Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 28 Feb 2006

Vol. 615 No. 4

Leaders’ Questions.

Mr. Kenny

The events of last Saturday in the city of Dublin were unprecedented. The consequences could not have been foreseen and the extent of those consequences would have been difficult to anticipate. I condemn, in the strongest possible fashion, the antics of the thugs, hooligans and neo-nationalists who disrupted life in the city on a normal Saturday. They terrorised citizens and put the lives of members of the Garda Síochána at risk. The violence on Saturday was the action of vicious thugs. It was premeditated and was well planned. It was an attack not only on the police force, but on free speech, on democracy, on society and on the citizens of Dublin.

It was not an orchestrated attack by football hooligans alone. They would not be in a position to organise it on such a scale. There is now significant evidence available that this riot was premeditated, was well planned in advance and that information to this effect was creeping into the public domain. I have spoken to witnesses who saw a van with a number of men who were arrested near Fleet Street with baseball bats and hurleys. There have been numerous reports of people in possession of billiard balls, golf balls, lump hammers and petrol bombs. Respected journalists have written about people with mobile telephones who directed incidents and issued instructions within this riot. There have been reports of boxes of glass bottles stashed on streets near O'Connell Street for use during this riot.

This level of premeditation is in stark contrast to the low key approach the Government and senior Garda management appear to have adopted in respect of this march, which was a freedom of speech category march. The result was that people who went about their business on Saturday afternoon in the city were simply terrorised. Pictures akin to those from Beirut, Belfast or Baghdad flashed around the world and the front-line gardaí, in their ordinary uniforms, were obliged to face down those thugs and hoodlums. They were left unprotected and were clearly in danger of losing their lives. This is not good enough. Their bravery and courage, while being obliged to stand out and while being left out in such a situation must be commended by everyone in this House. Those innocent people and all the gardaí involved deserve a full explanation as to how these series of provocative and aggressive incidents occurred. Does the Taoiseach accept that the action and the decision of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and senior Garda management, in adopting a low key approach to this unprecedented loyalist march on O'Connell Street was flawed? Does the Taoiseach accept there was a level of complacency in assuming that the peace process was accepted by everyone within this State? Obviously, criminality and lawlessness among some in the so-called republican movement have not disappeared for good. Why was only one riot squad, instead of three or four in place? Why did it take so long to deploy the lone Garda helicopter? How can Members be sure this sort of flawed decision making will not happen again?

The Taoiseach

As I said outside the House, I wholeheartedly condemn the disgraceful scenes of naked violence visited on the people of Dublin and on the Garda by a very unrepresentative minority last Saturday. It is already clear this was an attempt by a small sectarian minority to deny others the right to express their views freely and in a peaceful manner. Let us be clear, these were the motivations of a group of very vicious people who went out on a Saturday morning, not to watch a football match or do their shopping in town but with serious intent.

I salute the bravery of the men and women of the Garda Síochána. The gardaí were sorely provoked on Saturday and responded professionally to outrageous attacks upon them motivated by unreasoning hatred and malice towards the lawful authority of our democracy.

Later the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will deal comprehensively with all the matters surrounding the violent events. I will confine myself to a few brief comments. The Garda had extensive consultations over the past two months plus with the Northern Ireland based organisation Families Acting for Innocent Relatives, FAIR, who wished to march to highlight the feelings of victims of IRA violence. They contacted the Garda prior to Christmas regarding their intention. When the intentions of FAIR became known a number of dissident republican organisations, particularly Republican Sinn Féin, called for a counter demonstration. All the credible intelligence information available to the Garda indicated that any counter protests on the day would be small and peaceful.

The Garda held a series of meetings with representatives of FAIR as to the policing of the parade and, arising from those discussions and taking account of the intelligence assessment that the Garda make into all marches and protests, which seem to occur in O'Connell Street every week, a comprehensive policing plan was put in place by the Garda. This involved close liaison with Dublin City Council.

The purpose of that plan was to permit the parade to go ahead and allow the police to counter any demonstration. The objective was to employ a proportionate police presence that would ensure public safety, and not to over react with too large a force, and at the same time not to create too much tension. As it happened, approximately 350 people wanted to march. There were approximately 350 gardaí, including gardaí on stand-by. They were quickly able to call on approximately another 150. While they thought they were dealing with a crowd of between 50 and 70, it turned out to be several hundred when they appeared out of pubs and lanes at the back of both sides of O'Connell Street.

