Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)

Fine Gael welcomes the establishment of the tribunal of inquiry into the murders of Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Robert Buchanan by the Provisional IRA in 1989. Like the Minister, we commend Judge Peter Cory for the work he has done on this case and other cases North and South. Fine Gael believes that the Cory model of preliminary investigation has proved to be a very effective one that could be considered in other cases, for example, the Omagh bombing. I ask the Minister to consider that proposal.

While we welcome the establishment of this tribunal, we also must bear in mind that it is part of a package of measures concerning the brutal murders of others, including Robert Hamill, Billy Wright, Rosemary Nelson, the Gibsons and Patrick Finucane. It is important that the full package is delivered on and that the United Kingdom Government in particular keeps its side of the bargain, focusing in particular on the murder of Pat Finucane. Otherwise, it will be difficult to convince people that the UK Government is serious about investigating all allegations of collusion.

If we set aside the formalities and consider what we are examining, it brings home the heinous nature of the criminal act that was committed on Chief Superintendent Breen and Superintendent Buchanan. It is important to bear in mind that these men were travelling unarmed back from a meeting in Dundalk Garda station. They were doing so as part of the normal co-operation with the Garda Síochána in dealing with criminal activity on this island. They were two brave men who travelled unarmed to Dundalk as part of their duty and it is proper that people in this jurisdiction bear that fact in mind. These were two brave Irishmen who were set upon by a gang of murderous thugs and brutally murdered.

Members of this House are justifiably outraged at the suggestion that the killers of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe should be released. In that respect I am glad the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was denied the happiest day of his life in that he does not have to travel to Limerick to tell Mrs. McCabe that the murderers of her husband would be released. In a similar way let us bear in mind that the late Chief Superintendent Breen and Superintendent Buchanan, two brave Irish policemen, also left widows and children when they were murdered. Chief Superintendent Breen was survived by his wife, June, a daughter, Gillian, and a son, George. Superintendent Buchanan was survived by his wife Catherine, a son, William, and a daughter, Heather. We should bear in mind the human suffering inflicted on those two families as a consequence of this murderous act. We should also relate our outrage at the suffering inflicted on Mrs. Ann McCabe and her family and, correspondingly, record here in the Parliament of this State our outrage at the suffering inflicted on the widows and children of those two brave policemen.

This tribunal of inquiry is part of a package of measures. We want to investigate the killings of others as part of that package and that will be done under the auspices of the UK Government. It is noteworthy that Sinn Féin in particular has been pressing for an examination of collusion between security forces in the North and loyalist elements in respect of some of those murders. The real test for Sinn Féin now is whether it will be interested in securing justice and a full exposé of the facts concerning the murders of Chief Superintendent Breen and Superintendent Buchanan. If Sinn Féin is sincere in its commitment to seek justice for victims of alleged collusion, these two murders must be included, otherwise it will be seen to be phoney. Its members will be the people who will be put to the test in respect of this tribunal. Will they fully co-operate with the tribunal? Will they publicly encourage others who have information about these crimes to submit that information to the tribunal? In this case, by their fruits we shall know them. It will not be sufficient for them to do as they are doing regarding the murder in the Short Strand of Robert McCartney, with open denunciation and silent intimidation. Sinn Féin will be put to the test in terms of the way it deals with the tribunal.

I have some questions about the terms of reference of the tribunal. The first issue was touched on briefly by the Minister in his concluding remarks and I hoped he would deal with them in more detail. Why are we dealing with the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, as amended, instead of setting up a commission of investigation under the recent Act? The purpose of the commission of investigation approach was, to a large degree, to move away from the very expensive approach that applies under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts. I ask the Minister to deal with this matter in his concluding remarks.

I do not doubt that tribunals are getting a bad name because of the huge expense associated with them. My concern is shared by many Deputies and citizens throughout the State. We need to ensure that the tribunal we are establishing does not degenerate into yet another cash cow for the Law Library set. It would not be acceptable for that to happen. Why was the commission of investigation approach to getting facts into the public domain, which seems to be more direct and less expensive, not adopted by the Government in this instance? When that approach was originally adopted it was intended that commissions of investigation would meet largely in private, but it is also possible for them to meet in public. I ask the Minister to deal with this aspect of the matter in his reply.

