Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move:

That Dáil Éireann resolves that the terms of reference contained in the Resolution passed by Dáil Éireann on 23 March 2005 and by Seanad Éireann on 24 March 2005, pursuant to the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts 1921 to 2004, be amended as follows:

1. in paragraph (I) —

(a) by substituting 'not later than 30 June, 2011' for 'as soon as may be after the tenth day of any oral hearings of the Tribunal', and

(b) by deleting subparagraph (c);

2. in paragraph (II) by substituting 'public interest;' for 'public interest; and';

3. in paragraph (III) by substituting 'referred to it; and' for 'referred to it.'; and

4. by inserting the following paragraph after paragraph (III):

'(IV) in any event, the Tribunal shall complete its inquiries and submit its final report to the Clerk of the Dáil not later than 30 November, 2011.'."

This motion seeks to amend the terms of reference of the tribunal of inquiry into suggestions of collusion by members of the Garda Síochána or other employees of the State in the brutal murders by the Provisional IRA of RUC Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and RUC Superintendent Bob Buchanan in March 1989. While the original Dáil motion was passed on 23 March 2005 and the motion in the Seanad on 24 March 2005, the tribunal was ultimately established on 31 May 2005 and it is chaired by Judge Peter Smithwick, former President of the District Court.

I wish to state emphatically at the outset that the purpose of this proposal is not to impede, confine or in any way interfere with the independence of the tribunal in fulfilling the terms of reference in respect of the inquiry being undertaken. It is not about the winding down of a tribunal. Instead, it is about fulfilling this House's responsibilities, while fully supporting the work of the tribunal.

The purpose of the motion is to afford the Dáil the opportunity to consider the current state of play with the tribunal's work and it seeks to establish a timeframe which is reasonable for the tribunal to complete that work. I do not believe it would have been appropriate, given the respective roles of the Oireachtas and the tribunal, for me to have consulted with Judge Smithwick about the terms of the motion before the House today. However, I can tell the House that some time ago Judge Smithwick indicated to me that the tribunal would be able to conclude its work within the timescale now contemplated by the motion. I believe it to be both in the public interest and in the interest of those bereaved by the callous murders of the two police officers to underpin that in the motion.

Notwithstanding that, I wish to put it firmly on the record of the House that if, for any reason, this does not prove possible, the chairman can report back to the Clerk of the Dáil to the effect that circumstances have arisen which require that timescale to be extended. I offer this House the solemn assurance that the Government's response to that will be fully cognisant of and consistent with the need for the tribunal to fulfil its obligations fully and as expeditiously as possible. I believe that this assurance can meet fully concerns which have been expressed about the public imposition of a deadline. While, as I have already indicated, I have not consulted with Mr. Justice Smithwick about the specific terms of motions, I will convey that assurance to him in light of concerns he has expressed to me about any possible effects of an indication by this House of a deadline. Six years after its establishment and the expenditure of over €8 million of taxpayers' money by my Department, I believe that this approach best protects the public interest.

The motion also requires the chairman to prepare and submit an interim report by the end of June. Again, this is consistent with the tribunal's own timescale, which envisages public hearings commencing on 7 June with an opening statement by counsel on that date. There has been some misinformed public comment about this, apparently based on the mistaken view that this is a new requirement. In fact, under the current terms of reference the chairman must submit an interim report on certain matters as soon as may be after the tenth day of any oral hearings of the tribunal. The motion, therefore, does not impose any substantive additional requirement or undesirable burden or onus on the tribunal.

This tribunal arose from the Weston Park talks in 2001, when the Irish and British Governments appointed an eminent retired Canadian Supreme Court judge, Peter Cory, to undertake a thorough investigation of six particular allegations of collusion to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant a public inquiry. In the case of the two RUC officers, Judge Cory considered allegations that a member of the Garda Síochána, or a civilian employed in the Garda organisation, advised either those directly responsible for the killings or members of their organisation of the visit of the two RUC officers to Dundalk Garda Station and, in particular, advised them of their departure from there.

On the afternoon of 20 March 1989, Harry Breen and Bob Buchanan were ambushed just north of the Border as they returned from a meeting with senior Garda officers in Dundalk Garda station. An IRA gang stopped the car carrying the two RUC officers at a roadblock and four armed men emerged from a van which pulled up close by and opened fire immediately. From a review of the relevant factors, Judge Cory considered that it might be said that the Provisional IRA did not need any assistance from within the Garda to carry out the ambush. However, he also considered that a statement made by a former British intelligence agent who, in that capacity, is supposed to have become a member of the Provisional IRA, could be found to constitute evidence of collusion on the part of a Garda officer. Accordingly, he concluded that there must be a public inquiry in this case and, in line with the Weston Park commitments, the Smithwick tribunal was established.

