Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move:

That Seanad 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, as amended by the Resolutions passed by Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann on 1 June 2011 and the Resolution passed by Dáil Éireann on 16 November 2011 and by Seanad Éireann on 17 November 2011, pursuant to the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts 1921 to 2004, be further amended in paragraph (IV) by substituting "31 October, 2012" for "31 May, 2012".

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

This motion proposes 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 murder by the Provisional IRA of RUC Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and RUC Superintendent Bob Buchanan in March 1989. This tribunal was established in 2005 and is chaired by Judge Peter Smithwick, former President of the District Court. The Oireachtas established the Smithwick tribunal arising from the Weston Park talks in 2001 and in light of Judge Peter Cory's subsequent report in a desire to get at the truth of these suggestions of collusion, both in the interest of the families who were bereaved by this dreadful atrocity and in the public interest. This motion will provide for an extension of the date established for the conclusion of the tribunal's inquiries and the submission of its final report by five months to 31 October 2012.

On 17 November 2011, Seanad Éireann amended the tribunal's terms of reference and established 31 May 2012 as the date by which the tribunal should complete its inquiries and submit its final report to the Clerk of the Dáil. On that occasion in November last, I made it clear, as I had done previously, that if for any reason it did not prove possible for the tribunal to meet the timeframe set out, the chairman could report to the Clerk of the Dáil that circumstances had arisen which required the timeframe to be extended in order that the House could consider the matter. I also assured the House that the Government's response to such an approach from the chairman would be fully cognisant of and consistent with the need for the tribunal to fulfil its obligations fully and as expeditiously as possible. In November last, the chairman was firmly convinced the tribunal would complete its work and be in a position to publish its report by 31 May 2012, but that has not proved possible.

On 17 May 2012 the tribunal chairman wrote to the Clerk of the Dáil to provide an update on the tribunal's progress and to seek an extension of the deadline for the conclusion of its work. The Clerk of the Dáil laid the letter before both Houses. In his letter, the tribunal chairman stated that since his second interim report was provided to the Oireachtas on 8 March 2012, the tribunal had heard evidence from a further 18 witnesses, some of whom had not been foreseen or scheduled at that time. He indicated that the tribunal had heard evidence from 190 witnesses in total and that he anticipated concluding the public hearings very shortly. The chairman also referred to the current indisposition through illness of one witness whom he considers to be the tribunal's final substantive witness. In the circumstances, the taking of evidence from that witness has had to be deferred for the time being. He also noted that he anticipates taking evidence from a small number of further witnesses who have yet to be scheduled.

The Government has considered the tribunal chairman's request and proposes that the Seanad resolve to extend to 31 October 2012 the timeframe for the tribunal to conclude its work and present its final report. This is fully in line with the chairman's request. The Government hopes the tribunal can fulfil its mandate within the revised timeframe, which is set out in this motion.

The Government respects fully the independence of the tribunal chairman to carry out his inquiries without fear or favour and is anxious to support the tribunal in doing that. I am confident the tribunal will fully discharge its responsibilities and this motion will assist in that endeavour. I commend the motion to the House.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On principle, this side of the House will support the motion. It was initiated by the chairman of the tribunal, Judge Smithwick, who wrote formally to the Clerk of the Dáil seeking an extension for the tribunal because of certain outstanding issues.

Will the Minister tell me, if not today on another date, the cost of the tribunal to date given that it was originally set up in 2005? I have hang-ups about tribunals which I have recorded in this House and the other House. Some seem to have outlived their purpose and cost much more than was ever envisaged. This is a broader issue than the concept of the motion. As I stated, I am supporting the motion on principle.

I am concerned that, approximately 12 months ago, the Minister fired a shot across the bow expressing his concern, recorded publicly but perhaps taken out of context, over the delay in the completion of the work of the Smithwick tribunal. He may have had very good reason for having said so, and I do not deny it. The matter was raised in the House last November, at which time we agreed unanimously the tribunal would be given an extension of six months. This extension seems to have been insufficient. If we agree to a further extension, what will be the timeframe? Will it be open-ended? Is a specific date set? Will this be the final ultimatum to the tribunal and the chairman, based on the view the work must be concluded in the time allocated? The work of the tribunal is obviously very sensitive and important and I am not in any way denigrating it. It is most necessary. I hope some answers required by the public will be in the tribunal's findings when they are eventually published.

