Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 372: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on correspondence (details supplied); his plans to address the concerns expressed in same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15261/05]

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The correspondence relates generally to the question of the payment of the costs of representation for a party attending the Morris tribunal. The issue has been raised on many occasions and the position on this matter is clear. The current legislation, the Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts 1921 to 2002, provides that the question of costs is solely a matter for the tribunal. The Acts provide that a tribunal which, having regard to its findings and all other relevant matters, is of opinion that there are sufficient reasons rendering it equitable to do so, can order the whole or part of the costs of representation of a person appearing before it to be paid.

A tribunal, when determining whether costs should be paid, may take into account failure to co-operate or to provide assistance to, or knowingly giving false or misleading information to, the tribunal. This has important practical implications for tribunals generally in their search for the truth. The power to decide on costs is one of the greatest weapons in the armoury of a tribunal to ensure the co-operation and truthfulness of the parties.

Concerning the Morris tribunal itself, it is clear from the chairman's judgment on applications for costs associated with the first module that he regards co-operation with the tribunal and truthfulness in giving evidence as matters of paramount importance. In deciding on costs he made deductions in some cases and totally rejected other applications where he was of the opinion that persons deliberately lied or otherwise hindered him in his efforts to get to the truth.

To not undermine this power of the tribunal is crucial. To interfere with it, however well-intentioned the motives, would blunt the effectiveness of tribunals in general and the Morris tribunal in particular in uncovering the truth, which I am not prepared to do. I have consistently maintained this policy. The correspondent is a key figure in the work being undertaken by the Morris tribunal and has also initiated legal proceedings against the Garda Commissioner, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General. Regarding these proceedings, it would be inappropriate of me to comment further pending their determination.

As to the other issues raised in the correspondence, the position is that the forum exists for the full truth to emerge. The Morris tribunal has demonstrated its effectiveness and the Government has demonstrated its readiness to take action on foot of its findings. I urge everyone connected with the work of the tribunal to co-operate fully with its inquiry.