Unfortunately, that could not be foreseen. It was, in fact, thuggish behaviour by a relatively small number of persons, some of whom had been drinking in the immediate environs of O'Connell Street. These people engaged in an orgy of violence against gardaí and property, against journalists and against anybody who got in their way. These were not the only targets. There was a very sinister development, with blatant attacks on clearly identifiable members of the media and, as reported today, on shopkeepers and others in the general area of town in the afternoon as well.

I emphasise that while the Garda was aware of the proposed protest by dissident republican groups, there was no specific information or intelligence available to it to suggest that violence on the scale witnessed was planned. That was a complete surprise. On the day a decision was taken not to let the parade as planned proceed but to allow a demonstration outside of this House, which did take place.

The Garda investigation into the violence, vandalism and looting is continuing. A preliminary report was presented to Cabinet — the Minister will give that later — and the more detailed report will be compiled over the immediate period as the Garda conduct an assessment by all of those people involved.

A decision was made on how to handle the march. It involved a very large number of gardaí. I am familiar with O'Connell Street marches. Normally, one or two dozen people parade. There have been large marches already this year. There have been marches and protests about different issues. There is no need to mention any of those; they are all known and were well made. Some of them were high profile and some of them were very low profile, but 350 gardaí is a large number for these marches.

Mr. Kenny

As I said previously, this was unprecedented. It had not happened before, therefore the consequences were difficult to anticipate. However, it now appears clearly evident that there was a failure to assess properly, a failure to plan properly, a failure to anticipate properly and a failure to be ready for the worst. Nobody wants a perception of our city that on a march, which has been approved, there must be a ring of steel down O'Connell Street but as this was the consequence of a political parade that had never happened before in this country, it should have been perfectly obvious that at least resources and facilities should have been made available and ready quickly to deal with unforeseen or unanticipated consequences. It is in that failure that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, must accept political responsibility for this, as the person in charge of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. In that failure to anticipate, to plan and to provide resources, the Minister has failed in his duty as head of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

The Taoiseach, in his radio interview on Saturday, stated that the word was out on Friday in his constituency that something like this was going to happen. We had signals from others that this was going to happen as well. On Friday the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, in his speech in Waterford, gave a political lecture about the Progressive Democrats being meat in a sandwich. On Saturday, because of the failure to plan properly for this and to be ready for the worst, the front-line gardaí in ordinary uniforms facing bricks, billiard balls, stones and petrol bombs were the meat in the sandwich between democracy and anarchy. Political responsibility for that failure must rest with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

When Ireland held the EU Presidency last year, 5,000 gardaí and Army were deployed. It was a ring of steel. While I agree with the Taoiseach that one does not want pictures of the main street of the capital city every day ringed with Army and Garda, as this never happened before there should have been an anticipation that the worst might happen and that the resources to deal with it would have been readily available. In that sense, does the Taoiseach agree that the handling of this, between senior management and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, was flawed? Does he accept that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform must accept political responsibility as the head of his Department for this debacle, which could have turned into a conflagration on O'Connell Street in less than ten minutes? Those thugs, hooligans and neo-Nationalists of whatever so-called republican hue——

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Kenny's time has concluded.

Mr. Kenny

——did down this country and its citizens, and exposed the Garda, our only protectors between anarchy and democracy, to having their lives put on the line on the main street of the capital last Saturday. It is just not good enough and I hope there are lessons learned for the future.

The Taoiseach

There are always lessons learned from everything. The kind of thuggery we saw on Saturday last, and the gathering of what probably were different groups, did us harm and shamed the city and the country. There is no doubt about that.

With every march the Garda, when it receives a plan, must look at all the aspects to it and the Minister will point out later the extent to which it did that. The Garda certainly did not take anything lightly. It undertook considerable planning and had many senior people involved. There was an enormous amount of meetings, including with the city council. They were concerned about the site on O'Connell Street. They had six meetings about that issue alone. They had a large number of people in the area. If the Garda and State wanted to have the march and suspected there could be trouble to the extent that occurred, I am sure the march could have taken place because 350 people were available to guard.

In fairness to the organisation involved — Families Acting for Innocent Relatives, which numbers 350 members — the Garda put a huge number of conditions on the members about what they could do, especially regarding anything that might be seen to be provocative. They complied with the conditions and went along with every arrangement. The Garda had a number of meetings with FAIR representatives last week in Dublin and they went through all this.