I have a number of queries which I have put to the Minister. My concerns were expressed on this side of the House far more vehemently by my colleague, Senator Thomas Byrne, who is not present today. The Minister will be aware of his having done so. While I have queries and concerns, I believe the request by the chairman of the tribunal to the Clerk of the Dáil cannot be ignored. It is reasonable. One of the key witnesses is currently ill and recovery may take some time. I have no problem granting a short extension to the life of the tribunal provided it will not be open-ended or drag beyond the end of this year. If it does so, it will be entering its eighth year, which is far too long for any tribunal.

Too many tribunals lasted far too long and cost the taxpayer huge sums of money. I have often stated on the record of this House that two tribunals during my lifetime were merited, one of which was the Stardust tribunal, which inquired into considerable loss of life, and the other of which was the Whiddy Island disaster tribunal. As a young apprentice, I worked for the latter. The two tribunals were effective and did their work in a short period. The catalyst for their formation was an immense loss of life. They did not last five, six or seven years and they did not cost even a fraction of what the most recent tribunals, such as the Mahon and Moriarty tribunals, have cost the State. The cost of the beef tribunal far outweighed the benefits. In future, we should be mindful about setting up tribunals and set them up only in extreme circumstances. A better means of investigation must be found to deal with these issues.

Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister. I do not wish to engage in a lengthy debate about the tribunals but it is fair to concede that many people, both in the House and outside, have expressed concerns about the duration and cost of some of them over the past decade. The Smithwick tribunal, dealing as it does with the peace process and North-South and east-west relations, must be considered differently. It stems from the Weston Park accord, which dates from the Good Friday agreement and, in a sense, the peace process itself. We are dealing with a tribunal that is also part of the broader process of truth and reconciliation, which is necessary on this island. We have highlighted on many occasions the necessity of a broad-spectrum debate on truth and reconciliation. We have not yet reached that phase. However, in one small way the tribunal is part of that process.

I appreciate that the work of the tribunal has been lengthy. I presume the tribunal, as with all others, has been expensive, but I believe the allegation it is investigating is serious and worthy of investigation. Politically on this island, we must be mature enough to accept whatever results stem from the tribunal and to give whatever assistance is required to allow it to conclude its work. Judge Smithwick is of the opinion that extra time is required, we must respect his wishes in that regard.

As the Minister outlined, a presumably significant witness is currently unavailable. I hope that witness will be available in the near future. Apparently, some other witnesses may also be in a position to give evidence.

The matter being investigated by the tribunal is obviously a source of ongoing public concern. Our efforts to bring to a satisfactory conclusion the investigation into collusion on both sides of divide in the tragic Troubles in Northern Ireland, are worthy. I support the motion and hope we are moving towards the end of the work of the tribunal. The extra time required by Mr. Justice Smithwick must be granted. I hope the tribunal's work will become part of the process of truth, reconciliation, understanding and acceptance that is still required as part of the peace process on this island.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not so long ago we had a debate in the House on the Smithwick tribunal. During the course of that debate, the Minister was adamant there needed to be a final report at the end of this month. This motion seeks to extend the time limit, which is to be welcomed because a view was expressed by number of Senators that it would be wrong to rush the work of the tribunal and that it should be given sufficient time to reach its conclusions. I welcome the extension of the time limits. My party welcomed the establishment of the tribunal so there would be an inquiry into alleged collusion by a member of An Garda Síochána in the killing of senior RUC officers. My party is fully supportive of the relatives of those who lost their lives over the course of the conflict. Many of these people still seek answers.

My party has called for a proper truth and reconciliation process which would be helpful to all victims on all sides. We have constantly made the point there must not be a hierarchy of victims. There were people who suffered and died at the hands of republicans. They, too, deserve answers, just like the family of Pat Finucane and the victims of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. We still await inquiries into these matters. We know the Finucane family has worked very closely with the Taoiseach but it is still awaiting a proper inquiry into the murder of Pat. There have been several cross-party motions passed in this House urging the British Government to do more in regard to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. A broader truth and recovery process would be beneficial to the people of this State and this island, and I would support it. My party is also supportive of this motion, which seeks to extend the time limit for this tribunal, which is looking into the killings of two RUC officers whose families also deserve truth and justice.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister to the House. I welcome the opportunity to debate this, although, as others have indicated, there is clear support for this motion across the floor of the House.

