Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank all the Deputies who have spoken on this motion. I regret that we have not been able to discuss the full motion we initially submitted. It was a more comprehensive motion, but there were procedural issues with it. It set out the specific changes to the terms of reference that we are advocating. It is unfortunate that some of the issues that would have been raised during a discussion on the actual changes we are proposing have perhaps been missed during this afternoon's debate. I refer, for example, to the additional areas that would have been taken in.

We have full confidence in Mr. Justice Charleton. We believe he has the right attitude and the right approach. We expect that he will pursue everything possible right up to the lines of the terms of reference he has been given, but he cannot go any further than that. He cannot consider matters that are outside the terms of reference. We have suggested changes to the terms of reference in light of facts that were not really considered at the time of their setting. All parties had an input into the process of setting the terms of reference. We have no problem with the process that was used. The additional facts that have emerged need to be taken into consideration.

We are proposing that the tribunal should be allowed to investigate the knowledge of officials, advisers and Ministers. At present, it is confined to investigating the knowledge of the former Garda Commissioners, Martin Callinan and Nóirín O'Sullivan.

The key point related to the possibility of a cover-up, of suppression, or of deliberately not forwarding documentation on to the commission, which is a very serious issue. I challenge the Minister to find any head in the current terms of reference which would allow that to be investigated. There is none. There is no head which allows that to be investigated. I will return to that point.

I am disappointed with the approach of Fianna Fáil. It seems that while much of the sentiment was positive, there is perhaps a desire to draw a line under this issue. That should not happen. There are clearly ongoing issues with the Department of Justice and Equality. It is difficult to explain many of the issues which have come up. I welcome the support of the Green Party, the Labour Party and a number of the Independent Deputies. I greatly respect the opinions of Deputies Clare Daly and Mick Wallace. I pay tribute to their work on this issue which they carried out when few others were paying attention to it. I also acknowledge the presence of Deputy John McGuinness in the House. I differ in my analysis of the terms of reference, however. There is a clear difference in what we are proposing in respect of issues which were not anticipated at the time.

There is the issue of what the Minister knew, what she was responsible for and how much she knew about the legal strategy, but there is also the very serious matter of the withholding of relevant information from a tribunal, which is a criminal offence under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) Act 1997. It is a criminal matter for good reason. Some of the documentation which was most central to this issue and which made reference to the Minister was held by some of the most senior officials in the Department, by the Minister herself and by her key political team. For some reason, while 230 documents were found, these documents were not. It is not difficult to see why we, the public, or the media would see that as quite suspicious or as being problematic. It is possible to dispel that suspicion. In order to do that, the tribunal should be allowed to consider the matter.

The Tánaiste and the Taoiseach have said that they have no fear of the truth. If the truth is to emerge, this must be looked into. The review to which reference has been made will largely be an administrative effort. It will be carried out in private. These are serious matters which are very closely connected to the subject matter of the tribunal. Again, I challenge the Minister to identify a single head in the terms of reference as currently outlined which would allow Mr. Justice Charleton to look into the possibility of a cover-up, of suppression, or of the deliberate withholding of information. There is none. That is why we must revise the terms of reference.

See this speech in context