The tribunal has, since early 2006, been conducting its inquiries in private. Given the importance that is attached to the subject matter of those inquiries, the Government considers it is appropriate that the Oireachtas and the public should have an indication of where the tribunal is currently placed in carrying out the mandate the Oireachtas has given to it. It is my view and that of the Government that it serves the public interest to have at this stage information from the tribunal as to the current status of the inquiry. With hindsight, it may have been a mistake in the original terms of reference to link the timing of an interim report to a number of public hearings having taken place. I doubt very much that the House in 2005 would have envisaged at the time that this would mean it would hear nothing from the tribunal for six years.

I do not consider it unreasonable that the tribunal should be asked to report progress at this stage. In so far as the proposed interim report is concerned, the motion does not seek to have the tribunal deal with the substance of the matters into which it is inquiring. Rather, the purpose is for the tribunal to give the Oireachtas an indication of the numbers of persons granted representation, progress to date with its hearings and work, and other matters which the tribunal considers should be drawn to the attention of the Oireachtas. As I have indicated, given that the tribunal intends to commence public hearings shortly, it would have been required to produce such a report in any event.

I am anxious that the Smithwick tribunal should be facilitated to conduct and conclude its inquiries in as comprehensive a manner as is possible. I consider, however, that it is helpful, especially to those most directly affected by these dreadful killings, for this House to indicate a timescale for that. It is not in the public interest or in the interest of the families bereaved by this IRA atrocity that an inquiry should continue indefinitely. The seriousness of the matters being investigated requires greater urgency than that.

As I indicated, I have been informed by the chairman that he believes the tribunal will be in a position to complete its work in advance of the date now proposed. I repeat that if a difficulty were to emerge subsequently with the target date for conclusion, I have no doubt that the chairman would report that difficulty and the Oireachtas would have the opportunity to consider the matter further. It is against that background that the motion proposes the tribunal should conclude its work and report to the Clerk of the Dáil by 30 November 2011.

Let me reiterate in no uncertain terms that there is no question of any political interference of any kind by me or by the Government with the tribunal. I respect and defend fully the independence of the chairman of the tribunal to carry out his inquiries without fear or favour. It is central to the remit of the tribunal that having completed its hearings it reaches its conclusions and finalises its report for submission to the Clerk of the Dáil without any interference of any nature or its independence being in any way compromised. It is, however, in the public interest that its deliberations do not continue indefinitely with no public target date of any nature for the completion of its work and without accountability to this Parliament or explanation of any nature for the duration of its sitting. After all, its original remit was to report on a "definite matter of urgent public importance" on which it is "to make such findings and recommendations as it sees fit". Moreover, its original terms of reference require that when it reports on "an interim basis" the tribunal must detail "the likely duration" in so far as it can estimate "of the proceedings of the tribunal". There must be some accountability to the Houses of the Oireachtas for the progress of its work and the public expenditure connected with it and this was clearly envisaged in the motion passed by this House to establish the tribunal on 23 March 2005, more than six years ago.

The chilling murders of these two honourable policemen serve as a reminder to us all of the critical importance to this island of the peace process. It is the will of the people of this island, North and South, that such acts of criminal thuggery, and those who would carry them out or excuse them, should be consigned forever to the past. There have been too many victims on this island and we need no more.

The Oireachtas established the public inquiry into the brutal murders of these two RUC officers, not just out of an obligation imposed by Judge Cory's report, but more importantly, out of a genuine desire to see the truth emerge, in so far as that can be done. We owe this to the families left behind, to the people of Northern Ireland and, indeed, to the people of this jurisdiction. The families of Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan have waited long enough for this aspect of these horrific events to be addressed and they deserve to see the full truth emerge as soon as may be. If I thought for one moment that the motion before this House today would interfere adversely with that process I would not have moved it nor would the House support it. I am confident that the tribunal will fully discharge its responsibilities and that this motion will assist in that endeavour. I commend the motion to the House.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" where it firstly occurs and substitute the following:

"notes that:

