Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Mar 2005

Vol. 599 No. 6

Tribunals of Inquiry: Motion.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. McDowell)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

—noting that following agreement reached between the British and Irish Governments at Weston Park in 2001, retired Canadian Supreme Court Judge Mr. Peter Cory was appointed to undertake a thorough investigation of allegations of collusion between British and Irish security forces and paramilitaries in six incidents;

—noting that the aim of this process was to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of collusion between State security forces and those responsible for the killings in each case to warrant a public inquiry;

—noting that, as part of the Weston Park agreement, the two Governments committed themselves that in the event that a public inquiry is recommended in any case, the relevant Government will implement that recommendation;

—noting that having completed his investigation into the murder of Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Robert Buchanan, both of the Royal Ulster Constabulary RUC, Mr. Peter Cory concluded that evidence was revealed that, if accepted, could be found to constitute collusion;

—mindful that certain incidents from the past in Northern Ireland giving rise to serious allegations of collusion by security forces in each jurisdiction remain a source of grave public concern;

resolves that it is expedient that a tribunal established under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts 1921 to 2002 to inquire into the following definite matter of urgent public importance:

—Suggestions that members of the Garda Síochána or other employees of the State colluded in the fatal shootings of RUC Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and RUC Superintendent Robert Buchanan on 20 March 1989;

and to report to the Clerk of Dáil Éireann and to make such findings and recommendations as it sees fit in relation to these matters;

and further resolves that:

(I) the tribunal shall report to the Clerk of the Dáil on an interim basis not later than three months from the date of establishment of the tribunal and as soon as may be after the tenth day of any oral hearings of the tribunal on the following matters:

(a) the number of parties granted representation by the tribunal,

(b) the progress which will then have been made in the hearings and work of the tribunal,

(c) the likely duration, so far as might then be capable of being estimated, of the proceedings of the tribunal,

(d) any other matters that the tribunal considers should be drawn to the attention of the Houses of the Oireachtas at the time of the report, including any matters relating to its terms of reference;

(II) if the tribunal finds that there is insufficient co-operation from a person(s) not compellable to give evidence pursuant to the provisions of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts 1921 to 2002, to report that fact to the Clerk of the Dáil, including the steps taken by the tribunal to obtain the co-operation of that person(s), for consideration by the Houses of the Oireachtas, in conjunction with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, having regard to the public interest; and

(III) the inquiry shall be completed in as economical a manner as possible and at the earliest possible date consistent with a fair examination of the matters referred to it.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to table this motion seeking the establishment of a tribunal of inquiry into suggestions of collusion in the brutal and callous murders of RUC Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and RUC Superintendent Bob Buchanan by the Provisional IRA in 1989.

The background to this motion originates as far back as August 2001 when, following discussions with the Northern Ireland parties at Weston Park, the Irish and British Governments committed themselves to the appointment of a judge of international standing from outside both jurisdictions to undertake a thorough investigation of allegations of collusion between British and Irish security forces and paramilitaries in six cases. The six cases are the murders of Mr. Pat Finucane, Mr. Robert Hamill, Ms Rosemary Nelson, Mr. Billy Wright, the two RUC officers and Northern Ireland Lord Justice Maurice Gibson and Lady Cecily Gibson. The first four of these cases relate to allegations of collusion by British security forces while the other two cases relate to allegations of collusion by the Garda. Arising from the Weston Park agreement, Mr. Peter Cory, an eminent retired Canadian Supreme Court judge, was asked by the two Governments to investigate and report on the allegations of collusion. Judge Cory was appointed by the Governments in May 2002.

The aim of the inquiry process under Judge Cory was to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of collusion between State security forces and those responsible for the killings in each case to warrant a public inquiry. The resultant reports into the six cases were submitted to the Governments by Judge Cory in October 2003. On behalf of the Government, I thank and commend Judge Cory once again for his diligent and painstaking work in producing these reports. In December 2003, following Government approval, I published redacted versions of the two reports to the Government. All the redactions to the two reports were performed with the explicit consent and approval of Judge Cory and occurred solely on the basis of the Government's obligations to ensure justice.

The two reports make grim reading for anyone with even an ounce of humanity. Both Lord Justice and Lady Gibson were cruelly killed in a carefully planned and executed bombing attack on the morning of 25 April 1987. The south Armagh brigade of the Provisional IRA claimed responsibility for the killings. The IRA also issued other public statements indicating that the murders had been planned in advance. Suggestions of collusion related to claims that a member or members of the Garda advised those directly responsible for the killings or members of their organisation of the Gibsons' itinerary on that fateful day.

Judge Cory concluded in his report on this appalling crime that there is no evidence of collusion by the Garda or other Government agency that would warrant the holding of an inquiry. I welcome this finding in that it removes doubt or suspicion that a member or members of the Garda committed a gross act of treachery in colluding in the murder of two innocents. I fully realise that is cold comfort to the victims' families.

The other case relevant to this jurisdiction examined by Judge Cory is different, but it involved an equally horrific act of callous murder. While I appreciate that the detail I am about to relate concerning this appalling act of savagery is distressing, it is worth recalling, if only to demonstrate the sheer depravity of those who perpetrated it. On the afternoon of 20 March 1989, Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan were shot dead in an ambush just north of the Border as they returned from a prearranged meeting with a senior Garda officer in Dundalk Garda station. The Provisional IRA subsequently claimed responsibility for this double murder. The location of the ambush, on the Edenappa road, was found by Judge Cory to have been well chosen in terms of topography and tree cover with respect to a nearby British army observation post. The ambush involved PIRA members establishing a checkpoint on the road only minutes before the arrival of Superintendent Buchanan's private car carrying the two RUC officers. The two officers were unarmed, as was required at the time, and the perpetrators of this act knew that.

From the available information, it appears that two armed men, dressed in army style fatigues and with camouflage on their faces, stopped southbound cars and strategically placed them so as to funnel northbound traffic into a single lane. Shortly after the last southbound vehicle was stopped and in place, Superintendent Buchanan's car appeared, driving northwards. It was also flagged down by the armed men in the middle of the road. As the car slowed, a van, which had been following, overtook Superintendent Buchanan's car and pulled into a nearby laneway. Four armed men, wearing camouflage and balaclavas, emerged from the van and started firing immediately. Superintendent Buchanan attempted to reverse his car to escape but the car apparently stalled and he was unsuccessful.

Both Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan, while still in the car, were hit several times by a hail of bullets. Examination of the vehicle the following day indicated no less than 25 strike marks from bullets along both sides of the car, with the majority aimed at the driver's side. The autopsy performed on Superintendent Buchanan revealed that he had suffered many fragment wounds in the head and upper body, and it is probable that he was dead by the time his car came to a halt. He had also been shot in the head at close range, almost certainly after he had died.

Chief Superintendent Breen had been wounded in the abdomen, the upper right shoulder and the arm, and had sustained wounds to his head. It appears he had left the car after it came to a stop, waving a white handkerchief. It was obvious he had suffered several gunshot wounds before he left the car which, although severe, did not appear to have been fatal. Eyewitness accounts indicated that a member of the Provisional IRA murder squad walked up to him and shot him in the back of the head. It is worth restating that these were two unarmed RUC officers returning from a meeting with their colleagues in an Garda Síochána. They were, in short, two policemen doing their duty and attempting to achieve peace on both sides of the Border.

That, then, is the appalling scene which Judge Cory paints of the last moments of these two men's lives. As he says himself in his report, those shootings were brutal, cowardly and demonstrated a callous insensitivity to both the suffering of individuals and to life itself. Nobody who could describe himself or herself as interested in peace in Ireland, a united Ireland, justice, human rights or any value asserted in the Proclamation of 1916 could have done that to two unarmed policemen in such a cruel and cowardly way. It is a great shame that the Provisional IRA should do such a thing to two men in those circumstances.

