Richie Barron, that two gardaí had killed Mr Barron, and that a garda had pointed a loaded gun in the face of another garda. The allegations are becoming more shocking and more serious by the day.
In the last analysis the buck stops with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the State agencies. Why was the initial request for the exhumation of the body of Richie Barron not proceeded with by the former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, in 1997? Had he granted the exhumation immediately, a murder inquiry and all that followed could have been avoided. The Minster has never satisfactorily answered this question. Why were the 165 Garda summonses against Frank McBrearty withdrawn after years had elapsed? Why has no action been taken by the authorities after the plethora of investigations proved inconclusive? Why were the internal Garda reports allowed to gather dust in the Garda Commissioner's office? Were the Minister and his Department and the Office of the Attorney General apprised of the progress of inquiries, the allegations that abounded and the contents of the inquiry reports? Where was the leadership, the sense of responsibility, the transparency and the accountability?
Every time the issues of transparency and accountability arise the present Minister and his predecessor loudly proclaim their commitment to a Garda inspectorate. At this stage the proposal has been dusted down at least half a dozen times in the last 18 months. Now the present Minister promises to have the legislation in place by Easter 2003. I will believe it when I see it.
It is imperative to put in place immediately a set of structures that will restore credibility to the workings of the Garda Síochána. The Garda Síochána was established in 1923 in the middle of the Civil War as a proud force, unique in its time, that would keep the peace not by force of arms but by the strength of its moral authority.
That sound principle has given quality policing to this country over the last 80 years and through some difficult times. We owe the Garda a lot in recent times. I am keenly aware in my own constituency of the degree to which gardaí have adapted to confront the scourge of drugs in ghettoised urban communities. The partnership between the Garda and the community is everything. If the Garda loses the credibility and trust of the people mayhem will ensue and we will have an ugly society.
The Labour Party believes that it is time for a new beginning, a fresh start and a new partnership with the people. First, however, the unfinished business must be dealt with. The allegations of Garda misconduct and misbehaviour must be addressed fairly and honestly in the Morris tribunal, the Barr tribunal, the reclaim the streets inquiry and other current inquiries. It is nothing short of scandalous that Mr. Justice Barr, who was appointed in May to inquire into the controversial shooting of John Carthy at Abbeylara two and half years ago, has still not been given a suitable premises by the Office of Public Works and cannot carry out his work properly.
Internal Garda investigations into serious allegations against gardaí must be a thing of the past. There can be no credibility in an internal inquiry in which workmates investigate allegations of misbehaviour by their colleagues. An independent complaints mechanism must be put in place to investigate allegations of Garda wrongdoing. Otherwise we face an increasing number of tribunals of inquiry being established at great expense to the taxpayer. That will almost certainly undermine further the credibility of the Garda.
There is greater reform required than a new complaints mechanism. In the first instance the Labour Party proposes a new Garda authority with responsibility for the recruitment and maintenance of the Garda Síochána and for the introduction of public accountability into its operations. At local level we propose the establishment of county policing liaison committees. Their function would be to provide a forum of local authority members representing the community and gardaí. They would work together in drawing up local policing plans for their functional areas and would monitor the effectiveness of these plans.
Finally, we propose the establishment of an office of Garda ombudsman to replace the Garda Complaints Board. The ombudsman would have his or her staff independent of the Garda Síochána and would have the authority to investigate specific complaints and to initiate inquiries or investigations even where no specific complaint has been received.
It is in the interests of the Garda and the community that the major allegations of the present are fully inquired into, that new structures of accountability and transparency are established and that a fresh partnership is forged with the people. As an essential step towards achieving that goal I urge the Minister to accept the Labour Party's Private Members' motion and to begin the process of widening the terms of reference of the Morris tribunal so that justice can be done and be seen to be done in Donegal.
There are a number of points that need to be made on the circumstances in which the original motion establishing the tribunal was taken in the Dáil last March. On previous occasions where there were proposals to establish a tribunal under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, there was extensive discussion between the Government and the Opposition parties with a view to securing broad agreement on the terms of reference. There was extensive consultation with the Opposition parties on the draft terms of reference for both the Flood and the Moriarty tribunals. In the case of the Flood tribunal there were consultations over several days and many drafts were produced and discussed before anything was brought before the Dáil.
There was absolutely no consultation with the Opposition parties on this occasion, although everyone would acknowledge that this is one of the most serious issues ever to have been considered by the Dáil. Not only was there no consultation, but there was little advance notification of the Government's proposals in regard to the proposed terms of reference. The terms of reference were only circulated to Opposition spokespersons late on the night prior to the debate on 28 March. There was little time for the Opposition parties to consult with anybody, or to take advice on their contents.
It is now clear that the reason for the failure of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to consult with the Opposition, or to give adequate notice of the resolution he was going to bring before the House, was because he was determined that whoever was going to be called to account for the shocking events in Donegal during his term of office, it would certainly not be him.
The shocking allegations read out during the opening statement in the Morris tribunal of what went on when Deputy O'Donoghue was Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform may go some of the way to explain the enthusiasm with which he fled the Department after the general election. However, he cannot be allowed to evade his political responsibility for the conduct of gardaí and law officers of the State. That is why these terms of reference are seriously flawed and why they must be changed.
It is unusual but not unprecedented to have a tribunal's terms of reference changed by a resolution of the House. The terms of reference of the Flood tribunal were amended twice and the law was changed on two occasions to allow this to happen. There is no legal impediment to the course we are proposing. All that is lacking is the political will. We have read much about how Deputy McDowell is going to be a reforming Minister, that he will tackle wrongdoing and vested interests and be a champion of the truth. This is the first real test of his bona fides. Is he going to bring down the shutters and ensure that his office while he was Attorney General is to be immune from scrutiny in regard to these matters? Is he going to close ranks and ensure that the record of his predecessor as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is not subjected to the scrutiny that it deserves or is he going to do his best to ensure that the full truth emerges? The choice is his.