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

I acknowledge the presence of the O'Farrell family, who have sat through the whole debate. Their presence for the debate is reflective of their commitment to this issue, seeking justice for their beloved Shane over the past eight years. It is unfair that the system in this country puts such an obligation on a family and that they are required to come here to canvass and talk to politicians, seeking to get Ministers to agree to terms of reference and having to meet judges. It puts a huge pressure on a family, and I think we have let them down in the delay in which we have engaged in trying to bring this issue to a finality. We need to recognise that this is not an inquiry that will go on for years but a net issue that needs to be investigated, examined and reported on. It is now nearly 17 months since the Dáil voted in favour of a resolution on this matter. Had we started the inquiry at that stage, it probably would have been completed by now.

I thank all Members who spoke in the debate. I think everyone who spoke has great compassion for the tragedy the O'Farrell have gone through. However, there is also a recognition that there are questions that need to be answered. Sometimes people are hesitant about establishing public inquiries, as if they believe they should only call for them or allow them if they will establish wrongdoing. We should be confident about establishing inquiries, not simply where we believe there has been wrongdoing, as in this case, but also where we think we can benefit as a country from inquiring into events to see how we might learn about matters for the future.

The Minister referred to the amendment the Government tabled. I cannot accept that amendment. In effect, what it seeks to do is simply to get this House to endorse the amended terms of reference the Department put forward to Judge Haughton in July 2019. It would be completely contradictory to the theme of the motion we have tabled if we were to accept the Government amendment, so we will oppose it.

I have not had an opportunity to consider the Sinn Féin amendment but, to judge from what Deputy Adams stated, the issue Sinn Féin seems to want to have included is whether or not the Lithuanian man was in any way involved in working as an informer for An Garda Síochána. I had never heard that before, I am not aware of it and I do not think it has been suggested before. Nonetheless I will give consideration to the amendment and perhaps I will speak to Deputy Martin Kenny, the party's justice spokesman, about that matter.

We also need to reflect on what the Minister, Deputy Flanagan, said. He said there can be further engagement by the O'Farrell family with Judge Haughton. I know that the O'Farrell family have met Judge Haughton, and their experience of meeting him, I understand, was a positive one, but it is a matter for them as to whether or not they wish to meet him again. In fairness to the judge, he is bound by the terms of reference he has, and at present he is operating under the terms of reference dated July 2019. Irrespective of what the O'Farrell family may say to him at any meeting they may have with him, he will not be able to amend the terms of reference. He is stuck very rigidly to the terms under which he is operating.

On a number of occasions the Minister referred to the fact that an interim report from Judge Haughton is to come in the coming days. The Minister indicated he was expecting to receive it on Friday. It is important we note that, under the terms of reference of July 2019, the interim report due to be delivered by Judge Haughton indicates the expected timeframe for the completion of the scoping exercise. Therefore, as I understand it, the report he will produce on Friday will give an indication of the timeframe for him to complete his scoping exercise. His scoping exercise will therefore take longer, and I would have thought the terms of reference for that scoping exercise can be amended at this stage to enable him to consider it in the context of the broader terms of reference he put forward in April of this year.

I note that the Minister referred to the decision in Shatter v. Guerin. There were very specific issues in that case. As I said, at the heart of the case was an unfairness in the former Minister, Mr. Shatter, not having been questioned or interviewed by the investigator in circumstances in which another complainant had been, and the version the other complainant put forward was preferred by the investigator. There is no such issue here. My understanding of the scoping exercise being conducted by Judge Haughton is that he is not interviewing individuals; he is conducting a paper-based review for the purpose of doing a scoping exercise.

We should also recognise what Deputy Penrose said because there are broader issues here. When there is a public inquiry into tragic events such as the death of a person, recommendations will always be made as to how we might try to ensure, as Deputy Michael Healy-Rae said earlier, that what happened does not happen to other families in the future. For a long time Fianna Fáil has called for an amendment to our bail laws. They are too lax at present.

In 1997, the people voted to amend the Constitution so that a person could be refused bail if there was a belief that he or she was likely to commit a further criminal offence while on bail. That was given effect by the people in the referendum held at the time in an overwhelming "Yes"vote. In the opinion of Fianna Fáil, the current statutory law that exists does not reflect in full the decision of the people and there is also a need to review and amend our bail laws.

We need better IT systems in courts and within An Garda Síochána so that it is apparent immediately if somebody who comes before a court has outstanding convictions or adjourned cases against him or her or if he or she has breached his or her bail bond in any way. If we had we a proper, effective system in operation when the man came before Ardee District Court in May 2011, it would have been apparent when he was convicted of theft that he had already been convicted of theft in January of that year and the judge of the Circuit Court in Monaghan had said that, if there was another theft conviction, he was to be brought back and immediately imprisoned.

I welcome the contributions from Members. I salute the bravery and indefatigability of the O'Farrell family, particularly Shane's beloved mother, Lucia, his father, James, and his four sisters. As a country, we have let them down. Every family of a victim of crime deserves to have the State backing and support them. It is unfair of this State to force the family to repeatedly come into Dáil Éireann to meet politicians and canvass to try and get an inquiry established. It is unfair that they must plead on the radio and come in to debates in the Dáil. Had we just ordered and conducted a proper inquiry when the Dáil voted for it, that inquiry would nearly be over by now.

See this speech in context