I now turn to suggestions of collusion. Those relate to claims that a member of the Garda Síochána, or a civilian employed within the Garda, advised either those directly responsible for the killings or members of their organisation of the visit of the two RUC officers and, in particular, of the time they left Dundalk Garda station. In his report, Judge Cory examined the known circumstances, the intelligence reports and other matters in drawing conclusions about the case. From a review of the relevant factors, Judge Cory stated that it might be said that the Provisional IRA did not need any assistance from within the Garda to carry out the ambush. Moreover, Judge Cory suggests that the intelligence reports received shortly after the murders, considered by themselves, might be thought to point to a similar conclusion.

However, Judge Cory considered that a statement made by one Kevin Fulton could be found to constitute evidence of collusion on the part of a Garda officer, referred to as Garda B in the report. Kevin Fulton is the pseudonym of a former agent with a British intelligence agency who, in that capacity, is supposed to have become a member of the Provisional IRA. In a statement delivered to Judge Cory, Kevin Fulton claims that, on the day of the ambush of the two RUC officers, his senior IRA commander was told by another member of the IRA that Garda B had informed the Provisional IRA that the two officers were at Dundalk Garda station.

Judge Cory goes on to state that this statement would add credence to two intelligence reports which spoke of a Garda leak. In all this, it should be noted that Judge Cory does not make findings of fact. Rather, he states that if that evidence were accepted by those eventually making the findings of fact, it could be found to constitute collusion. Accordingly, on that basis, Judge Cory concluded that there must be a public inquiry in this case.

As part of the Weston Park agreement, the two Governments committed themselves that, in the event that a public inquiry is recommended in any case, the relevant Government will implement that recommendation. Accordingly, the Government is committed to holding a public inquiry in respect of allegations of Garda collusion in the killings of the two RUC officers. In the light of Judge Cory's recommendations, I secured Government approval to hold a public inquiry into the murders, to take the form of a tribunal of inquiry pursuant to the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts 1921 to 2002. I sought that type of public inquiry because it meets all the essential criteria set down by Judge Cory for a public inquiry. I subsequently secured the authorisation of Government to lay the necessary resolutions before both Houses of the Oireachtas to enable the establishment of the tribunal of inquiry, according to the formulation contained in the motion before the House, which constitutes the tribunal's terms of reference.

I briefly draw the House's attention to some of the more important aspects of the terms of reference. After a straightforward recitation, the main operative section is, of course, that a tribunal shall be established to inquire into suggestions that members of the Garda Síochána or other employees of the State colluded in the fatal shootings of RUC Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and RUC Superintendent Robert Buchanan on 20 March 1989. By any stretch of the imagination, this is the broadest possible interpretation of the findings of the relevant Cory report, and it delimits in no way whatsoever the tribunal's latitude to inquire into whatever organisations and individuals that it sees fit.

The other notable feature of the terms of reference is paragraph (II), which states that if the tribunal finds that there is insufficient co-operation from any person not compellable to give evidence, that fact should be reported to the Clerk of the Dáil for consideration by the Houses of the Oireachtas, in conjunction with myself, having regard to the public interest. The thinking here is simple: it is a fact that likely key witnesses reside outside the jurisdiction. As with domestic legislation in general, the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts 1921 to 2002 apply only within this jurisdiction. Hence, the statutory provisions relating to compellability to give evidence would not apply to likely key witnesses. Accordingly, it is anticipated that the tribunal of inquiry would be obliged to rely on the goodwill and co-operation of non-compellable persons to make progress with aspects of its work. Paragraph (II) of the terms of reference provides a mechanism by which the tribunal can report back to the Houses of the Oireachtas, should non-compellable persons decline to co-operate with the tribunal.

That is an important element of the terms of reference of the tribunal. In the normal course of events, if co-operation from outside the jurisdiction necessary for the tribunal to complete its work were not forthcoming, we would be left with the prospect of the tribunal reporting in an incomplete way. By virtue of this provision, however, the tribunal can report that fact to the Oireachtas. By that means, the problem of securing co-operation from non-compellable persons can be elevated to the political sphere, where I, the Government and the Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas can determine the best way forward. In particular, it provides an opportunity for formal approaches to be made to the British Government, should the need arise, to seek to secure the co-operation of persons residing in either Britain or Northern Ireland, whether they be British citizens or otherwise. It provides a form of political leverage, grounded in the restated will of the Oireachtas, that can be used, should the need arise, to ensure the tribunal is given every opportunity to secure the cooperation of all those who might be able to shed light on this appalling act of barbarism.

The House will be aware that the sole member of the tribunal will be appointed by the Government, and I hope to be able to announce that person's identity later today. I know this House will join with me in advising everyone involved to co-operate fully with the tribunal. I have full confidence that the Garda Síochána, as well as any other institution of the State, will be forthcoming in its engagement with the tribunal. Nothing less than full co-operation is demanded, and nothing less should be expected from the guardians of the State.

There is, however, one organisation that could provide full answers to the tribunal, and that, of course, is the IRA. I challenge that organisation, and Sinn Féin in the House, to state clearly that there will be co-operation with the tribunal. Sinn Féin and the IRA cannot have it both ways: they cannot clamour for justice and truth regarding other barbaric acts that Judge Cory has reported on and in respect of which he has recommended tribunals and not co-operate on this one. Judge Cory's recommendations are not an à la carte menu from which one may choose at will. If those who describe themselves as the republican movement have any intention of demanding full co-operation and delivery on Judge Cory’s recommendations by the British Government in so far as it lies within its remit in respect of institutions and persons in Northern Ireland in respect of those other inquiries, they must be willing to deliver to this inquiry a full and complete answer regarding whether this act involved collusion on the part of a member of the Garda Síochána. I say that conscious of the fact that testimony given to a tribunal by definition cannot be used in criminal proceedings against a person who so testifies. Persons who testify to the tribunal which I propose should be established will be in the unique position that they will be able to give the tribunal evidence on a very serious crime knowing that their testimony cannot be used to incriminate them.

This tribunal is being established by the will of the people assembled here in the Houses of the Oireachtas and on foot of an all-party understanding at Weston Park. I ask those in particular who describe themselves as the republican movement to remember that fact because it is the will of the people that savage acts such as the brutal murders of Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan by the Provisional IRA in 1989 should have no place in this Republic.

Pursuant to the Weston Park agreement the State is under an obligation to establish a public inquiry into the brutal murders of these two RUC officers. We do so not just out of an obligation imposed morally upon us by Judge Cory's report but out of a genuine desire to see justice done. If there was collusion by officers or an officer of the Garda Síochána in this crime, the least the relatives of those two members of the RUC are entitled to is to have that fact established, just as much as the victims of other alleged acts of collusion are entitled to have justice and the truth established in their cases.

I must tell the House that I considered going down the road of a commission of inquiry but I found it did not match up to the criteria laid down by Judge Cory. The form of public inquiry proposed and its proposed terms of reference constitute the most open, potentially expansive and powerful form of public inquiry available under our law here or anywhere else to ensure that the full truth emerges. We owe it to the families of the late Chief Superintendent Breen and Superintendent Buchanan, the people of Northern Ireland and the people of this State, given the concerns raised about organs of this State. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Fine Gael welcomes the establishment of the tribunal of inquiry into the murders of Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Robert Buchanan by the Provisional IRA in 1989. Like the Minister, we commend Judge Peter Cory for the work he has done on this case and other cases North and South. Fine Gael believes that the Cory model of preliminary investigation has proved to be a very effective one that could be considered in other cases, for example, the Omagh bombing. I ask the Minister to consider that proposal.

While we welcome the establishment of this tribunal, we also must bear in mind that it is part of a package of measures concerning the brutal murders of others, including Robert Hamill, Billy Wright, Rosemary Nelson, the Gibsons and Patrick Finucane. It is important that the full package is delivered on and that the United Kingdom Government in particular keeps its side of the bargain, focusing in particular on the murder of Pat Finucane. Otherwise, it will be difficult to convince people that the UK Government is serious about investigating all allegations of collusion.

