Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

Gabhaim buíochas le Páirtí an Lucht Oibre as an deis labhairt ar an Bhille ríthábhachtach seo. Ba mhaith liom freisin mo thacaíocht don Bhille seo a chur in iúl. Sa mhéid is gur féidir, léiríonn sé na gnéithe tábhachtacha a d'eascair as an cheist cathain is féidir le Tithe an Oireachtas fiosrúchán dlíthiúil a thionscnamh trí choistí fiosrúcháin.

D'ardaigh cinneadh na Cúirte Uachtaraí i 2002 an cheist nuair a cuireadh deireadh leis an iniúchadh ag an fhiosrúchán a tharla nuair a scaoil na gardaí John McCarthy in Abbeylara an 9 Aibreán 2000. Bhí stair de mheabhar-ghalar ar an Uas. McCarthy sular scaoileadh é agus tar éis dó féin a ghlasáil ina theach le gunna gan aon ghiall leis. Cuireadh garda le fíor-bheagán taithí i gceannas ar an stand off a tharla. Nuair a cuireadh an Emergency Response Unit isteach sa cheantar faoi stiúradh an gharda seo, tar éis 25 uair de stand off, maraíodh an tUas McCarthy. Is mór an trua sin agus ta comhbhrón fós ag dul dá chlann agus tá ceisteanna ríthábhachtacha nár freagraíodh go fóill faoin ghnáthbhealach agus procedures a bhí ag na gardaí nuair a bhí siad ag déileáil leis seo. Tá a lán tar éis tarlú ó shin, tá a lán athruithe tar éis tarlú sna gardaí agus tá súil agam gur fhoghlaim siad na ceachtanna a bhí le foghlaim de thairbhe an léigir seo agus an easpa cúraim a bhí ann.

Ceann de na ceisteanna ná cén fath go raibh duine gan an oiread seo taithí i gceannas nuair a bhí duine le taithí ó thaobh déileáil le daoine, nó negotiators mar a deir siad i mBéarla? Bhí sé i gceannas ar feadh 20 uair a chloig gan stad ach ag an am céanna bhí 27 garda eile le níos mó taithí sa cheantar.

Cén fáth nach ndearnadh níos mó chun tacaíocht a thabhairt don Uas McCarthy, go háirithe nuair a bhí a fhios ach go raibh meabhar-ghalar air agus nach raibh dainséar d'aon duine eile ann ag an am? Cén fáth nach raibh iarracht déanta a dhlíodóir a fháil le dul i dteagmháil leis? Bhí ceisteanna eile maidir leis an ERU chomh maith.

Go bhfios dom go fóill, ní dhearnadh torthaí an fhiosrúcháin inmheánaigh ag na gardaí a fhoilsiú go hiomlán. Is trua sin mar chuirfeadh sin leis an obair a rinneadh sa Teach seo ó shin, in ainneoin an cinneadh ag an Chúirt Uachtarach, an obair a rinne grúpaí eile, an chlann agus an obair a rinneadh laistigh de na gardaí chun déanamh cinnte nach dtarlódh a leithéid de rud arís.

The initial reaction of any right-thinking person when faced with serious questions regarding the conduct of a public body such as the Garda Síochána is that public representatives should investigate any incident, learn lessons from it and decide whether systematic and-or legislative changes are required. Correctly, a sub-committee of both Houses was set up to investigate the issues raised by the Abbeylara incident. However, the High Court intervened to bring an end to the sub-committee's inquiry and, therefore, suppress any findings it would have reached. The High Court decided that the investigation was beyond the powers of the Oireachtas, an argument that was subsequently upheld. The High Court held that Standing Order 78, which empowers the Dáil to appoint a select committee to consider and, if so permitted, take evidence upon any Bill, Estimate or matter and to report its opinion for the information and assistance of the Dáil, did not apply in this matter due to the fact that the investigation being carried out by the committee had an injunctive function and could make findings of fact adverse to the good name and reputation of a citizen who was not a Member of the Oireachtas.

On the surface, this ruling seems to suggest the Oireachtas has no power to investigate matters regarding citizens outside the Oireachtas, which is crazy. A part of our function is to represent the public and ensure our legislative changes are in the public's interests. When legislative change is required, we must establish the facts to ensure we are using our legislative powers correctly.

The suggestion has been also made that constitutional issues could arise from the exercise of the powers under Standing Order 78. However, closer inspection of the High Court's ruling on the Abbeylara incident shows that this point was not established. The judgment of the divisional court, which was taken into account in the High Court's ruling, stated, "Although Articles 15 to 27 of the Constitution deal with 'considerable particularity' with the Oireachtas, it was not contended that any express authority was to be found in the Constitution authorising an investigation of the type embarked on by the committee and, in addition, that no such authority had been conferred by legislation".

The main thrust of the ruling upheld by the court was not that the Oireachtas was prohibited from carrying out any type of inquiry, including the one investigating the Abbeylara incident, but that there was no empowerment implied by the Constitution or by any existing legislation to permit it to carry out this type of investigation. The High Court ruling expressly stated, "Article 15.10 of the Constitution clearly and emphatically recognises the right, and indeed the duty, of each House of the Oireachtas to make its own Rules and Standing Orders and it has never been in issue at any stage in these proceedings that the Joint Committee was lawfully established in accordance with those procedures." It is clear that the main issue was a lack of empowerment by legislation, such as the Bill proposed today, rather than it being a constitutional issue impeding the ability of the Oireachtas to undertake and investigate the matter fully. This overhanging judgment has prevented subsequent matters from being investigated, as legislation has not been forthcoming from the Government benches.

Where the Oireachtas was not expressly empowered to undertake this kind of investigation, the court felt compelled to rule against a potential conflict of interest regarding the right of a citizen not to be exposed to a ruling of a committee of the Oireachtas that may bring his or her good name into disrepute. Therefore, we welcome this Bill as a clarification of the rights of the Oireachtas to investigate such matters. The need for Oireachtas scrutiny of issues such as the Abbeylara incident to ascertain the necessity of any systematic or legislative change in the interests of the public good is vital and a logical extension of the fact that we are returned by the electorate on a regular basis. The High Court decision dealt with this matter. In its conclusions, it stated, "The right of persons in the position of the respondents to their good name must be balanced against the right, and indeed the duty, of the Oireachtas to inquire into and inform themselves as to matters which are relevant to the discharge by them of their constitutional functions." It is this balance that needs clarification in order that the rights of the individual do not take too much precedence over the need for the Oireachtas to perform functions that are in the interests of the wider public good.

The Bill goes some way towards addressing this issue. It confers on both Houses, and on both of them acting jointly, through committees the power to appoint inquiries and to commission reports into matters relevant to the exercise of legislative power in the State for the purpose of proposing legislation to remedy any defects and to make recommendations for the better regulation and governance of the State. If the focus of any Oireachtas inquiry is the identification of areas for legislative change, there is no reason a sensitive application of the powers outlined in this Bill should interfere disproportionately with an individual's right to his or her good name or prejudice any decision of the judicial system. We believe, however, the Bill could go further. If the Government agrees, we will table proposals on Committee Stage to strengthen the Bill.

I reiterate my support for this Bill. Clarification of the powers of the Oireachtas to initiate committees of inquiry is long overdue. I would like consideration to be given to any other possible legislative changes to address the issue of Government accountability, which have been outlined in this House by other Deputies and in recent times regarding the need for a proper investigative inquiry into the banking scandals and everything related to them.

See this speech in context