Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the establishment of a tribunal of inquiry. It has been a long time coming. It comes due to the tireless and courageous work of the Women of Honour group, who have campaigned relentlessly and effectively to have this statutory inquiry put into place and who have been since joined by others, whom those of us who attended the briefing in the AV room yesterday heard.

A tribunal of inquiry has two fundamental requirements. First, the terms of reference need to fully address the issues demanded by those directly affected. Second, it must do so in a timely way. For the first of these requirements to be met, there must be a real engagement to hear the requirements of those who are impacted. This involves more than meetings and engagements. It even involves more than listening. It has to involve understanding what is required. It is clear those directly affected are not satisfied with the terms of reference the Government has endorsed and presented to the House. We have had many tribunals of inquiry. I have been involved in several of them myself. Often, they are very satisfactory and produce comprehensive and shocking results. Sometimes, though, they are not satisfactory and simply compound difficulties and prolong investigations.

The Government circulated the specifics of the terms of reference today. Under them, Ms Justice Ann Power is to inquire into the following definite matters of urgent public importance:

(i) To establish whether the Complaints Processes in the Defence Forces in relation to Complaints of Abuse were appropriate and fit for purpose;

(ii) To establish whether the Complaints Processes in the Defence Forces in relation to Complaints of Abuse were followed;

The first two requirements are not to examine the abuses, but to establish whether the processes that dealt with the abuses were fit for purpose and followed. Surely the first requirement should be to examine the abuses themselves and how they came about and to hear testimony in respect of that matter.

This motion is an unsatisfactory mechanism for dealing with such an important issue. We should be holding a Committee Stage debate on individual amendments with a Government-Opposition dialogue and then come to a consensus, which I believe we could, rather than being presented with a fait accompli, with us tabling amendments and the Government voting them down. The latter is not an effective way of dealing with something of this importance.

I ask that the Government at least give a commitment that the Women of Honour group and others who have legitimately presented their cases over the years be officially represented legally throughout this tribunal. I am referring to legal representation paid for by the State. I expect that is to be case, but I would like it put on the formal record of the House.

See this speech in context