If we set aside the formalities and consider what we are examining, it brings home the heinous nature of the criminal act that was committed on Chief Superintendent Breen and Superintendent Buchanan. It is important to bear in mind that these men were travelling unarmed back from a meeting in Dundalk Garda station. They were doing so as part of the normal co-operation with the Garda Síochána in dealing with criminal activity on this island. They were two brave men who travelled unarmed to Dundalk as part of their duty and it is proper that people in this jurisdiction bear that fact in mind. These were two brave Irishmen who were set upon by a gang of murderous thugs and brutally murdered.

Members of this House are justifiably outraged at the suggestion that the killers of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe should be released. In that respect I am glad the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was denied the happiest day of his life in that he does not have to travel to Limerick to tell Mrs. McCabe that the murderers of her husband would be released. In a similar way let us bear in mind that the late Chief Superintendent Breen and Superintendent Buchanan, two brave Irish policemen, also left widows and children when they were murdered. Chief Superintendent Breen was survived by his wife, June, a daughter, Gillian, and a son, George. Superintendent Buchanan was survived by his wife Catherine, a son, William, and a daughter, Heather. We should bear in mind the human suffering inflicted on those two families as a consequence of this murderous act. We should also relate our outrage at the suffering inflicted on Mrs. Ann McCabe and her family and, correspondingly, record here in the Parliament of this State our outrage at the suffering inflicted on the widows and children of those two brave policemen.

This tribunal of inquiry is part of a package of measures. We want to investigate the killings of others as part of that package and that will be done under the auspices of the UK Government. It is noteworthy that Sinn Féin in particular has been pressing for an examination of collusion between security forces in the North and loyalist elements in respect of some of those murders. The real test for Sinn Féin now is whether it will be interested in securing justice and a full exposé of the facts concerning the murders of Chief Superintendent Breen and Superintendent Buchanan. If Sinn Féin is sincere in its commitment to seek justice for victims of alleged collusion, these two murders must be included, otherwise it will be seen to be phoney. Its members will be the people who will be put to the test in respect of this tribunal. Will they fully co-operate with the tribunal? Will they publicly encourage others who have information about these crimes to submit that information to the tribunal? In this case, by their fruits we shall know them. It will not be sufficient for them to do as they are doing regarding the murder in the Short Strand of Robert McCartney, with open denunciation and silent intimidation. Sinn Féin will be put to the test in terms of the way it deals with the tribunal.

I have some questions about the terms of reference of the tribunal. The first issue was touched on briefly by the Minister in his concluding remarks and I hoped he would deal with them in more detail. Why are we dealing with the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, as amended, instead of setting up a commission of investigation under the recent Act? The purpose of the commission of investigation approach was, to a large degree, to move away from the very expensive approach that applies under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts. I ask the Minister to deal with this matter in his concluding remarks.

I do not doubt that tribunals are getting a bad name because of the huge expense associated with them. My concern is shared by many Deputies and citizens throughout the State. We need to ensure that the tribunal we are establishing does not degenerate into yet another cash cow for the Law Library set. It would not be acceptable for that to happen. Why was the commission of investigation approach to getting facts into the public domain, which seems to be more direct and less expensive, not adopted by the Government in this instance? When that approach was originally adopted it was intended that commissions of investigation would meet largely in private, but it is also possible for them to meet in public. I ask the Minister to deal with this aspect of the matter in his reply.

It is important that the Minister spells out how the Government intends to address the issue of large payments being made to lawyers. Mr. Justice Cory touched on this issue in his report when he said:

Time and costs can be reasonably controlled. For example, a maximum allowance could be set for counsel appearing for every party granted standing.

When he touched on this issue, he may have been anticipating the type of concerns I am expressing. In doing so, I think I am speaking on behalf of the public. Judge Cory said he is simply making "suggestions for controlling the unnecessary expenditure of public funds". It is important that the Minister deals carefully with this aspect of the matter.

I am concerned that the terms of reference merely provide that "the inquiry shall be completed in as economical a manner as possible and at the earliest possible date consistent with a fair examination of the matters referred to it". That exact formula was used when the Flood and Moriarty tribunals were being established. I do not want to be unfairly critical, but there are significant concerns about the enormous costs and fees which were paid to lawyers during both tribunals. The simple replication of a provision that was used on earlier occasions is not sufficient to allay my concerns about the establishment of what could be regarded as another cash cow for the Law Library. I am not happy in this respect.

I remind the Minister that he accepted an amendment I tabled when the House considered the Commissions of Investigation Bill 2003. I would like that provision, which related to tendering, to be adopted again on this occasion. I heard with interest the comments which were made recently by the former Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy, about maximum fees for tribunals. I favour a tendering process that makes it clear that the fees to be paid will have an upper limit, as suggested by Mr. McCreevy. We should ask for fees to be set far below the current thresholds.

I am somewhat unclear and unhappy about another aspect of the terms of reference before the House. I refer to the question of reports. I am disturbed that tribunals which have been established by the House have assumed a life of their own. We have received no reports from such tribunals. I refer in particular to the Moriarty tribunal, which was established approximately eight years ago. I do not know what is happening in the tribunal, other than what I occasionally read in the newspapers. It is absolutely essential that every tribunal that is established by the House report to it regularly.

I am not clear about how to interpret the contents of the terms of reference before the House. I accept that the tribunal should produce an interim report shortly after it has been established — within three months. It is obvious that the tribunal will map out what it intends to do in such a report. I am not sure that the House will receive reports thereafter, however. The terms of reference state that the tribunal will issue a report to the Dáil "as soon as may be after the tenth day of any oral hearings of the Tribunal". What does that mean? Does it mean it will have to produce a report after every ten sittings? I ask the Minister to clarify this matter or to amend the terms of reference, if necessary. I fully accept that the decision to require the tribunal to produce an initial interim report represents the right approach, but we should receive reports at reasonably regular intervals of three months, or six months at the very most, thereafter.

We have not been given an estimate of how long the work of the tribunal will take. I have no idea how long it will take. The estimates of durations which were made when previous tribunals were being established turned out to be totally for the birds. The work of other tribunals, which were supposed to finish within 12 months, is continuing five years later. The Minister should clarify this aspect of the matter.

It is important for the country that the tribunal being established today work well and effectively. We are fortunate that Judge Cory has done a great deal of the preliminary work so well. The Cory report is a model that I would like to be followed when inquiries are being made into other matters.

It is absolutely essential that the House state clearly that it expects everybody who is in a position to provide information to the tribunal to do so. We expect such people to come forward to provide such information. It is important that all parties in the House — I refer in particular to Sinn Féin — make it clear that they want the full facts to be unearthed. They should send out a message, stating that they want all information to be made available, in a genuine manner rather than speaking from both sides of their mouths. Pressure needs to be brought to bear on those who have information about who committed the murders and about whether such people received information from anyone else to assist them to do so.

It is clear that the murders of Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan were committed by members of the Provisional IRA. Two brave and unarmed policemen who were working in the interests of this country were gunned down by members of the Provisional IRA. The admission of responsibility made by the IRA immediately after the killings contained some of that organisation's usual lying comments. It claimed that the "IRA volunteers" feared their lives could be in danger and that they took "preventative action" on that basis. How could the lives of people with armalites be in danger, given that they were facing two unarmed policemen in a car that was blocked in by other vehicles?

Mr. McDowell

One of the policemen had a white handkerchief in his hand when he was found.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

The white handkerchief, which reminds me of Bishop Daly, did not inspire any reaction on the part of the alleged patriots who carried out the murders, other than to continue their brutal and murderous activity. Will the information required by the tribunal we are establishing be forthcoming? Will those who are in a position to do so encourage and put pressure on those who have information to come forward? If they do not do so, they will be seen to be utterly phoney when they protest that they want allegations of collusion, North and South, to be fully investigated.

I ask the Minister to deal with the issues I have raised. While I have raised concerns about the terms of reference and the costings, I have not done so in a political fashion. I am happy to support the motion before the House.