It is difficult to argue with the clear and cogent arguments put forward by the tribunal chair. As the Minister stated, since his interim report on 8 March of this year, the tribunal has heard evidence from a further 18 witnesses and some reports in the newspapers suggest that they were unforeseen or unscheduled at that time. The reports suggest that they were witnesses who had previously stated they would not come forward. Clearly, that was not anticipated and it will require further time.

The other cogent reason is the indisposition through illness of a substantive witness, somebody the tribunal chair considers to be the tribunal's final substantive witness. It is unarguable that the tribunal should be given the extension of time sought.

In listening to colleagues, I am struck by the phrase "tribunal fatigue", which may be setting in given how many tribunals there have been and given the lengthy time which some of them have taken in coming to findings, and yet they have done great service as well in terms of the findings that have been made over the years in particular tribunals.

The case for this was clearly set out in the Minister's speech. It was established in 2005, arising out of the Weston Park talks in 2001. Clearly, there is great sensitivity attaching to the work the tribunal is doing and it is important that it is publicly facilitated in addressing the serious allegations of collusion that were made, and which gave rise to the tribunal.

I am delighted there is cross-party support for this. As Senator Cullinane stated, we all agreed previously it would be wrong to rush the work of the tribunal and we need to give it this extra time. We look forward to the report on 31 October and to debating it in this House when we have read and digested the findings.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister to the House on this issue. It is reasonable the request of the tribunal chairman and I fully endorse the Minister's confidence in this tribunal.

The tribunal has made good headway, from what we have read and what has been reported. As has been stated by Members, there are valid reasons as to why this is being sought. Apparently, additional witnesses turned up. It was useful to the work of the tribunal that some of these persons, who came from the North and who had previously refused to give evidence, came around and gave evidence. I gather there are only a handful left, and one is a substantive witness who may have given evidence already. It is important that he be heard. If that person is ill, it is justifiable that this further short time be made available.

I very much welcome it. I welcome the fact that we are agreed. I thought earlier we were not going to agree but I am delighted that the House is agreed.

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

I thank the Members for their contributions and for supporting the motion that is before the House.

I cannot help but comment on at least two of those who contributed who stated it would be wrong to rush the work of the tribunal. It is important the tribunal completes its work, although rushing is a concept I cannot quite reconcile with a tribunal that has been sitting since 2005. It is regrettable that this tribunal has sat for as long as has occurred. It is not for me or any Minister in any shape or form to interfere with the work of the tribunal but it is unfortunate that it only commenced its oral hearings in approximately June of last year, having commenced its work in 2005.

I have seen the same reports as Members of the House. It is welcome that some witnesses who, apparently, had indicated to the tribunal they would not give evidence, have given evidence and have come forward. Clearly, that has extended the time spent by the tribunal.

When this matter came before the House in November last, it came on foot of a motion arising out of a letter from the chairman of the tribunal which indicated the work would be complete and the report available to both Houses by 31 May. The motion was proposed in good faith in anticipation that that objective would be achieved.

It is my hope that this tribunal will complete its work and report by 31 October next. In fairness to the bereaved relations of the two RUC officers who so horribly lost their lives, it is important that some finality is brought to this matter and that whatever information is available is made available and whatever conclusions can be reached by the tribunal are reached. I am conscious they say that a particular substantive witness is unwell. We can only hope that that individual ultimately will be well enough to complete the evidence before the tribunal to allow the tribunal to complete its work and furnish its report.

Senator O'Donovan asked about the cost of the tribunal. The estimated cost, as of now, as I am advised, is €9.8 million. It is a substantial and significant sum of money. It would be my understanding there will be issues of costs relating to representation of individuals before the tribunal that may have to be addressed in the future. This is a tribunal that is incurring substantial expense which the taxpayers must pick up. As a tribunal whose work is important, as Senators have said, it is important that we get as close as is possible to the truth of what occurred and that the allegations that have been made that are the subject matter of the tribunal's consideration are fully and properly addressed.

I thank the Members of the Seanad for their support for this motion. It is my hope that on the next occasion matters relating to the Smithwick tribunal come before this House, it may be in the context of Members of the House, by way of debate or statements, considering the report of the tribunal. It is my hope that we will not need to extend the time frame further but I recognise, after so many years have passed with such serious allegations in place, it is important the tribunal completes its work and is enabled to do so.