— the Oireachtas established the Smithwick Tribunal as a central part of the confidence-building measures which led to major breakthroughs in relations with key parts of the Unionist community;

— the work of the Tribunal demonstrates that the Irish Government is willing to open up to scrutiny all issues, no matter how potentially uncomfortable they are, concerning actions by the State and its officers in the decades before the ceasefires;

— while press briefings have explained the basis for the Government's proposal to curtail the work of the Tribunal, no information has been given to members of the Oireachtas; and

— while legal costs must be addressed, no move should be made to curtail the work of the Tribunal without a detailed report being submitted to the Oireachtas justifying such a move and following a process of consultation with interested parties in Northern Ireland; and

resolves that:

— the Minister for Justice and Equality should prepare for the Oireachtas a detailed report outlining all relevant information and arguments concerning the work of the Tribunal and how, if the work of the Tribunal is curtailed, he proposes to meet the central objective of reaching a clearer conclusion relating to the allegation of collusion; and

— consultations be undertaken with all interested parties in advance of any proposal to curtail the work of the Tribunal being put to the House."

The frustration over the tabling of the motion is that it has arrived so quickly in the aftermath of the Queen's visit, which was so successful in building further and stronger relations on the island. The manner in which the motion has been introduced into the House seems completely inappropriate. In his speech the Minister said it would not be appropriate for him to consult the tribunal in advance of this. However, in the case of this tribunal, which is very different from the other tribunals we discuss regularly in this House, it would have been appropriate for him to take that step.

The publicity surrounding this motion has forced the chairman of the tribunal to write to the Minister as he has said. From a BBC report today I understand the chairman of the tribunal has expressed concern over the change in the remit of the inquiry and that he is concerned about the deadline. In his speech the Minister referred to the chairman's communication, and when he is wrapping up I would appreciate if he would outline to the House the concerns the chairman expressed and his responses to those concerns.

This Smithwick tribunal is a very different one. It was set up as part of an international agreement signed at Weston Park. It is a very important signal that this part of the island takes claims about collusion within its security forces seriously. As recently as two weeks ago the Dáil unanimously agreed a motion on the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. We cannot campaign about other allegations of collusion without being upfront about our own interest in this area.

While the tribunal has been sitting for a long time, when one considers the justifications for that duration, they are compelling. The work of the tribunal is extremely complex and deals with several jurisdictions. It cannot compel witnesses except in this jurisdiction. It has to deal with, for example, army personnel who are based in England as well as retired police personnel who are in Northern Ireland. It has to obtain documentation from the Northern Ireland Office, the British Ministry of Defence, the RUC and the Garda. It covers the entire breadth and spectrum that have been under consideration in the various inquiries.

Given the background to the tribunal, politically and otherwise, and the complexity of its work, I believe the motion is rushed, which is why we have tabled the amendment before the House today. I am anxious to support the work of the tribunal and support the Minister's efforts as he outlined in his speech. We feel the Government can support the amendment without losing any face, especially given that both the Minister and the Taoiseach have said publicly that they are willing to revisit the motion if the tribunal has not completed its work by the deadline. If they are willing to revisit the timing of a motion that has yet to be passed, then why pass the motion?

According to the tribunal in a statement on 25 May the chairman has not received any communication from the Government on what he described as the reported Government decision to amend the tribunal's terms of reference. I gather he wrote to the Minister on 27 May to express his concerns over the potential impact of the decision we may be about take in this House on the continuing work of the tribunal and has yet to receive a reply. Given that lack of interaction between the Minister or his officials and the tribunal, it is incredible that this is being tabled with only 48 hours notice, without any background papers having been made available to either Deputy O'Brien or me on what he has just said. There has been a tradition of briefing Opposition spokespersons on sensitive issues. Had this been done in this case, we might have managed to reach some sort of agreement.

I believe that the Minister does not wish to undermine the inquiry, but the pressures in terms of putting a deadline on the work will do so whether he intends it or not. No time or cost restrictions were placed, for instance, on the Bloody Sunday inquiry and when this tribunal is considered in terms of dealing with people's lives and dealing with families, it is completely different from the other tribunals that are under discussion in this House and many of those tribunals were not forced to curtail their work.

I agree with the Minister that we need to give the families some sort of closure and some answers. However, I direct the Minister to comments made by the solicitor for Chief Superintendent Breen's family that the concerns the tribunal chairman has expressed must be taken seriously. He stated: "I think it would be enormously discourteous for the Department of Justice, for the minister responsible for that department, and for the wider cabinet in fact, to ignore concerns expressed by Judge Smithwick." That is the solicitor for the family. That is the only reaction we have heard from one of the families involved.