Mr. Costello

I welcome the Minister's motion to establish a tribunal of inquiry into the killings of Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Robert Buchanan. Judge Cory has done valuable work and recommended a valuable mechanism with which to proceed. He said a senior judge should be appointed to carry out an investigation, on foot of which prima facie evidence would indicate whether there was a need for an in-depth investigation resulting in a tribunal of inquiry. In this case, the judge is in no doubt that there must be a tribunal of inquiry. The mechanism recommended constitutes the proper preliminary approach to take to matters of this nature.

The proposed tribunal will be the first in this jurisdiction which relates to the killings which took place during the 30 years of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. It is welcome. We have spent many days, weeks and months examining the two excellent reports produced by Mr. Justice Barron. The cases he examined involved a considerable number of Irish citizens who had been murdered against a background of allegations of collusion. Unfortunately, we have not seen a tribunal of inquiry although we have requested that the British Government establish the Weston Park inquiry in the first instance to determine what the prima facie evidence indicates. Contrary to the response here, there has been no response in Britain to the Weston Park proposals. We must redouble our efforts to ensure the initial inquiry process is set in motion to determine whether a tribunal of inquiry can be established in the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland or Great Britain or, for that matter, here.

The motion before us is the result of the Weston Park negotiations in which the British and Irish Governments undertook to examine certain serious assassinations involving allegations of collusion. Of the two incidents affecting this jurisdiction, the one involving Lord Justice Gibson and his wife was not the subject of a recommendation to hold an inquiry. There has been a recommendation to hold an inquiry into the killings of Mr. Breen and Mr. Buchanan, which is why the motion under discussion is before us. It was also recommended that the British Government should establish inquiries in the cases of Rosemary Nelson, Pat Finucane and Billy Wright. I would have expected a reciprocal approach to have been adopted given that the Weston Park proposals were formulated under the aegis of Judge Cory who recommended each of the inquiries in question. Will the Minister ensure that action is taken on the recommendations as a matter of urgency?

The Weston Park talks took place in 2001 and it took Judge Cory 18 months to produce his recommendations, which he did in September 2003. Having been given Judge Cory's report, it took the Minister a further 18 months to bring forward the motion to establish the inquiry. The delay was unnecessary. Swift action is best. If one establishes a process, it should be ongoing in nature and avoid any hiatus during which it is unclear what approach will be adopted. An early Cabinet decision could have been taken to allow the motion to come before the House 12 months ago. If that had been done, the inquiry could have been completed by now. I would like the Minister to explain when summing up why the initiative to establish a tribunal of inquiry was not taken in the House before now.

The investigation Judge Cory undertook was interesting. There is scope in reading his report to interpret it in two ways and it is difficult to identify which is stronger. Given the high level of Provisional IRA activity on both sides of the Border in the general Dundalk area and the strength of the organisation in the late 1980s, the assassinations of Mr. Breen and Mr. Buchanan could easily have occurred without direct collusion. There may or may not have been a mole within the Garda in Dundalk. However, Judge Cory produced special branch and military intelligence documents which identified individuals who were supposed to have been providing information to the Provisional IRA. The documents outlined specific information said to have been provided on 20 March 1989 from Dundalk Garda station. The man known as Mr. Kevin Fulton made a very precise statement to Judge Cory. Given the totality of the information available to him, I agree with Judge Cory that a full inquiry is appropriate.

The other side of the coin involves trust and confidence in the Garda Síochána. We must be sure of what happened on the day in question and discover whether two senior Northern Ireland police officers were informed on by a member of the Garda or civilians in Dundalk Garda station. We must establish whether there was collusion between a member of the Garda and a member of a paramilitary organisation. If collusion occurred, there will be serious ramifications for the Garda. Until the matter is properly investigated, we will not know. I welcome a full tribunal before which witnesses can be compelled to appear and give evidence. I see no reason that we should not expect all people connected with the matter to give evidence. I hope there is no question of any garda, retired or otherwise, failing to come forward voluntarily.

Equally, I expect the perpetrators of the killing to come forward to give evidence. If they are in this jurisdiction, they should be compelled to appear and, if they are not, I expect them to volunteer. It has not been long since the Bloody Sunday inquiry which involved all sorts of arguments about who should give evidence and in what manner they should provide it. Some British soldiers gave their evidence from behind a screen, their identities being withheld. We must approach the tribunal as one would approach the Bloody Sunday inquiry into the killings of innocent civilians. While Mr. Breen and Mr. Buchanan were, as members of the RUC, in the security forces, they were shot down in cold blood with the coup de grâce probably being delivered after they were dead.

This is a serious matter with serious consequences for the rule of law in Ireland and the way we conduct our affairs. I am delighted, therefore, that the motion has been brought forward and that we will be the first to establish a tribunal of inquiry although it may well be that the findings have adverse consequences for the Garda Síochána. There must be full participation by everyone involved. I appeal to Sinn Féin and the IRA to indicate publicly that they are prepared to participate in this inquiry. They are the only ones who know the full extent of information available at the time of the ambush and the killing.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

That is not true.

Mr. Costello

There are no two ways about it, it is a simple fact. Either they had information from the Garda or they did not. Certain people can conclusively determine the outcome of this tribunal with a factual and definitive response.

Regarding costs, we are all frustrated at how tribunals appear to go on forever and how lawyers are endlessly enriched as legal representatives in tribunals. Judge Cory stated that this tribunal should not be a source of enrichment for senior counsel. We would like the Minister to indicate the measures he will take to ensure this does not happen.

Deputy Jim O'Keeffe made an excellent suggestion regarding the tendering out of the process. Why can it not be done in such a way? Legal representation should be asked to tender their services for this work. To do that it would be necessary to have a clear idea of the aim of the tribunal, its duration and the intensiveness of the representation.

It is necessary to be clear about who is entitled to legal representation. We have the incredible situation in the Morris tribunal where the central figures have no entitlement to legal representation although many other entities are represented. As I understand it, the Minister's legal representative is still on a retainer although he does not attend the tribunal. We cannot allow that to continue. There must be clear guidelines as to how the legal representation is provided and what will be the cost.

We should not continue with per diem costings, we should get a costing for the job. Per diem costings are a recipe for a tribunal to go on ad infinitum, beat around the bushes and ultimately come up with very little. The Minister had promised to amend the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) Acts to provide for the regulation of costs and other matters. Why has that not come before the House so that we can determine the appropriate method of setting costs for future tribunals? I accept that a deadline will be fixed for existing tribunals and that there has been some adjustment in regard to costs, but what will happen with tribunals in future? That legislation should come before the House without delay. It should have been introduced so that we could debate the issue and make decisions in regard to it.

I hope we will have regular referrals back to the House. The motion states that a referral will be made to the House on an interim basis not later than three months from the date of establishment of the tribunal and as soon as may be after the tenth day of any oral hearings of the tribunal. I repeat Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's inquiry as to what is meant by "as soon as may be after the tenth day of any oral hearings". We need to be made aware of what is happening on a regular basis. I do not believe we have ever had a report from the Moriarty tribunal. There needs to be an in-built requirement for a report. However, just because regular reports would issue should not mean that a tribunal would go on for ever. We should definitively tie down where we intend to go from the start.

I compliment the Minister on setting up this tribunal, which should have been set up earlier. There has been a serious miscarriage of justice in regard to the Dean Lyons case. The Minister should announce the setting up of a tribunal into that matter. That case raises a major question mark over the behaviour of the Garda in terms of investigations.

Acting Chairman (Dr. Cowley)

That is not relevant.

Mr. Costello

If the two had come side by side it would go a long way towards dealing with serious questions that still exist in regard to the behaviour of certain gardaí.

