Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

In response to Deputies Tóibín, Boyd Barrett and Kenny, I would point out that it was the Deputies opposite who called for, if not demanded, the investigation. It was not about kicking the can down the road, as Deputy Tóibín suggested. There was a demand from this House, and I was in opposition at the time, that the Government establish an inquiry. All in opposition wanted an inquiry into this. The Deputy is correct that the Department has estimated that it could cost €30 million but there are no precise figures. That could be the ultimate cost but no one knows.

I have been in the House for a considerable length of time. Because of the view that people have rights and so on, all inquiries take an inordinate length of time. To date, no one formula that I have seen has been optimal. Parliamentary inquiries have had difficulties and have ended up in the courts where citizens have taken the Legislature to court in respect of how they were treated. Commissions of investigation were originally brought in by Senator McDowell when he was a Minister as a means of finding a shorter route to get a more efficient outcome to inquiries because inquiries under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act were proving to be very long as well, and were taking years or even decades in some cases. Some tribunals of inquiry took ten years or more. Everybody is entitled to their good name and everybody is entitled to cross-examine and there are huge legal costs attached to all of these inquiries as a result of all that. One of these inquiries was established in 2015 and the others not too long after that. We should go in with our eyes wide open. Very often, the first response from the Opposition and Members of this House is to set up an inquiry. Parties are in government at different times. That is the first resort and I am not sure if it is the correct response.

In answer to Deputy Tóibín, the idea of a State investigation authority was looked at by the Law Reform Commission in 2005. It looked at public inquiries, including tribunals of inquiry. It gave the pros and cons for what it called a permanent inquiries office. In the end, it opted to go against setting it up. It said the office would have a permanent team of staff experienced in investigations and paid salaries rather than a daily rate, thus resulting in savings. The staff would have "easy access to precedents and guidance on ... procedural issues" and would provide a one-stop-shop for those seeking information on inquiries. It then gave the disadvantages. It stated: "Although a number of public inquiries may be in existence at present, there is no guarantee that there will be a need for similar bodies in the future". It also stated: "public inquiries ... are ad hoc bodies [by their nature] ... and their structure and personnel should reflect this." Deputy Tóibín might consult the report.

My view is that irrespective of what form of inquiries we decide on, they will be lengthy, given our legal system and people will never be entirely satisfied with their conclusions. It is a very challenging situation. What we need to do is build up permanent systems. We established the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC. People are unhappy with GSOC. It was to hold gardaí to account for any misdeeds. Deputy Tóibín spoke about white-collar crime. The Garda should be investigating white-collar crime. Our existing agencies should be doing this work and reducing the need for inquiries in the first instance.

The Health Information and Quality Authority, HIQA, was established. It has made a transformational change compared with where we were before its establishment in 2003. Prior to that there was no inbuilt system within health to drive standards and proper approaches to public policy and the provision of healthcare facilities, taking the rights of patients into consideration.

See this speech in context