I agree we should not interfere - nobody wants to - but the placing of this motion before the House in the manner in which it has been placed has caused interference and has forced the tribunal chairman into conflict with the Oireachtas. That conflict is unnecessary and will impede the work of the tribunal. This House collectively agrees with the need for the tribunal and the concerns of the families, and it acknowledges the sadness of the latter. I ask the Government to support our amendment so we can further the work of the inquiry in a far more appropriate manner.

Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

During the most recent phase of the conflict, more than 3,500 people lost their lives. While the armed conflict has ended, the process of conflict resolution in Ireland is far from over. Many families are still grieving and are still seeking answers regarding the deaths of their loved ones. They and their families all deserve the truth. Sinn Féin fully supports their quest for truth.

Sinn Féin has consistently supported inquiries, including the Saville inquiry into Bloody Sunday and the inquiry into the murder of Rosemary Nelson. We have also given our ongoing support for the campaign by the family of murdered solicitor Pat Finucane and the families of the victims of the Ballymurphy and Springhill massacres. In 2008, Sinn Féin supported the unanimous request of the Oireachtas to allow independent, international access to all original documents held by the British Government relating to fatal attacks in the Twenty-six Counties involving collusion between British state forces and Unionist paramilitaries.

Last month, Sinn Féin tabled a Private Members' motion in this House reiterating the all-party resolution of 10 July 2008 that called on the British Government to release all files relating to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings for scrutiny by the inquiry team. It is widely believed that these bombings, involving the greatest loss of life of any incident in the conflict, were carried out with the involvement of British intelligence. The Oireachtas committee severely reprimanded the former British Government for its refusal to establish an inquiry, as called for by the Oireachtas, into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. It goes further and states the Northern Ireland Office and the PSNI refused to co-operate in any meaningful way with the Barron investigation or with the work of the Oireachtas committee. To date, no action has been taken despite the motion receiving unanimous backing from all parties in this House. It is for this reason that we submitted the Private Members' motion.

We strongly repudiate the rejection by the British Prime Minister of the Taoiseach's request for London to release the files to the inquiry and again urge the Taoiseach to continue to press this matter directly with the British Prime Minister.

Sinn Féin has proposed the establishment of an independent, international truth-recovery process convened under the auspices of a credible, international third party, such as the United Nations, as another step in the peace process. The process should be victim-centred and involve all participants to the conflict here in Ireland.

No one who has seriously studied the Irish conflict doubts that there was systematic collusion between British forces and Unionist paramilitaries. The most murderous loyalist paramilitary group, the Ulster Defence Association, which operated under the cover name Ulster Freedom Fighters, was co-founded in 1971 by Charles Harding Smith, a self-confessed British intelligence agent. The British army's military reaction force was established by Brigadier Frank Kitson, a leading British counter-insurgency officer, to co-ordinate the British military and loyalist death squads.

Throughout the conflict, British forces were guided by the British army's training manual Land Operations, Volume III, Counter Revolutionary Operations, Part 3 – Counter Insurgency Options, which defines its role as "liaison with, and organization, training and control of, friendly guerrilla forces operating against the common enemy". That is the institutionalised and administrative basis of collusion. It is not ancient history but has been relevant right up to the present day.

In an attempt to prevent the truth being revealed, the British Government introduced what is commonly known as the inquiries Bill, which was designed to prevent any realistic inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane or that of any other victim of collusion between British Crown forces and loyalist death squads. That legislation empowers a British Minister to order an inquiry to be held behind closed doors. Judge Peter Cory has severely criticised this legislation. He has advised his colleague judges in Canada not to participate in any inquiry under such legislation. British Ministers and British security and military agencies will still have the controlling hand when it comes to the release of information. We have seen how they have used that power.

The Oireachtas established the Smithwick tribunal into the alleged collusion of a member or members of An Garda Síochána in the killing in 1989 of senior RUC officers Harry Breen and Robert Buchanan. Sinn Féin has stated previously in this House that anyone with relevant information should come forward and assist this tribunal. We reiterate that call today.

The decision by the Government to seek an interim report from the tribunal by 30 June and a final report by 30 November of this year is a mistake that will feed the conspiracy theories that the Government and the Garda may have something to hide.