Mr. F. McGrath

I wish to share time with Deputy Ó Caoláin and Deputy Cuffe.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. F. McGrath

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in the debate on the tribunal of inquiry into the fatal killing of RUC Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and RUC Superintendent Robert Buchanan in 1989. I consider this as another part of the peace process. It is essential that truth and justice are the key elements to this inquiry. These horrific deaths, like many others, were terrible events for all the families involved. I offer my deepest sympathy to the victims in this case and to all the victims of the Northern Ireland Troubles.

This issue also raises the question of collusion. It is important that we all face up to these difficulties and I hope we will learn from them so that we can take the gun out of Irish politics and make democratic politics work for all people on this island. It is also important that we treat all victims with the same respect. We must acknowledge the pain and suffering of all the victims of the conflict over the 30-year period. Truth and justice will lead to forgiveness and, I hope, healing in the long term.

Most people on the island want this process to work. It is up to all Members of this House and our colleagues in the North to face up to the major problems related to the conflict. Although in today's climate it may be unpopular, I stand by the architects of the peace process. I am not jumping ship when things get tough. Good political leadership is always difficult and we need it now more than ever. There is no room for the faint-hearted or for people to walk away from the peace process.

Mr. McDowell

Hear, hear.

Mr. F. McGrath

It is the people's movement and we have to stick with the people through these difficult times. All sides in the conflict perpetrated terrible deeds and we have to face up to this harsh reality. We must listen to and support people like the McCartney and Finucane families and the victims of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of 1972 and 1974. This must be done in a non-political way.

I challenge those who use victims to score political points. There is no room for such behaviour in any peace process. I urge all Deputies to be measured, calm and caring in their comments. We owe it to the people of Ireland, North and South. Regarding the broader issue of collusion, I hope we can open this can of worms. That is why I welcome and support this debate and this inquiry.

I have a concern regarding public inquiries into Northern-related issues. Many victims, especially the victims of the 1974 Dublin and Monaghan bombings, find it galling that the Government would set up a public inquiry into this incident while turning its back on a similar inquiry into the 1974 Dublin and Monaghan bombings. Many of them are convinced that the political establishment in this State and in the North are not paying attention to their genuine concerns on the issue of collusion. Many of them have questions about the role of the RUC and the running of Unionist paramilitaries and their activities in regard to bombings and killings. We have to face up to that reality.

Is the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform aware of these serious issues relating to collusion by the RUC and one individual in the context of this inquiry? Is he aware of statements made by John Weir in regard to the same individual referred to in the context of this inquiry? When policemen and members of the security forces become directly involved in acts of violence which includes kidnap, murder and bombing, the same police force does not deserve the trust and respect of the community. It is not a question of a few bad apples, it is a question of collusion in the North going right to the top. It was a stated policy all through the Troubles. We all know what was going on and I would like it to come out in this tribunal of inquiry.

Last night I received a call from a victim of the 1974 Dublin bombing whose father was killed in Parnell Street and he, the caller, is full of shrapnel. This victim is convinced that one of the men named in this inquiry had strong links with Unionist paramilitaries. There is evidence of the Down Orange Welfare, a group of RUC officers who supplied guns to the UVF. There is also strong and credible evidence about senior RUC officers attending meetings with loyalist paramilitaries and that they were up to the their necks in collusion and illegal activities. The person who supplied the explosives in the 1974 bombings was best man at the wedding of one of these individuals. I raise these issues to ensure we get a balanced debate and I will not accept lectures from any Minister or Government, either here or in Britain, on these important matters.

On page 51, chapter 12, section 141 of the final report on the Report of the Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Dublin Bombings of 1972 and 1973, it is stated:

The Sub-Committee deplores the fact that it has received no co-operation from the Northern Irish or British authorities. This report has previously pointed out that under the heading Reconciliation and Victims of Violence, the Good Friday Agreement states “The participants believe that it is essential to acknowledge and address the suffering of the victims of violence as a necessary element of reconciliation.” It seems impossible to reconcile the stance of the Northern Irish or British Authorities with this element of the Agreement.

I welcome the debate and I will support it. I hope we have broader debates about inquiries that will help us deal with the dark and sinister secrets of the past 30 years. We owe it to all the victims and I stress the last three words.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Sinn Féin does not oppose this motion. We are in favour of a process of truth recovery. 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. More than 3,500 died in the conflict. They were men, women, children, civilians, combatants and members of all the armed groups, both state and non-state. All armed forces involved in the conflict inflicted death and injury. They need to acknowledge that. Some have done so while others have not. The British Government has never acknowledged its role in the armed conflict in our country. In particular, it has never admitted its use of collusion throughout the conflict since 1969. No one who has seriously and honestly studied this conflict over the past 36 years doubts that there was systematic collusion between British forces and loyalist paramilitaries.

The most murderous loyalist paramilitary group, the Ulster Defence Association, which operated under the cover name of the 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, the leading counter-insurgency officer, to co-ordinate the British military and the loyalist death squads. Throughout the conflict British forces were guided by the British Army's training manual, Land Operations, Volume III — Counter-insurgency Options, which defines its role as "Liaison with, and organisation, training and control of, friendly guerilla forces operating against the common enemy".

That is the basis of collusion. It is not ancient history, but is relevant right up to the present. The British Government has introduced legislation, the Inquiries Bill, which is designed to prevent any realistic inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane or that of any other victim of collusion between British forces and loyalist death squads. That legislation will empower a British minister to order an inquiry to be held behind closed doors. Judge Peter Cory, who recommended the inquiry being established today, 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 military will still have the controlling hand when it comes to the release of information. We have seen how they have used that power.

Very little attention has been given to the most recent report of the Oireachtas committee established on foot of the Barron report. That committee severely reprimands the British Prime Minister for his refusal to establish an inquiry, as called for by the Oireachtas, into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. It goes further and states that his action is in breach of the Good Friday Agreement. The British Secretary of State, the Northern Ireland Office and the PSNI refuse to co-operate in any meaningful way with the Barron investigation or with the work of the Oireachtas committee.

What is the situation now? Today the Oireachtas is establishing a full-blown public inquiry into the alleged collusion of a member or members of the Garda Síochána into the killing of senior RUC officers, Harry Breen and Robert Buchanan, in 1989, yet no public inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane has been established. Even more outrageously, we have had no public inquiry in either jurisdiction into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of nearly 31 years ago or into any of the incidents in which at least 47 people died in the Twenty-six Counties, killed as a result of collusion or directly by British forces. An attempt has been made by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, by fellow Unionists and sections of the media to equate an alleged collusion of a garda or gardaí in the killing of these two RUC officers with widespread and systematic collusion between British forces, including the RUC and the loyalist paramilitaries. This is not done out of any desire for truth or justice. It is presented as a debating point and as an attempt to put Sinn Féin in the wrong when we highlight the responsibility of successive British Governments for collusion. That is the blatant and bald truth of it.

Let us make matters clear for the Minister, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe and anyone else who wants to know.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Does the Deputy support the tribunal of inquiry?

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Anyone with relevant information should come forward to assist this inquiry.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Does the Deputy support the inquiry?

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

The British Government has never admitted to collusion in any form. It has never acknowledged its responsibility for the many deaths it caused as a result of collusion. This was a major part of its war in Ireland which claimed many lives. The primary responsibility in the search for truth rests with that Government. The IRA has admitted its involvement in the killing of these two RUC officers. It saw this attack as an act of war. These were officers of the British state in Ireland. Both of them played key roles in the conflict. Their deaths were no different from those of senior officers in the RIC who were shot in similar circumstances during the 1919 to 1921 period.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Rubbish.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Of course the Deputy would say that. It was actions such as that which led directly to the foundation of this State. Except for actions of that type, the Minister's grandfather, Eoin MacNeill, would never have been a Cabinet Minister and neither would there have been an opportunity for this Minister to participate in an Irish Cabinet. These are, perhaps, unpalatable facts for many Deputies in the House to accept, but they must be acknowledged if this debate is to have any basis in reality. There should be no hierarchy of victims and in all this the focus should be on rebuilding the peace process so that never again will any person die as a result of armed or political conflict in this country. It is probably too much to hope that the Minister might share in the active pursuit of that objective, but I still invite him to join us in this effort.

