Limerick East): I move:
That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into the following definite matters of urgent public importance—
(1) the facts and circumstances leading to the preferment, on 1 May 1984, of criminal charges against Joanne Hayes, Edmund Hayes, Michael Hayes, Kathleen Hayes and Bridie Fuller, Dromcunning Lower, Abbeydorney, County Kerry in connection with death of an unnamed male infant and subsequent events which led to the withdrawal of those charges at Tralee District Court on 10 October 1984;
(2) related allegations made by Joanne Hayes, Mary Hayes, Edmund Hayes and Michael Hayes in written statements to their solicitor on 23 October 1984 and by Kathleen Hayes in a written statement to her solicitor on 24 October concerning the circumstances surrounding the questioning and the taking of statements from those persons on 1 May 1984;
(3) any matters connected with or relevant to the matters aforesaid which the tribunal considers it necessary to investigate in connection with their inquiries into the matters mentioned at (1) and (2).
On Tuesday last, I announced in this House that the Government had decided that a tribunal should be established to carry out a sworn judicial inquiry into what has become known as the "Kerry babies" case. In accordance with the provisions of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts, 1921 and 1979 this decision can be implemented only if both Houses of the Oireachtas pass a resolution that it is expedient that such a tribunal be set up and that is why the formal resolution that I have now moved is before the House.
I do not think it necessary or appropriate to attempt to go into any great detail about the factual background to this proposal, especially as it could reasonably be said that it is precisely to establish accurately as far as possible what that factual background is that the tribunal will be appointed if, as I hope, the proposal is approved by both Houses.
As Deputies are aware, some issues of substantial public importance have arisen in the case and, for that reason, the Government consider that it is essential that every possible effort is made to establish the truth of what occurred. An investigation was ordered by the Garda Commissioner — and let me mention in passing that he had made the decision that an investigation was necessary before any public controversy arose. The investigation that was carried out did not, however, succeed in resolving the conflicting versions of the events that have been given on both sides. This was not the fault of the two experienced senior officers of the force who conducted the investigation, which was both entirely impartial and as thorough as circumstances allowed. Because of certain comments that have been publicly made during the last week or two, I should perhaps draw attention to the fact that Garda investigators do not have the powers that this tribunal will have. On the contrary, since they were carrying out an investigation against a background of allegations that included allegations of conduct that might, if supported, justify criminal proceedings, they were subject to all the constraints that apply in such cases. That is the system under which we operate and the same problems would have faced any other investigation, whether from within the force or not, unless armed with the exceptional powers which the law gives to a tribunal such as is now proposed to be set up. In referring to the constraints on the investigators, I am not to be taken as implying that I necessarily accept that every person involved was justified in extending to the two Garda investigators only the particular degree of co-operation which was in fact extended. I am not commenting at all on that. I simply want to make it clear, so that there may be no misunderstanding of what I have said, that it is a point that may need to be looked at separately at a later stage.
The internal Garda inquiry had to be undertaken. It was an essential first step and even if there had been no need to embark on it for the purposes of investigating the possibility that evidence might be obtained that would sustain a criminal charge — and there was such a need — the internal inquiry would have separately justified itself by the fact that the results, including many statements taken by the investigators, will be available to the tribunal. However, there are, as I have said, conflicting versions of events and those conflicting versions have not been resolved. Accordingly, there is a need to resolve them, or at least to endeavour as far as possible to resolve them, by testing under oath in a public forum the veracity of what is being said. It is only in that setting, where people can be examined on oath and subjected, as necessary, to cross-examination that there is now any realistic hope of getting at the facts. That is what the tribunal will do. It will have the power to compel the attendance of witnesses, to take evidence from them on oath, to compel the production of documents — in fact it will have all the powers of the High Court to enable it do its job properly. Likewise, witnesses appearing before it will enjoy the same immunities and privileges as witnesses before the High Court.
Care has been taken in drawing up the terms of reference of the tribunal to ensure that they are sufficiently wide to enable it to cover all relevant aspects of the issues involved in the case. In examining the facts and circumstances leading to the preferment of charges against the members of the Hayes family of Abbeydorney, the tribunal will necessarily have to concern itself with the manner in which the investigation into the death of the baby found at White Strand, Cahirciveen, was carried out by the Garda Síochána. Then there are the specific allegations of the Hayes family of ill-treatment during the period they were questioned by the Garda — questioning which led to the making of statements by members of the family. Finally, there is what might be termed the "catch-all' provision in paragraph (3) which will enable the tribunal to go into any connected or relevant matter not specifically alluded to in paragraphs (1) and (2).
I am very glad to inform the House that Mr. Justice Kevin Lynch, Judge of the High Court, has agreed to constitute the tribunal and that the President of the High Court, Mr. Justice Finlay, has agreed to make the arrangements necessary to release Judge Lynch as far as may be necessary from other duties. I am very grateful to Mr. Justice Lynch for agreeing to act and to the President of the Court for his co-operation.
I want to say a brief word about the question of legal representation before the tribunal and the related question of legal costs because these are matters in relation to which questions have already been asked. The tribunal is empowered to authorise the legal representation of any person appearing to the tribunal to be interested. It may also refuse such representation. This is the effect of section 2 (b) of the 1921 Act. It is, therefore, a matter for the tribunal and for it alone to decide who should be represented. Likewise, the 1979 Act authorises the tribunal to direct that the costs of any person appearing before it should be paid by any other person, including the State. It may so direct where, having regard to its findings and other relevant matters, it considers it equitable to do so. Thus, there is a clear legal framework there — a framework that has been used and has proved satisfactory in other inquiries such as the Whiddy and Stardust inquiries — to deal with the question of legal representation and the related one of costs.
I am conscious of the fact that the only issue before this House is the resolution and that therefore some other matters affecting the Garda Síochána which have recently been the subject of publicity are not relevant. Accordingly, I do not propose to refer to any other case or cases except to say in passing that I realise that this present case is not the only one that has caused concern. Having said that — having accepted and indeed underlined that fact, as I have just now done and as I also did as recently as Wednesday last in this House in reply to a parliamentary question — I think it is also right and necessary that the proposal before the House should be seen in its true perspective, and I would argue very strongly that its true perspective is not to be found just by looking at one or even at a number of cases where things have or may have been wrong but by looking at the record of the Garda Síochána day in, day out over the years. That record speaks for itself.
Since the foundation of the State, the Garda Síochána have had a role vital to the maintainance of the institutions of democracy. The force have served this State outstandingly well and will, I am in no doubt at all, continue to do so in the future. The members have done so often at great cost to themselves. Since 1970 eleven members have been murdered. Last year we have had two such cases and this year another one. Many members place their own safety at risk day after day in the defence of the community. These are stark facts of life and we need, I think, to remind ourselves of them from time to time and especially now. Whatever the outcome of this inquiry may be — even if the result is unfavourable to one or more members — it should not cause us for one instant to forget what we owe to the force. Furthermore, I can say with total confidence that the Commissioner shares fully, as indeed he has conclusively proved by his actions in this and other cases, my own commitment to ensuring that, if and where remedial action is called for, remedial action will be taken. That, at the end of the day, is perhaps the most important point of all and is a major reason why I have no doubt whatsoever that the force will come through this difficult period without lasting damage.
I commend the resolution to the House.
