John Bruton
Question:3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on a meeting with the relatives of the late Mr. Pat Finucane; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6187/00]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Northern Ireland Issues.
Trevor Sargent
Question:4 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with a delegation seeking a new independent judicial inquiry into the killing of Belfast solicitor, Mr. Pat Finucane. [6228/00]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:5 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the relatives of the late Mr. Patrick Finucane. [6775/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:6 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting on 24 February 2000 with the family of the late Belfast solicitor, Mr. Pat Finucane. [6810/00]
Dick Spring
Question:7 Mr. Spring asked the Taoiseach the steps, if any, he has taken to ensure the establishment of an independent international judicial inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the murder of the Belfast solicitor, Mr. Pat Finucane, in view of the recent publication (details supplied). [7675/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 7, inclusive, together.
I met the family of Pat Finucane in Government Buildings on Thursday, 24 February. I was accompanied by my colleagues, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy O'Donnell.
I was very pleased to welcome Geraldine Finucane and other members of the Finucane family to Government Buildings together with representatives of a number of human rights organisations, both domestic and international. The meeting enabled us to have a comprehensive review of developments in the case. The case has been, and remains, a cause of the deepest concern to the Government. Pat Finucane's murder was not only abhorrent in itself – it also represents a fundamental attack on the legal profession and the system of justice.
At the meeting, a copy of British-Irish Rights Watch's latest report on the case was handed over, as well as a legal opinion from Amnesty International which argues that there is no legal barrier to the holding of a public inquiry while a policy investigation is under way.
For my part, I restated our clear view that the case for a public inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane is compelling. This view has already been conveyed to the British Government. After the lapse of more than a decade since Pat Finucane's murder, and the serious allegations in relation to it, the Government strongly shares the view that a public inquiry needs to be established into all the circumstances surrounding this appalling murder.
I will follow up on all of the matters raised at my meeting with the Finucane family and I will use every suitable opportunity to raise the case.
Did the Taoiseach ask the British Prime Minister at his last meeting with him if he would agree to a public inquiry into the Finucane case and, if so, what was his response?
The British Government has been considering the case for the past year. The former Secretary of State, Dr. Mo Mowlam, stated it would examine it. That is still the position. I raised the matter with the British Prime Minister on this and on numerous other occasions. The British Government is not yet convinced. Its stated position of last week, which has not changed, is that the Stevens investigation is ongoing. The British Government's position is that the report should be completed before it makes up its mind. The Irish Government, the human rights groups and the Finucane family do not share that view. That is where the matter rests as of now. The Finucane family asked me to arrange a meeting with the British Prime Minister and we are seeking to do that.
In his reply the Taoiseach said he would use every suitable opportunity to raise the issue. Will he outline what might be suitable opportunities from his point of view? If there are opportunities that would be unsuitable, can he give an example? Will the Rosemary Nelson case also be raised during those suitable opportunities?
Wherever possible either myself, the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, who has taken a particular interest in this case and presented the original reports to the British Government in the spring of last year, have tried to move the British Government away from the position it holds. I understand the arguments about the case. That is why we gave the British Government a year to consider the reports. Originally the reports of British-Irish Rights Watch and Amnesty International were preliminary but detailed. Those in the public domain are detailed but the British Government has even more comprehensive reports which are not in the public domain. In our view the cases of Rosemary Nelson, Robert Hamill and Pat Finucane fall into the same category. I am not saying they are the only ones but for the last year or so we have taken those three cases as deserving compelling examination. We have not sought a full public inquiry in the Rosemary Nelson case yet because of the examinations taking place.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the significance of the three cases to which he has referred is that they cannot be viewed in isolation but form part of the issue of the lack of confidence building measures in Northern Ireland? Has the Taoiseach conveyed to the British Prime Minister the necessity to expedite the British decision making process so that a clear, explicit and transparent inquiry can be undertaken to deal with the very serious allegations which have been made about the murder of Pat Finucane? Has he conveyed that the positive outcome of such an inquiry could lead to a change in attitude across the spectrum in Northern Ireland which would break the current logjam with regard to the main issue, which is the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement?
The answer to the first part of the Deputy's question is "yes". We have stressed the importance of these cases. The Prime Minister is aware of them, as is the Secretary of State. The British-Irish Rights Watch report and the Amnesty International report both argue that these are the most compelling reports they have ever written. This is particularly so with regard to the Pat Finucane case which they have spent seven or eight years researching. The people who have been involved in this work are international experts and none of them is Irish. There is a very strong case to be made. Much of the information regarding the cases is in the public domain and much is not. Time will show that the cases are even stronger than can be seen from the information which is in the public domain.
Why will they not agree to a public inquiry?
The British Government position is that no inquiry will take place while its investigations are ongoing. I think the Deputy shares my view that, while I accept the British Government's view on the Rosemary Nelson case which happened little more than a year ago, I do not accept its view on the other two cases, partic ularly the Pat Finucane case. The British Government has had the latest reports for four or five weeks and they are being examined. I have been urging the British Prime Minister to come to a conclusion on these latest and final reports. They are as conclusive as anyone in this House would need, that a public inquiry is necessary.