Mr. Cuffe

It is a dangerous precedent to equate the atrocities of 1916 and the early 1920s with those which took place 16 years ago. There is a quantum difference in the level of injustice that occurred on this island at those two different times. The Green Party welcomes the legislation to examine the IRA ambush of RUC Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Robert Buchanan. We are concerned, nonetheless, at the delay in setting up this tribunal which is aimed at investigating allegations of Garda collusion in the murder of two senior RUC officers 16 years ago. It was in 2003 that the Minister announced there was to be a public inquiry into allegations of Garda collusion surrounding the IRA murder of these two senior officers. We have waited two years for this motion to come before the House.

These men were shot dead on 20 March 1989 at an IRA checkpoint near Jonesborough, County Armagh, as they returned from a security meeting with the Garda Síochána in Dundalk. Under the terms of the Weston Park agreement of 2001, the Canadian judge, Peter Cory, was appointed to investigate allegations of collusion between British and Irish security forces and paramilitaries in six cases in Northern Ireland. Judge Cory recommended that an inquiry be held into the deaths of the two men. He said an investigation should be opened to inquire into allegations of Garda collusion into the deaths and, having examined the claims of gardaí based at the Dundalk station, he believed that information was passed on to the provisional IRA on the movements of the two RUC officers after the cross-Border security talks. He believed that this evidence, if accepted, could be found to constitute collusion. We welcome the tribunal and commend the work of Judge Cory, but why was there such a delay in establishing this tribunal when it was agreed at Weston Park in 2001 that the two Governments would implement his recommendations?

We should not look at this incident in isolation, we should look at atrocities on all sides. If we establish separate tribunals of investigation into each of the many atrocities that took place, we will become overburdened with bureaucracy and red tape. We should look at the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission model, where a single tribunal looked at all atrocities, a clear and quick way of getting to the heart of the injustices and concerns experienced by all sides. Tribunals are costly and people are becoming cynical about their length and the expense involved.

This is, however, a step in the right direction and we support this proposal. There should be greater feedback to the Houses of the Oireachtas and we ask the Minister to incorporate a system of ongoing progress reports to the Houses.

Given the allegations made about the gardaí, we in the Green Party remain concerned about the level and quality of initial training of gardaí in Templemore and about ongoing in-service training. Concerns were expressed at the weekend that the Garda training college cannot handle the increase in Garda numbers. The allegations arising from this IRA ambush reflect badly on the Garda and demonstrate that there must be root and branch reform of the force. I am not convinced that the Minister's proposals will go to the heart of Garda training. We support this motion.

Mr. O’Connor

As a member of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion and to compliment the Minister. I have never disguised my admiration for the Minister's work. He is having a difficult week — even as we speak there is a crowd at the gates on Kildare Street chanting his name. He has been under pressure and, like Deputy Curran last night, I compliment him for being in the House. As a result of their busy schedules, Ministers are often unable to be present but the Minister is here and it is good that he hears our contributions.

It is important to note that nearly all parties support this motion, although reservations have been expressed. This business, however, will be warmly welcomed and will enjoy widespread support. The Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights is very busy. It meets several times every week and deals with many issues. This morning we dealt with submissions on community policing. That is meaningful work where those of us involved make a contribution.

There is a sense that the public want closure on these matters. It has been said that there is no place in Irish politics for the violence, murder and mayhem that we experienced on all sides. I am no apologist for the British establishment and can be critical of the British Government.

There is no question that we must remember all those who were murdered, and those of us who are elected should not be afraid to say that. Particular emphasis has been placed on the cases of Pat Finucane, Robert Hamill, Rosemary Nelson, Billy Wright, Lord Justice Gibson and his wife and the two men about whom we are speaking today, Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan. The Minister has explained why we are only getting to this business today and it is important that we deal with these issues and move on.

I have a particular interest in the Dublin bombing, an issue that affected many of my constituents. I remember the shock and horror of those events, particularly people not knowing where family members were and waiting for them to arrive back. All those killings sent shock waves through the State and it is right that we do not forget them.

The events we are discussing in this motion took place in 1989 and even those of us who did not know these individuals are entitled to be shocked at the manner in which they died and the manner in which these acts were supposedly perpetrated on behalf of the Irish people. They were not, and everyone in Ireland was deeply shocked by them, as they were by many others.

I commend the Minister for bringing this motion to the House. I hope all parties will support the Minister and allow him to establish the tribunal so it can carry out its business. We should remember the motion refers to events on 20 March 1989, when two serving RUC officers were shot dead in what was described as an ambush just north of the Border. They were returning from a meeting with a senior Garda officer in Dundalk Garda station and the Provisional IRA claimed responsibility for the shooting. Some colleagues have used the word collusion, but there were allegations that a garda or a civilian employed in the force advised those directly responsible for the killing or members of their organisation of the visit of the two RUC officers to Dundalk. There are suggestions the person advised them of the time the RUC men left the Garda station in Dundalk.

As part of the Weston Park agreement, the British and Irish Governments made a commitment that if a public inquiry was recommended in any case, the relevant Government would implement that recommendation. Accordingly, the Irish Government is committed to holding an inquiry into allegations of Garda collusion in the killings of the two RUC officers.

I am critical of the failure of the UK administration, particularly in Northern Ireland, to co-operate with the Oireachtas joint committee dealing with the Barron report. I am not afraid to say as much because at this point in Irish history, given the progress that has been made and the wish to ensure enduring peace on this island, every co-operation should be given to investigations and tribunals. There are still many unresolved issues surrounding the Barron report and I believe that the Minister, like me, would be happy to see progress and, indeed, closure in that regard. There are still issues relating to that matter on the Minister's desk and I wish him well in dealing with them.

On 16 December 2003 the Minister announced that the Government would hold a public inquiry into the murder of these officers. He also announced that the public inquiry would take the form of a tribunal of inquiry, pursuant to the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) Acts, and that he would give the tribunal the scope to inquire into the allegations that employees of the State colluded in that fatal shooting. The Minister further announced that the terms of reference of the tribunal would be drafted in consultation with the Attorney General and would be the subject of a Government decision and approval by the Oireachtas. On 6 July last, the Government authorised the Minister to lay the necessary resolutions before the Houses of the Oireachtas to enable the establishment of the tribunal of inquiry according to the formulation contained in the appendix, which constitutes the tribunal's terms of reference.

It is important that this motion has wide support in the House. I appeal to colleagues to support it. It is time these matters were dealt with and we moved on. While people are entitled to make political references and points, we are dealing with serious business and we must make progress. Other colleagues and the Minister have paid tribute to Judge Peter Cory, the retired Canadian Supreme Court judge, and I am happy to agree with them. It is important to recognise the tremendous service he has given in this matter.

The terms of reference given to Judge Cory were to review all the relevant papers in the cases, including the records of earlier investigations; to interview anybody who he believed could assist with the examination; to establish the facts as far as practicable and subject to the law of the various jurisdictions; and to keep the relevant governments informed of progress in a reasonable manner. The judge was asked to submit reports, including in circumstances where there was an insufficient basis to establish the facts in a case. He was further asked to ensure that the reports would include recommendations for further action, including the holding of a public inquiry.

The judge was requested to hear the views of the victims' families and to keep them informed of progress. In all crime, particularly a horrendous crime such as this, the victims are sometimes forgotten. It is important that legislators bear that in mind and continue to stress to the Department the need to bring forward recommendations and proposals which support victims. I am aware of the ongoing issue of the future of Victim Support and I have received a number of representations in that regard. The victims of the incident we are discussing today need closure. They will be watching today's proceedings with great interest and concern. They will be anxious to see progress and the prospect of closure.

