Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

Is iad na príomh pointí a cuireadh trasna an fáth, go bhfuil mé ag cur i gcoinne An Bille um Binsí Fiosrúcháin. It is interesting to listen to Deputy Byrne discussing whether he was a donkey. I will leave that to someone else to discuss. He referred to costs. Is he suggesting legal secretaries should be on the minimum wage, carrying out work that is important? Given the advent of scanners and the like, which should be used more, material can be put on a disk and people can peruse it on a computer.

This legislation is welcome because we need new legislation to govern the work of tribunals. Existing legislation dates to 1921 and it is clear that spiralling legal costs and the refusal of witnesses to co-operate with tribunals must be addressed. There is much in this Bill that I would love to welcome but, as currently drafted, we will oppose this Bill.

We were not the ones who delayed this Bill, as suggested by Deputy Byrne. The reason this Bill has sat in the background since 2002 is to save the former Taoiseach's blushes while he was before the tribunal and so that he would not be seen to introduce a Bill that would ensure the process of tribunal investigations would be stifled. That is the reason for the delay. I would prefer this Bill to be withdrawn and the points I make addressed before a Bill is put to the House.

We are concerned that the proposed legislation could be used by future Governments to stop inquiries from delivering the truth to the public and the families of victims of collusion. The Bill, as currently drafted, is very similar to the Britain's Inquiries Act, which is widely viewed as having been constructed to act as a barrier to a full public inquiry into the murder of Mr. Pat Finucane. The president-elect of the US, Barack Obama, has supported this. Passing this Bill would jeopardise the ability of any future tribunal to uncover the truths surrounding the Dublin and Monaghan bombings and the murders of Seamus Ludlow, Councillor Eddie Fullerton, Martin Doherty and many others that must be addressed in full public view. It would undermine the cases of those in the Six Counties seeking inquiries into State collusion.

The British Government could point to this legislation in this jurisdiction to justify its own legislation. This Government signed an all-party demand for a full inquiry by the British authorities into the murder of Pat Finucane not so long ago. This Bill would greatly undermine that demand. The British could point to the restrictions under this new legislation to justify the Bill introduced to prevent a full inquiry into the Pat Finucane murder. British Irish Rights Watch says that its fear is that if the Tribunals of Inquiry Bill is passed, it would seriously undermine the Irish Government's support for the Finucane family and other families who deserve a proper public inquiry. Governments here and in Britain, past and present, have colluded in deep cover-ups, masking the truth and compounding the suffering of victims and their relatives. Recovering the truth is essential if the suffering is to be lessened.

Not so long ago, we organised a conference in Dublin on collusion in this State. Representatives of the families spoke at that event, which was well-attended. Speakers included those from Justice for the Forgotten and the Pat Finucane Centre, the Relatives for Justice and the families of Seamus Ludlow, Councillor Eddie Fullerton, Martin Doherty and Pat Finucane. I pay tribute to them for their courageous and enduring efforts to uncover the truth and achieve some justice for their loved ones. The Bill before us would effectively give the Government power over whether to establish an inquiry at all, its members and, crucially, its terms of reference. It would also give the Government the power to suspend or dissolve a tribunal for unlimited reasons and to prevent the publication of a tribunal's report. This is unacceptable and will not instil any confidence among the public or, more crucially, among those who have been specifically affected and who are seeking the full truth of the events the tribunal was set up to address.

I want to put on record some of our specific concerns. Section 34(7) allows the Government, acting on the opinion of a responsible, or perhaps irresponsible, Minister to direct that the report of a specified part of it not be published for a specified period or until the Government otherwise directs where such publication would not be in the interest of State security or in the interest of the State's relations with other states or international organisations.

See this speech in context