Arguments over costs sound petty and irresponsible when set against the desire of two families to know how their loved ones died. The tragic loss of all those who died in the political conflict on this island should be acknowledged and remembered. The grief of their relatives and friends must be acknowledged also. The victims were men, women, children, civilians and members of all the armed groups involved in the conflict. It is for these reasons that Sinn Féin opposes the Government's motion. We support the amendment tabled. However, those of us charged with political responsibility must agree upon and deliver a truth-recovery process that is meaningful and substantive. There is an onus on all political leaders to promote this. That means thinking beyond any sectarian, sectional or party-political interest, or self-interest.

The discharge of these responsibilities needs to be rooted in the political dispensation agreed on Good Friday 1998. The British Government has the major financial, moral and political responsibility to facilitate and enable such a process. The Irish Government has a constitutional, legal and moral responsibility to promote actively and encourage this course of action. Party leaders and civic society should get fully behind the call for an effective truth-recovery initiative.

I concur with Deputy Calleary that it is regrettable that the Opposition spokespersons had only 48 hours' notice of this motion. We received no briefings or materials to explain the urgency of its being tabled.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Smithwick tribunal is very important and comprises an important aspect of finding out what happened in our troubled history and in the conflict that took place on this island. It is vital that the families affected see a full and complete report and are satisfied that, if collusion took place, it is recognised and acknowledged by this State. It is also vital in the context of the other inquiries we have sought and the integrity of the entire process.

The motion calls into question the integrity and wishes of this House. A couple of weeks ago we passed a motion calling on the British Parliament to make available the files in London on the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. Two short weeks later, however, we turn around and place a motion before the House that will effectively guillotine the work the Smithwick tribunal. When we do not complete inquiries ourselves and provide answers, no matter how unpalatable they might be and no matter what questions arise, it sends out the wrong message to people who are concerned and who attempt to highlight the fact that we want the British authorities to acknowledge any part they played in colluding with the paramilitaries on their side in the conflict. We have an obligation to ensure the inquiry is completed and given all the time it needs to produce a complete report outlining all its views.

Given the visit of the British Queen recently and this attempt to guillotine the work of the Smithwick tribunal I wonder if an attempt is being made to draw a line under the peace process, say it is done and dusted, there is peace in the Six Counties and we need to move on to other work. Judging by the haste with which this motion was brought forward after the visit of the Queen, it appears the Government's intention is to ensure that we do not spend any more time looking into these issues that remain vitally important for many people and many families who have questions that must be answered.

The Minister stated in his contribution that if the tribunal believes it needs more time in the coming months it can come back to the House and request an extension of the time period but why does the motion not include that provision? It should include a section allowing either the Ceann Comhairle or the Clerk of the Dáil to grant the tribunal extra time if it puts that case to them. If that provision were included in the motion it might make it somewhat more acceptable.

The Minister should have consulted with the tribunal before bringing this motion before the House. If it is the Minister's responsibility to bring forward the motion surely he has a responsibility to ask the tribunal for its views on it and what it perceives will be the time required to complete its investigations and present a report to the House. The setting of this deadline sends out the message that we want to curtail this work, it is an artificial deadline. Even if, as the Minister stated, the inquiry can appeal for extra time this motion sets a deadline in the minds of the people who have to give evidence before the tribunal and whose views will have to be taken into account in the final report.

It is wrong to bring this motion before the House, and it should be rejected. The Minister should consult with the inquiry, determine the extra time it needs and put a motion before the House that allows for that extra time, if it is required. That would send out the message that we are giving this inquiry the time it needs to produce a full and frank report on the facts of this case.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

How much time do I have to reply?

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am told the Minister has five minutes.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not sure I can deal with all of this in five minutes but I will do my best.

I will begin by responding to the amendment Deputy Calleary has tabled and to what was said by Members of the House. Clearly, those who spoke were not listening to what I said when I explained the reason for the moving of the motion. We cannot accept Deputy Calleary's amendment and I want to draw particular reference to the content of it. He is asking for the House to resolve that "the Minister for Justice and Equality should prepare for the Oireachtas a detailed report outlining all relevant information and arguments concerning the work of the Tribunal". That is the first part of it.

With regard to the work of the tribunal, neither myself nor Deputy Calleary are engaged in the work of the tribunal, and properly so. This motion seeks to require the tribunal, by the end of June, to furnish us details of its workings. This is a tribunal that has sat in private for six years and has not yet held a substantive oral hearing. We have a duty to the bereaved families of these two RUC officers to ascertain background to where the tribunal now stands procedurally in meeting its obligations pursuant to the motion tabled by this House.