Judge Cory delivered six reports to the two governments, two to the Irish Government and four to the British Government, in October 2003. He made the point that his investigation will, in a small measure, contribute to the difficult task of achieving peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. It is important, during Easter week, to recall our history and to bear in mind that peace is the issue. All Members have spoken about supporting peace initiatives, the Good Friday Agreement, legitimate politics and legitimate means of achieving one's political aims. That is relevant at any time but it is particularly relevant during Easter week when we recall our history and the origin of this State. I hope today's business will be seen in that positive light.

The Minister has been under much political pressure this week but I hope he is aware of the support he has in introducing this measure today. There is a belief that this matter should progress as quickly and effectively as possible. As other Members have mentioned, with a political motive which I do not share, this tribunal need not go on forever. That is not what the public wants or what the victims and families expect. It is important that the tribunal is established quickly, does its business and is encouraged to report as quickly as possible. The last thing we want is another long-running tribunal.

I look forward to supporting the Government on this motion.

Mr. Crawford

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important motion. Although I do not like delving into history — I believe we should live in the present and not in the past — there must be closure on certain matters. I have in mind the victims of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings — I knew many of the Monaghan victims personally — the situation in Belturbet, Castleblayney and the recent Omagh bombing. These events wreaked havoc on our island home and everybody wants to move forward from them.

The savage death of two policemen doing their daily work cannot be forgotten. The fact that they were ambushed and then blown to bits by gunfire is something we wish to forget. If there is doubt about why and how this happened, it is important there is a full investigation, which is also true of the Pat Finucane case and other cases. These were not just two policemen but two family men. They were simply doing a job. It was a job they undertook when they left school or college. Many people in the police forces North and South joined the forces at a time when other jobs were not plentiful. It was wrong to pinpoint them as criminals or people who should be murdered.

Some people ask me what I have done for the peace process. I did not take part in or support this type of criminal activity. I tried to work behind the scenes through farm organisations, the co-operative movement and other organisations throughout the Thirty-two Counties. I make no apologies for saying that. I try to build bridges between the different communities. Many worked in ways that were not as high flying as others claim. I want to see peace on this island and I want to see the people living and working together.

We must consider how this happened and the Minister spelt it out clearly in his speech. The location of the ambush on the Edenappa road was found by Judge Cory to be well chosen in terms of topography and tree cover with respect to nearby British army observation posts. This was a well planned ambush and the only intention was to murder these two RUC officers. Many other RUC officers died from cancer and other related illnesses because of the pressure under which they worked at that time. I had relatives in that category.

From a review of the relevant factors, Judge Cory states that there may not be Garda involvement. However, it is important that such an issue be cleared and Fine Gael supports the setting up of this tribunal to that end. Nonetheless, we do not want this to be a gravy train. Too many tribunals have been set up in this House and have become gravy trains for barristers, solicitors and so on. We do not want that and there must be a limitation on funds. Otherwise, tribunals will continue to bring a bad name on this House. If they cost a great amount of money and seem to continue indefinitely, that is no good. We want tribunals tied down to do their job properly at minimum cost.

It is important that we get our thoughts together. There is no point in saying that we will support this unless we make sure that those that have the evidence actually provide it. Other reports and tribunals have been set up in Northern Ireland and some of the people that demanded them refused to give evidence because it did not suit them. The British authorities, the Irish Government and especially the Provisional IRA must give the evidence. Otherwise, there is no point in issuing statements claiming to be opposed to criminality and so on. Now that people have been given the opportunity in this tribunal to come forward and give the evidence on what happened, they must do so. Otherwise, it will be difficult for the tribunal to reach a conclusion. If we do not have a conclusion, then we will not have closure.

Closure is so very important. Over the years, I have dealt with the Coulson family in Clones, where my late colleague, Senator Willie Fox was murdered. The thing that still rankles with that family is the lack of closure and the lack of support from the State. George Coulson's wife passed away this year from cancer. They have lived with a trauma over the past 30 years that no one will ever understand. As I already said, it is not just about the two RUC officers who died in this case, but it is also about what their families have had to endure since then. The Minister mentioned the Gibson case in his speech. As it happens, I know close contacts of that family. They were murdered because of who they were and what they represented.

It is important that we find out why Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Robert Buchanan were murdered in 1989. They were murdered in an ambush that may or may not have been leaked to the Garda Síochána. It is important that the Garda Síochána be cleared of that. I do not know whether the terms of reference of the tribunal are available, but we must get it right. We must deal with this issue properly so that the victims can have closure. I commend the Minister on setting up the tribunal. As he knows from last night, I do not always agree with him, but that is a different story.

Deputy Ó Caoláin and I have a good relationship on a personal basis and I have nothing against him. However, the Provisional IRA and Sinn Finn Féin must be up front on this, as it is part and parcel of the overall peace process agreed in Weston Park. There is no point in coming out with statements claiming to want to end criminality. Actions speak louder than words. I want to see peace work. At a recent meeting on peace issues, I pointed out that the project to develop the Ulster canal along the Border, which has the support of all political parties, is now being held up due to the fact that the Northern Ireland Assembly is not in action. The sooner we can get the peace process going properly, the better for all of us on this island.

Mr. Glennon

I fully support this motion. I was anxious to speak on it as I have a vivid and personal recollection of one of the incidents, the subject of Judge Cory's report. This was the incident surrounding the brutal murder of Lord and Lady Gibson. On that morning, I was sitting in a dressing room in Dublin preparing to go to the first rugby world cup. It was a beautiful spring morning and we were shocked to be told that three of our colleagues had been involved in a bombing incident on their way to training. The three colleagues, for whom I continue to have the highest respect, were Nigel Carr, David Irwin and Philip Rainey. They were going about their normal lives as young, athletic men who were considerably younger than myself. They were travelling to Dublin in pursuit of what for each of them was a lifetime's ambition — to represent Ireland on the international sporting field. It was the first ever rugby world cup. These three highly experienced and outstanding athletes had the misfortune to be driving along the road at Killeen in the opposite direction to Lord Justice Gibson and his wife at precisely the wrong instant. When the bomb that killed Lord Justice and Lady Gibson was detonated, the immediate side effect was that the engine of the Gibsons' car was blown approximately 40 feet in the air and landed on the bonnet of the car driven by Nigel Carr. David Irwin, who was in the passenger seat, was able to get out of the car. Nigel Carr was very fortunate in that Irwin was a general practitioner and was able to minimise the injuries involved. If I remember correctly, Philip Rainey was sitting in the back of the car and was relatively unscathed.

Whenever we speak of the consequences of the Troubles in the North, however, everything is always relative. In the overall scheme of things, this incident made a huge impact on me as well as on all my colleagues. These three friends were not of our political persuasion, yet they stood as proudly as we did for Amhrán na bhFiann in Lansdowne Road. At that time, the national anthem was not played at away venues. They compromised not only that aspect of their lives but several other aspects also in the pursuit of honest and innocent sporting endeavour. I have always been proud that rugby has played an inestimable part in keeping the different parts of our island together. It has done so for many years and long may it continue.

This was a day of embarrassment for us and it is still a matter of embarrassment whenever I meet my sporting colleagues. In fairness to them, I must say that they are probably embarrassed by it also. They saw it as their bad luck to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. They shared that bad luck with so many others on the island over such a long period. It happened to be them on that occasion. I am glad to have the opportunity of referring to that incident in a personal context.

For the purpose of closure and the very necessary purposes of the peace process, it is vital that this inquiry into the tragic deaths of the two RUC officers should take place. It is essential for us all that the tribunal of inquiry be accorded the fullest and most honest co-operation by everybody. Equally, the dignity of the inquiry should not be demeaned by an unseemly squabble over its cost. That is not to say that I believe there should be a blank cheque — far from it. However, if there is anything remotely approaching a blank cheque and the cost of the inquiry becomes an issue, we will be doing a serious disservice to both men at the heart of the inquiry. We will also be doing a serious disservice yet again to ourselves as legislators. I know the Minister has strong views in this regard, so I urge him to implement them as far as he possibly can given the constraints within which he must operate. The gravy train is no longer acceptable in so far as tribunals are concerned. We must not detract from the dignity and integrity of the issues under examination, however, and this case would be a good example of that point if such problems are allowed to arise.