Has the Taoiseach seen a copy of the British security forces investigation reports on the Pat Finucane murder? Is he satisfied that there is prima facie evidence of security forces collusion in this murder and does he agree, as a general proposition, that if there is prima facie evidence of security forces collusion in murders of any kind there should be, as a matter of principle, a public sworn inquiry?
I have not seen the British security reports on any of these cases. I have seen the Amnesty International reports and the British-Irish Rights Watch reports. It is not for me to say whether there is a prima facie case. However, in the view of all of us who have looked at the more detailed reports and of the people from Amnesty International and British-Irish Rights Watch, there is a compelling case to answer, and the only way this case can be answered and the data regarding allegations against the security forces compiled is by a public inquiry. Over the years, it has not been alleged that the security forces were directly involved but rather that there were elements of collusion in one form or other. The three cases are different but there are marked similarities. This is what the international human rights people have brought to the fore.
In reply to the last part of the Deputy's question, I have come to the conclusion that the only way this matter will ever be resolved in by a public inquiry. I have come to this conclusion having read the data and listened to the Finucane family. I have been convinced, not so much by the emotion which the family brings to the matter as by the data surrounding it. The question will never be answered by a committee. In the United States where congressional hearings have been held on these matters, even those who would not normally take up the Irish cause are unanimously of the view that a public inquiry is necessary. From the British Government's perspective therefore and from what Deputy Quinn said the only way to dispel the mistrust is to hold a public inquiry.
I do not entirely understand the reason the Taoiseach is unable to say that he is of the opinion that there is prima facie evidence of security forces collusion. I assume there would have to be a grave matter of that nature for him to have made the call for a sworn public inquiry. Does he agree that while one accepts that he might not be qualified as a lawyer to say whether there is prima facie evidence, his legal services are fully qualified to decide? Is the Attorney General, who I assume has been asked by the Taoiseach to read all the papers, satisfied that there is prima facie evidence of security forces collusion on the evidence already produced in the case of the murder of Pat Finucane?
We are dealing with the information gathered in the report of British-Irish Rights Watch, presented to the Secretary of State and the accuracy of which I cannot stand over. The Attorney General has been involved in some of the meetings I have attended about some of these cases. We believe there is a case to answer. The British Government has had the first report for more than a year and the other for five or six weeks. I can only take the facts as presented; I cannot prove what has been said by those who it seems were agents during certain periods. The only body which can do so is British intelligence. All the groups involved and the previous Secretary of State believe that what is stated in the reports seems to be relatively factual. It is under investigation, but not by a sworn tribunal. That is the only way we will get to the end of the matter.
The facts produced in these reports are either factual or they are not; they are not relatively factual. Has the British Secretary of State admitted or contested any of the facts in these reports?
The British Government has neither contested nor replied to them. It has said that until its investigations are complete it is not prepared to hold a full sworn public inquiry. There is no certainty; we do not have the facts as to what happened on the day. For example, it is still disputed that there were helicopters overhead on the day Rosemary Nelson was killed by a car bomb. I hope something will come from the latest arrests but the facts are disputed.
Whatever about the disputation of the veracity of facts either in relation to Rosemary Nelson or Pat Finucane, has the British Government during the numerous discussions it has had with the Irish Government on this issue and, specifically, the necessity for a public inquiry, recognised the link between these two incidents and, specifically, Pat Finucane's murder and the overall confidence climate within which progress can be made in Northern Ireland? Has it indicated at any stage, whatever the process of inquiry might be, that it recognises that this is not an isolated incident independent of the general political process, that it is a constituent part of confidence building in Northern Ireland and, if so, what precisely did it say?
The British Government acknowledges the importance of these cases in terms of confidence in the RUC and the security forces. They would like to progress them to a stage where they would satisfy the people concerned. Our view, the view of the human rights groups, the Government and most of the parties in the North is that the only way that will be done is by a public inquiry.
When will that inquiry be completed?
The Deputy will realise that one of those has gone on for the better part of ten years.
He is not serious.
In view of the Taoiseach's reply with particular reference to the case of Mr. Pat Finucane and the acceptance by the Government that, to quote the Taoiseach, the case for a public inquiry is compelling, will the Taoiseach agree that two important facets of any inquiry, particularly this one given the timescale involved in the investigation of the Finucane case, are independence and an international element? Does the Taoiseach agree that an inquiry of whatever hue will only bring about the transparent result which is sought if it contains an international and an independent element?
Certainly independence is important. As we will be aware from the Bloody Sunday tribunal, perhaps some local people may be acceptable but certainly it must be independent.
(Dublin West): When the Taoiseach met the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, and discussed the need for an inquiry into the murder of Mr. Pat Finucane, did he ask him whether he was in possession of information from the British security forces, as opposed to civil rights or other groups, that there was a prima facie case that there was involvement by some arm of the security forces or some rogue elements of the security forces? Did he ask the Prime Minister whether he had that information and, if so, what was the response?
The answer from British Prime Ministers and Ministers to that question is always that they do not discuss their security reports.