The amendment tabled by Fianna Fáil refers in two different parts to the work of the tribunal being curtailed and wants consultations to be undertaken in advance of any proposals to curtail the work. I have made it resolutely clear that this is not about curtailing the work. This is about ensuring that this tribunal is meeting its obligations pursuant to the motions passed in this House and in the Seanad over six years ago in circumstances in which there has not been even the commencement of an oral hearing.

I noticed that all of the Deputies who expressed opposition to this motion failed to mention the fact that the original motion envisaged that after ten days of oral hearings there would be an interim report. I am presuming those Deputies do not oppose an interim report being given to this House and this motion will facilitate an interim report being produced within four weeks after the oral hearings have commenced.

The second aspect, and the question I was asked by the last speaker, concerns the reason this motion does not state that if the tribunal requires additional time it can write to the Clerk of the Dáil, correspond with Members of the House or do something or other. It is because it is not necessary. This tribunal has within its terms of reference the capacity to communicate with the Houses of the Oireachtas if it needs to do so. In the context of the time-line prescribed, I reiterate it is a time-line that Judge Smithwick indicated prior to the motion being he believes he will meet. I do not know if he will meet it but he has indicated he will meet it and in that context we believed it was reasonable that after six years there would be some public transparency with regard to both an interim report and when the final report might be expected. Procedurally, if this tribunal gets into difficulty it is open to the tribunal to communicate with the Houses of the Oireachtas and as I have already stated, if it cannot complete its work under the remit given to it, and if there is good reason it cannot, in those circumstances it is clear the Government will move an appropriate motion in this House. In so far as anyone is suggesting that anything is being done to interfere with the integrity of the tribunal, undermine the work of the tribunal or prevent the tribunal in its own judgment reporting to this House expressing opinions and making recommendations as prescribed by the motion, it is an incorrect presentation.

It is correct that the lawyer representing the bereaved family of one of the deceased RUC officers has expressed public concern about this matter in Northern Ireland. I was engaged with him in a broadcast on BBC Northern Ireland and I repeated what I have said in this House. All I can do is repeat those assurances. These two RUC officers suffered a barbaric death at the hands of those who were responsible for their deaths. After six years of this tribunal being in place this Government wants to ensure that, in terms of any suspicion or suggestion of any description that anyone associated with or a member of the Garda Síochána was in any way complicit in their deaths, we know what the position is and the conclusions of the tribunal.

Deputy Calleary suggested that I had received a communication from the Chairman of the tribunal, Judge Smithwick, to which no reply had been sent. I have received a communication from Judge Smithwick since the moving of this motion became known and a reply has been sent and there has been an exchange of correspondence between us. I have no difficulty, when that correspondence is concluded, in placing that correspondence in the Library of this House. The original correspondence I received from him was marked private and confidential. As I understand it, as of today, he now has no objection to that correspondence being made public. Transparency in this matter is very important because I do not want there to be any suspicion of any description that this Government, or I as Minister, have in any way interfered with the proper workings of the tribunal and therefore when that correspondence is concluded, it will be put on the record of the House.

In the light of what I have said I am hoping that Deputy Calleary may decide not to divide the House on this issue. This House was united in setting up this tribunal. I believe we have a duty to the bereaved families of these two brutally assassinated RUC officers. We have a public duty to people on this island and in this State to ensure that when a tribunal is established, it does not have an indefinite duration to continue with work in private and never report to the Houses of the Oireachtas or give some indication on whether progress is being made, on the likely time needed to complete its work, and the number of witnesses that may be called. These are all issues to which there is no clarity at the moment. The interim report will provide that clarity.

The motion that is passed will focus on the serious, substantive issues that this tribunal has been asked to address. I hope it proves possible for this tribunal to complete its work within the time prescribed. As a Member of this House and as a former practising lawyer, I am conscious that all sorts of issues could arise which may make it impossible for the tribunal to meet that timeline. If so, this House will be asked to take appropriate action to ensure the tribunal fully completes its work and has the time available to do so.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Go raibh maith agat a Aire. That concludes the debate.

Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would just like to clarify that there is no objection to the interim report. Putting a deadline on the conclusion is the issue.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sorry Deputy, but the debate has concluded.