Like the Ceann Comhairle and Deputy Crawford, I am proud to be a member of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body. While its work is largely unsung, it does a significant amount at political level in the reconciliation process. In the course of our work on that body, we are still seeking means of closure for all victims of the Troubles. That is an essential element of the peace process. Some people say that we must look forward, not back. We should always look forward but, in doing so, we must be conscious of where we come from because that is an integral part of who we are. We must always remember whence we came and the events that shaped us all. The important thing is to do so with dignity and without recrimination. Closure is necessary for all victims of the Troubles in the North. It is certainly necessary for the families of RUC officers Breen and Buchanan. It is also necessary for all the other people who were so badly affected. As a Dubliner, I am thinking particularly of the victims of the Dublin bombings. It is equally necessary for the families of the disappeared. Jean McConville's name is etched on everybody's mind and will be for a long time but her family have had closure. There are many others who have not, so closure is required for them.

I commend the Minister on his diligence in pursuing this matter. I look forward to a dignified process of inquiry that will not feature any unseemly squabbles over trivial issues but will focus on the tribunal's overall purpose. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Rabbitte

This debate takes place against a background of commitments made by two Governments but reneged upon by one of them. As long ago as May 2002, the British and Irish Governments announced the joint appointment of a judge of international standing to investigate allegations of collusion between their respective security forces and paramilitary bodies.

As the Minister has said, Judge Peter Cory's investigation covered six cases: the murders of Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan, Pat Finucane, Robert Hamill, Rosemary Nelson, Billy Wright, and Lord Justice and Lady Gibson. Deputy Glennon has vividly described the circumstances surrounding the murders of the last two people. The parts of the Cory report delivered to the Government were published first and with reasonable promptness. They were seen to be clear, simple and accessible. Judge Cory was rightly thanked for his work and a commitment to a public inquiry in this jurisdiction was made.

It is clear from the reports that there are compelling grounds for a public inquiry into the murders of Chief Superintendent Breen and Superintendent Buchanan, along the lines recommended by Judge Cory and with full powers to procure documents and compel witnesses, and into the extremely serious possibility that those murders were facilitated by collusion between some members of the Garda Síochána and the Provisional IRA. As the Minister stated, it is particularly important that anyone who has evidence to give should come forward.

The murders of the two policemen in 1989 were particularly brutal crimes, carried out in a way that betrayed cruelty and callousness. There is a particular onus on those who have demanded public inquiries into other murders, in respect of which reports from Judge Cory are still awaited, to ensure there is no obfuscation about urging their members and supporters to give the Breen and Buchanan inquiry their full co-operation.

It is worth quoting what Judge Cory, an independent judicial figure from Canada, had to say about the two officers who were murdered. He stated:

Chief Superintendent Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan demonstrated all the finest attributes required of policemen . . . To murder such men was a blow to their communities, to the residents of Northern Ireland, to all who believe in a democratic society and to all who understand the important role of the police in a democratic society.

It has been somewhat overlooked that the purpose of the meeting attended by the two officers at the Garda station in Dundalk was not about what is generally regarded as terrorist crime. It was to discuss the problem of cross-Border smuggling. Since 1989 we have learned much about how terrorism and what is called "normal" crime have become interlinked, and we know the extent to which major figures in the Provisional IRA in the south Armagh area in particular have personally benefited from smuggling and other areas of crime. I hope one area that will be examined by the tribunal is whether the two officers were specifically targeted because of their efforts to stamp out smuggling and thus undermine the personal criminal empires built up by the paramilitary godfathers along the Border.

I regret that it has taken 15 months since the publication of the Cory report to bring the appropriate motion before the Dáil to establish the tribunal, but the failures on the part of the British Government to meet its obligations arising from the Weston Park agreement are inexcusable. The British Government dithered and its delay in putting its side of the reports into the public domain created suspicion. It so frustrated Judge Cory that he directly contacted the families of Pat Finucane, Rosemary Nelson, Robert Hamill and Billy Wright to explain his point of view to them, personally, and to let them know he had in each case recommended public inquiries into the deaths.

In March of last year a decision in the Belfast High Court effectively required the British Government to set a date for publication of the then outstanding chapters of the Cory report dealing with the Finucane murder. We must remember that in the Weston Park proposals of 1 August 2001, both Governments committed that "in the event that a Public Inquiry is recommended in any case, the relevant Government will implement that recommendation". It was extraordinary that a judge of international standing, appointed by agreement between two states, felt compelled to go public and speak over the radio of his frustration about inaction on his report, and that the families of Pat Finucane and Billy Wright should unite in a High Court application to quash the British Government's delay in publishing his findings.

At the end of September last, the British Government announced that the long-delayed inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane and related issues of collusion between the RUC, British army and loyalist paramilitaries may be neither judicial nor public. It would not take place until amending legislation was passed, the effect of which would be effectively to fillet the tribunals of inquiry Act. The hostile reaction to this announcement from Nationalist representatives, human rights bodies and the Finucane family was understandable and entirely legitimate.

The 1966 report of the Royal Commission of Tribunals of Inquiry in the United Kingdom, otherwise known as the Salmon report, stated:

There are, however, exceptional cases in which [inquisitorial] procedures must be used to preserve the purity and integrity of our public life without which a successful democracy is impossible. It is essential that on the very rare occasions when crises of public confidence occur, the evil, if it exists, shall be exposed so that it may be rooted out; or if it does not exist, the public shall be satisfied that in reality there is no substance in the prevalent rumours and suspicions by which they have been disturbed. We are satisfied that this would be difficult, if not impossible, without public investigation by an inquisitorial tribunal possessing the powers conferred by the Act of 1921.

In the circumstances that Salmon described, namely, when a crisis of public confidence occurs, a public inquiry becomes necessary. That reality was reflected in the Government's response to the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg on the Pat Finucane case. The court had ruled that the UK Government had failed adequately to investigate allegations that the security forces colluded in the murder of Mr. Finucane. The Taoiseach repeated his previous call for an independent public inquiry.

I joined with the Taoiseach, the Finucane family, the SDLP and others in restating my belief that a public inquiry was required. None of us meant by that a Government appointed, controlled and spancelled inquiry that conducted the bulk of its work in private. Because of its subject matter, a report from a body operating along those lines would fail the essential test. The manner in which the report was compiled and produced would not be conducive to public trust in its findings. As Judge Cory pointed out:

During the Weston Park negotiations, which were an integral part of the implementation of the Good Friday Accord, six cases were selected to be reviewed to determine whether a public inquiry should be held with regard to any of them. . . The failure to do so could be seen as a cynical breach of faith which could have unfortunate consequences for the Peace Accord. . . a speedy resolution is essential if the public confidence in the police and the administration of justice is to be restored. In this case only a public inquiry will suffice. Without public scrutiny, doubts based solely on myth and suspicion will linger long, fester and spread their malignant infection throughout the Republic and the Northern Ireland community... In those cases where such evidence has been found, the holding of a public inquiry as quickly as is reasonably possible is a small price to pay for a lasting peace.

Judge Cory also pointed out that at the time of the Weston Park agreement "the parties would have had in mind a public inquiry as that term was known in 2001".

It is a necessary function of our Government to ensure that its British counterpart complies with its commitments under an international agreement between both states. Following a meeting with Mr. Michael Finucane last January, when he outlined his fears about the new British Inquiries Bill, I wrote to Judge Cory. I outlined to him the concerns of many interested persons, extending well beyond the republican community, that the inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane which he had recommended would be delayed until new legislation was passed, which is entirely corrosive of public confidence in the integrity of the inquiry process. I enclosed with my letter an analysis by British Irish Rights Watch, an independent non-governmental organisation that has been monitoring the human rights dimension of the conflict and the peace process in Northern Ireland since 1990.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.