It is important that the Minister spells out how the Government intends to address the issue of large payments being made to lawyers. Mr. Justice Cory touched on this issue in his report when he said:

Time and costs can be reasonably controlled. For example, a maximum allowance could be set for counsel appearing for every party granted standing.

When he touched on this issue, he may have been anticipating the type of concerns I am expressing. In doing so, I think I am speaking on behalf of the public. Judge Cory said he is simply making "suggestions for controlling the unnecessary expenditure of public funds". It is important that the Minister deals carefully with this aspect of the matter.

I am concerned that the terms of reference merely provide 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". That exact formula was used when the Flood and Moriarty tribunals were being established. I do not want to be unfairly critical, but there are significant concerns about the enormous costs and fees which were paid to lawyers during both tribunals. The simple replication of a provision that was used on earlier occasions is not sufficient to allay my concerns about the establishment of what could be regarded as another cash cow for the Law Library. I am not happy in this respect.

I remind the Minister that he accepted an amendment I tabled when the House considered the Commissions of Investigation Bill 2003. I would like that provision, which related to tendering, to be adopted again on this occasion. I heard with interest the comments which were made recently by the former Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy, about maximum fees for tribunals. I favour a tendering process that makes it clear that the fees to be paid will have an upper limit, as suggested by Mr. McCreevy. We should ask for fees to be set far below the current thresholds.

I am somewhat unclear and unhappy about another aspect of the terms of reference before the House. I refer to the question of reports. I am disturbed that tribunals which have been established by the House have assumed a life of their own. We have received no reports from such tribunals. I refer in particular to the Moriarty tribunal, which was established approximately eight years ago. I do not know what is happening in the tribunal, other than what I occasionally read in the newspapers. It is absolutely essential that every tribunal that is established by the House report to it regularly.

I am not clear about how to interpret the contents of the terms of reference before the House. I accept that the tribunal should produce an interim report shortly after it has been established — within three months. It is obvious that the tribunal will map out what it intends to do in such a report. I am not sure that the House will receive reports thereafter, however. The terms of reference state that the tribunal will issue a report to the Dáil "as soon as may be after the tenth day of any oral hearings of the Tribunal". What does that mean? Does it mean it will have to produce a report after every ten sittings? I ask the Minister to clarify this matter or to amend the terms of reference, if necessary. I fully accept that the decision to require the tribunal to produce an initial interim report represents the right approach, but we should receive reports at reasonably regular intervals of three months, or six months at the very most, thereafter.

We have not been given an estimate of how long the work of the tribunal will take. I have no idea how long it will take. The estimates of durations which were made when previous tribunals were being established turned out to be totally for the birds. The work of other tribunals, which were supposed to finish within 12 months, is continuing five years later. The Minister should clarify this aspect of the matter.

It is important for the country that the tribunal being established today work well and effectively. We are fortunate that Judge Cory has done a great deal of the preliminary work so well. The Cory report is a model that I would like to be followed when inquiries are being made into other matters.

It is absolutely essential that the House state clearly that it expects everybody who is in a position to provide information to the tribunal to do so. We expect such people to come forward to provide such information. It is important that all parties in the House — I refer in particular to Sinn Féin — make it clear that they want the full facts to be unearthed. They should send out a message, stating that they want all information to be made available, in a genuine manner rather than speaking from both sides of their mouths. Pressure needs to be brought to bear on those who have information about who committed the murders and about whether such people received information from anyone else to assist them to do so.

It is clear that the murders of Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan were committed by members of the Provisional IRA. Two brave and unarmed policemen who were working in the interests of this country were gunned down by members of the Provisional IRA. The admission of responsibility made by the IRA immediately after the killings contained some of that organisation's usual lying comments. It claimed that the "IRA volunteers" feared their lives could be in danger and that they took "preventative action" on that basis. How could the lives of people with armalites be in danger, given that they were facing two unarmed policemen in a car that was blocked in by other vehicles?

See this speech in context