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

Ba mhaith liom iarraidh ar an Aire glacadh leis an rún agus leis an leasú os comhair an Tí. Ba mhaith liom ómós a thabhairt do theaghlach Shane of Farrell as an obair atá déanta acu. I pay tribute to the O'Farrell family on their commitment and determination.

This issue and everything surrounding the death of Shane O'Farrell are important for several reasons, the most important being that the O'Farrell family has lost Shane. There is nothing we can do to change that but the family deserves answers and the truth as to what happened in the lead-up to his death. Another reason is that this is a matter of public interest. It is a matter of public interest in that institutions of State that are responsible for the administration of justice and for pursuing individuals to bring them to justice failed. That is demonstrably clear. The problem we have had, which has been going on for far too long, as has been acknowledged by Deputy O'Callaghan and the Taoiseach, is the back and forth on the terms of reference. The Dáil and Seanad voted for a public inquiry. It is the best means and I hope that is what comes out of Judge Haughton's recommendations. I do not believe the scoping inquiry was necessary. Public inquiries were brought about before without a scoping exercise.

I raised criticisms. Deputy O'Callaghan said he did not criticise the exercise at the start and the terms of reference, which is fair enough. In any setting of terms of reference, however, one is setting a floor. I felt the floor was being set to low. The engagement between the family and Judge Haughton resulted in the floor being lifted a little, but now the Department has gone back on it. The heart of the problem with the attitude of the Department of Justice and Equality, considering many of the responses to debates regarding the revised terms of reference, is that it seems to be unwilling to contemplate the fact that the reviews undertaken already were inadequate, flawed and bad. That they were flawed does not seem to be possible in the eyes of the Department and in any of the positions that have been adopted. It seems clear to me and many other parties, including many independent observers, that the GSOC report was significantly flawed as well as delayed. The independent review mechanism was also not adequate to bring the answers to light in regard to the numerous failures that existed. The Minister has instanced the case of Shatter v. Guerin and the precedent caused by that. The Minister has paid tribute to Judge Haughton. It would be very surprising if Judge Haughton were ignorant of the implications of that case. I am sure he was knowledgeable about it and understood its implications and what it meant for the terms of reference he was recommending to the Minister. It seems to be a debate about the extent to which it needs to be specific. Obviously, there can be differences in degree but I do not believe it is the case that the Shatter v. Guerin case means absolutely everything has to be nailed down and nothing else can be considered. That is a significant problem with this.

The terms of reference we have ended up with are not right. The initial ones were not right. It would probably have been better to move to a public inquiry first. I hope that is what comes out of this. It is necessary not only to get answers and the truth of what happened but also because we need to understand what may have gone wrong with the Director of Public Prosecutions and other institutions of the State. It seems there was a very significant failure.

See this speech in context