Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

We will be supporting the motion. If both Houses support this resolution, this State will establish a tribunal of inquiry for the thirty-first time since the foundation of the State. Of those 31 tribunals of inquiry, it is interesting to note that six of them have been into activities of An Garda Síochána. In fairness to An Garda Síochána, seven of them have been into the activities of politicians. Therefore, gardaí do not head that league table.

Although tribunals of inquiry fulfil very important tasks, it is important to note that they do not administer justice. We need to look to see what the background was to the establishment of tribunals of inquiry. The Act was enacted in 1921 because a Member of Parliament made allegations against a Minister. He wanted them investigated. He did not want them investigated by a parliamentary committee because he wanted the witnesses to be able to take the oath. As a result, the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 was enacted. That is the Act that forms the basis for the resolution that we are seeking to pass today. In passing, I wish to note a comment made by Deputy Pearse Doherty a number of days ago when he referred to the Tribunals of Inquiry Bill, which was instituted in 2005 and was at Report Stage in 2011. I believe it would be beneficial if we proceeded to enact it. However, it will not be possible to enact it prior to the passing of this resolution.

It is important to note that the function of a tribunal is to establish the truth. What we are doing is asking Mr. Justice Charleton to look at the facts, hear the evidence and come back with a report telling us what he views as being the truth. It is not the function of a tribunal to apportion criminal liability. If people think that there is going to be a finding of criminal wrongdoing or an imposition of a sanction against an individual as a result of the inquiry at the end of this process, that is not going to happen. It is also not the case that there are going to be any civil findings requiring an individual to pay damages to another individual. That is not the function of a tribunal. It is the function of the courts. I know that we criticise tribunals in this House are perfectly entitled to do so. However, we create them and we have a responsibility to try to ensure that they are efficient and not as costly as they have been in the past.

The most important issue when it comes to the efficiency of a tribunal of inquiry is the setting of its terms of reference. Some terms of reference in the past have been exceptionally broad and have led to those tribunals continuing for a very long period of time. I believe that the terms of reference that have been put forward by the Tánaiste with the assistance of other Members of the House are very appropriate. I believe they cover what is required. They are issues that should enable this tribunal to conclude its business in a prompt period of time.

I believe it would be helpful to quickly go through the individual terms of reference. Paragraphs [a] and [b] are paragraphs that were recommended by Mr. Justice O'Neill. Paragraph [c] is a proposed amendment that I raised in the House last Thursday and I am glad to see that the Tánaiste has accepted it. Paragraph [d] is a more specific version of paragraph [c] since it relates to the creation, distribution and use by Tusla of the file of which we became aware. Paragraph [e] asks the tribunal of inquiry to look into certain actions of the commission of investigation. It is worthwhile to note that we are asking a tribunal of inquiry to investigate some aspects of a commission of investigation. However, it is very limited to see whether or not false allegations or other unjustified grounds were knowingly used at the commission of investigation to discredit Sergeant McCabe. I believe the transcripts of the commission of investigation would be helpful to the tribunal. For the purposes of this, I assume that section 45 of the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 will apply and that the tribunal will be able to access those transcripts.

Paragraph [f] determines whether or not there was any plan to entrap or falsely accuse Sergeant McCabe. There were some broad allegations in respect of that. Paragraph [g] was in Mr. Justice O'Neill's report, as was paragraph [h], although we have added to it "members of the Government". I note that it has also been increased to include Tusla and the HSE. Paragraphs [i] and [j] were in Mr. Justice O'Neill's initial proposed terms of reference, as was paragraph [k]. I note that the Government changed some of the wording in paragraph [k], which concerns the national broadcaster. The words "planned and orchestrated" have been replaced with the words "influenced or attempted to influence". I believe that is probably a sensible change. It broadens it out and makes it viable.

When it comes to the issue of time at this tribunal, one of the areas in which it may get into lengthy issues that could delay it concerns the area of journalistic privilege. I believe that is something to be noted. A very important factor, other than the terms of reference, concerns the cost of tribunals. We need to ensure that the State plays a role in order that the cost does not run inordinately high. We can do that by getting the State to inform parties beforehand that when they apply for representation, they must do so in the knowledge that their costs will only tax at a certain amount. If somebody is not satisfied with that, they can agree to pay their lawyers more or they can get other lawyers. It is important at the outset that the State says publicly to people seeking representation that there will only be a certain amount for representation and that the costs will be taxed at that amount.

The process of a tribunal is effective in itself. People are brought before it. We will see in public the superintendent, the sergeant, the Commissioner and the former Commissioner give evidence. Their evidence will be given in public. It will be tested. The tribunal will test it and antagonists will be able to test it. Nobody goes into a tribunal with special treatment. I would suggest that it is not going to be a very pleasant experience for anyone, but the objective of it is to procure and establish the truth. The public issues and disquiet that have been revealed require that the truth is established. I wish Mr. Justice Charleton well in that regard.

At the end of this process, all we will have is a report. In years to come, people in this House should not criticise Mr. Justice Charleton for that fact that all we got out the tribunal was a report. That is all we are asking him to do and all he can do. It is not for us to direct criminal prosecutions or civil liability cases.

2 o’clock

However, on the production of that report, it may be the case that other individuals such as other prosecuting authorities or investigating authorities might be able to use it as a roadmap if wrongdoing is revealed. Obviously, it can never be used as evidence.

In terms of one or two other matters, sometimes tribunals of inquiry are also played out in the media. Parties frequently like to get information out in the public domain before individuals give evidence before the tribunal. It would be preferable in this case if we allowed the tribunal hear all the evidence without any party trying to influence the outcome. Let every person go before the tribunal, give their evidence and let there be a conclusion by the judge at the end of it.

It is important to note also that sometimes tribunals can be very demanding on people who hold positions in high office. We saw that in our own party when a Taoiseach was before a tribunal of inquiry. However, the fact that one holds office does not mean that one cannot give evidence before a tribunal and continue in one's job. I refer to that because of the calls upon the Garda Commissioner. The Garda Commissioner has denied any wrongdoing. It is important that we deal with her issues promptly so that the public can see what is the situation and that a report can be produced.

I want to make another point about the politicisation of calls for a Garda Commissioner to be removed. It is part of politics in this House that people call for politicians to resign, whether they are Ministers, Ministers of State or whoever. As Members of this House we have to be careful that we do not bring into that group people on the outside who hold important jobs such as the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners, the director general of RTE or the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána. We must ensure that we do not politicise those offices by having parties in this House calling for their heads when other parties in the House are not calling for that. That will damage the institutions they serve.

It is very important that we try to re-establish public trust in An Garda Síochána. That trust exists but, unquestionably, it has been damaged by the revelations over the past while. The important function of this tribunal is to try to establish the truth. It is in the public interest for wrongdoing to be disclosed. If there is no wrongdoing it is also in the public interest for that to be disclosed as well.

I wish Mr. Justice Charlton well in the task he has to do. He should be given the opportunity to do it without background noise from politicians or from the parties affected by the tribunal. Ultimately, we will have a report, and I believe the report will be to the benefit of Irish society.

See this speech in context