John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 39: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the efforts which have been made by him to ensure that persons (details supplied) have legal representation at the Morris tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16186/05]

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

The persons applied for and were granted the right to legal representation in July 2002.

They were fully represented by counsel during the opening of the second module, the Barron investigation module, in Donegal in the summer of 2003. Work on that module was discontinued in September 2003 until June 2004, while the tribunal completed its hearings into and published its report on the first module. The family was not represented by counsel on the resumption of the second module in June 2004 to its conclusion in April last. At various times the persons concerned complained that they were unable to obtain legal representation by reason of the costs involved and have sought to have the costs of their legal representatives paid or guaranteed in advance.

The costs issue has been raised on many occasions in the House and my position on it 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, therefore, one of the most powerful weapons in the armoury of a tribunal to ensure the co-operation and truthfulness of the parties.

In relation to the Morris tribunal, 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.

It is crucial that this power is available to tribunals and that it is not undermined. 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 and I am not prepared to do that. I have consistently maintained this policy even in the face of High Court challenges from a number of parties to the Morris tribunal.

The McBrearty family is being treated no differently than other witnesses to this or any other tribunal when it comes to the issue of legal representation and the payment of legal costs. Furthermore, it is clear that Mr. Justice Morris is well aware of the issues of the various parties with regard to their costs and has acted expeditiously by dealing with the costs of each module at the close of each module. This is clearly of significant assistance to witnesses with legal representation. Accordingly, no lawyer whose client co-operates with the tribunal will experience any undue delay in payment.

A report on the second module is anticipated in the near future and on the evidence of the first report, clearly the tribunal will be forthright in its comments and its criticisms and will not hesitate to apportion blame wherever it feels necessary. The Government for its part will also act quickly, as it did in the light of the first report, in response to the findings of the tribunal.

On the issue of costs, it is expected that the tribunal will hear applications for costs associated with the second module on 13 June. This may prove to be of assistance to the family who will be entitled to make an application for costs associated with this module of the tribunal's work.