Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" where it firstly occurs and substitute the following:

"notes that:

— the Oireachtas established the Smithwick Tribunal as a central part of the confidence-building measures which led to major breakthroughs in relations with key parts of the Unionist community;

— the work of the Tribunal demonstrates that the Irish Government is willing to open up to scrutiny all issues, no matter how potentially uncomfortable they are, concerning actions by the State and its officers in the decades before the ceasefires;

— while press briefings have explained the basis for the Government's proposal to curtail the work of the Tribunal, no information has been given to members of the Oireachtas; and

— while legal costs must be addressed, no move should be made to curtail the work of the Tribunal without a detailed report being submitted to the Oireachtas justifying such a move and following a process of consultation with interested parties in Northern Ireland; and

resolves that:

— the Minister for Justice and Equality should prepare for the Oireachtas a detailed report outlining all relevant information and arguments concerning the work of the Tribunal and how, if the work of the Tribunal is curtailed, he proposes to meet the central objective of reaching a clearer conclusion relating to the allegation of collusion; and

— consultations be undertaken with all interested parties in advance of any proposal to curtail the work of the Tribunal being put to the House."

The frustration over the tabling of the motion is that it has arrived so quickly in the aftermath of the Queen's visit, which was so successful in building further and stronger relations on the island. The manner in which the motion has been introduced into the House seems completely inappropriate. In his speech the Minister said it would not be appropriate for him to consult the tribunal in advance of this. However, in the case of this tribunal, which is very different from the other tribunals we discuss regularly in this House, it would have been appropriate for him to take that step.

The publicity surrounding this motion has forced the chairman of the tribunal to write to the Minister as he has said. From a BBC report today I understand the chairman of the tribunal has expressed concern over the change in the remit of the inquiry and that he is concerned about the deadline. In his speech the Minister referred to the chairman's communication, and when he is wrapping up I would appreciate if he would outline to the House the concerns the chairman expressed and his responses to those concerns.

This Smithwick tribunal is a very different one. It was set up as part of an international agreement signed at Weston Park. It is a very important signal that this part of the island takes claims about collusion within its security forces seriously. As recently as two weeks ago the Dáil unanimously agreed a motion on the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. We cannot campaign about other allegations of collusion without being upfront about our own interest in this area.

While the tribunal has been sitting for a long time, when one considers the justifications for that duration, they are compelling. The work of the tribunal is extremely complex and deals with several jurisdictions. It cannot compel witnesses except in this jurisdiction. It has to deal with, for example, army personnel who are based in England as well as retired police personnel who are in Northern Ireland. It has to obtain documentation from the Northern Ireland Office, the British Ministry of Defence, the RUC and the Garda. It covers the entire breadth and spectrum that have been under consideration in the various inquiries.

Given the background to the tribunal, politically and otherwise, and the complexity of its work, I believe the motion is rushed, which is why we have tabled the amendment before the House today. I am anxious to support the work of the tribunal and support the Minister's efforts as he outlined in his speech. We feel the Government can support the amendment without losing any face, especially given that both the Minister and the Taoiseach have said publicly that they are willing to revisit the motion if the tribunal has not completed its work by the deadline. If they are willing to revisit the timing of a motion that has yet to be passed, then why pass the motion?

According to the tribunal in a statement on 25 May the chairman has not received any communication from the Government on what he described as the reported Government decision to amend the tribunal's terms of reference. I gather he wrote to the Minister on 27 May to express his concerns over the potential impact of the decision we may be about take in this House on the continuing work of the tribunal and has yet to receive a reply. Given that lack of interaction between the Minister or his officials and the tribunal, it is incredible that this is being tabled with only 48 hours notice, without any background papers having been made available to either Deputy O'Brien or me on what he has just said. There has been a tradition of briefing Opposition spokespersons on sensitive issues. Had this been done in this case, we might have managed to reach some sort of agreement.

I believe that the Minister does not wish to undermine the inquiry, but the pressures in terms of putting a deadline on the work will do so whether he intends it or not. No time or cost restrictions were placed, for instance, on the Bloody Sunday inquiry and when this tribunal is considered in terms of dealing with people's lives and dealing with families, it is completely different from the other tribunals that are under discussion in this House and many of those tribunals were not forced to curtail their work.

I agree with the Minister that we need to give the families some sort of closure and some answers. However, I direct the Minister to comments made by the solicitor for Chief Superintendent Breen's family that the concerns the tribunal chairman has expressed must be taken seriously. He stated: "I think it would be enormously discourteous for the Department of Justice, for the minister responsible for that department, and for the wider cabinet in fact, to ignore concerns expressed by Judge Smithwick." That is the solicitor for the family. That is the only reaction we have heard from one of the families involved.

I agree we should not interfere - nobody wants to - but the placing of this motion before the House in the manner in which it has been placed has caused interference and has forced the tribunal chairman into conflict with the Oireachtas. That conflict is unnecessary and will impede the work of the tribunal. This House collectively agrees with the need for the tribunal and the concerns of the families, and it acknowledges the sadness of the latter. I ask the Government to support our amendment so we can further the work of the inquiry in a far more appropriate manner.

See this speech in context