The Garda checked its intelligence about what was going on. People were loosely talking about a march on the weekend and whether there would be a problem. Following Saturday's events, it became clear texts had been sent and people had been saying there could be trouble. The Garda authorities were in the best position to arrive at a view. They thought there would be a peaceful protest by a small number of people but that number swelled to hundreds. They did not think they would have to deal with hundreds of people, young, old and middle aged, ripping up pavements, boards, public lighting and everything they could get their hands on and unleashing them on top of gardaí, journalists and everybody else who got in the way. It was not seen as that. Who will ever know why a group went to so much trouble to do that against a small number of people?

I am well used to watching demonstrations in my constituency. On the day, three superintendents, ten inspectors, 32 sergeants and more than 300 gardaí and uniformed public order personnel were on duty in the background. The Garda mounted, air support and dog units were deployed while 58 detectives were mixing with the crowd. That is not a normal Saturday afternoon in my constituency. A total of 150 additional gardaí were deployed quickly. Regularly, in another part of my constituency, 80,000 people converge and we would not get a force half that size. On Saturday 350 people were being protected against 70.

Unfortunately, hooligans are hooligans and they did damage. It was organised in some way. We must await the full investigation but the proof it was organised is that people do not move from the Parnell monument to the far side of town in a matter of minutes unless somebody is calling the shots and orders. A small group managed to motivate other misguided hoodlums to participate in their entertainment. Whatever else, my knowledge of inner city life is that 600 or 700 people do not turn up to watch Hearts, a Scottish team, play at 11 in the morning. That was not their motivation.

Mr. Rabbitte

We will have an opportunity to return to this debate in a few minutes following the Order of Business.

I refer to a different matter that relates to weekend comments about the Omagh bombing, the single worst atrocity in the Northern Ireland Troubles, which cost the lives of 29 men, women and children. The Taoiseach will recall that in the aftermath, his Government appointed an ad hoc non-statutory committee to inquire into allegations that the Garda was in prior possession of information that might have helped in preventing that atrocity.

The Nally committee met and inquired in private and its report was not published. However, a copy was given to Deputy Kenny and me for immediate return. At the time I made it clear I was not convinced that the report had put an end to these allegations. I also made it clear that, whatever the purpose was in giving it to Deputy Kenny and me, I was not being brought into the circle of those who would stand over it as the last word on the matter. I said I was struck by the consistent inability of that committee to query the official Garda version of events where it differed from that of Detective Sergeant White, even where the official version contained contradictions or was unsupported by documentary evidence. I also said:

The report was from a committee of insiders about insiders to be read by insiders. It came from within a hermetically sealed environment. The possibility that even some of the allegations it was investigating might be even partially true would represent a collective corporate failure of massive proportions and with devastating consequences.

Last week the outgoing assistant chief constable of the PSNI, Sam Kincaid, together with his successor and superintendent Baxter, who headed up the inquiry into the Omagh bombings, gave an on the record briefing to the Omagh families on their findings to date. They made clear their view that both MI5 and the Garda had relevant information, which was not passed on to the RUC at the time and which, taken together, would have placed them on a much higher state of alert as far as Omagh was concerned. Their conclusions run entirely counter to the Nally report and its findings.

Mr. McDowell

That is not so.

Mr. Rabbitte

Both Deputy Kenny and I have expressed our surprise that the Nally committee was unable to reach its findings without interviewing the Garda informant at the heart of the affair. Last week the PSNI made clear again that it still wished to interview this man, a Mr. Dixon, a car thief who stole cars on order for the Real IRA and its bombing campaign. According to The Sunday Times, the PSNI also placed his relationship with the Garda in an entirely different light by revealing that he had permitted gardaí to place bugs in the cars he stole for the Real IRA. I do not recall, subject to correction, that information in the Nally report.

Sir Hugh Orde will report to the British Prime Minister and the Garda Commissioner on his findings. In light of the Taoiseach's commitment, which is entirely genuinely held, that his Government would be helpful in all circumstances to the Omagh families, what is his response to the statement by the retiring assistant chief constable of the PSNI, Mr. Sam Kincaid?

The Taoiseach

Deputy Rabbitte has given a factual account of what happened and when the Nally report was published. The Omagh bomb case is before the courts and any new evidence will be examined. However, it has been the view all the way through that any information given to the Garda by the security forces was acted on long before the explosions. I cannot be certain of the facts but the relevant security information was acted on long before 15 August 1998. The bomb that was in preparation at that time was intercepted. I do not say the Deputy is talking about a different issue but the information was passed to the Garda by MI5. The information was acted on and the bomb that was in preparation was intercepted. It has been my understanding that the PSNI and the chief constable do not believe the account given by Sergeant White.

The Government will do everything it can to both help the Omagh victims and to support the ongoing investigation, into which significant resources have been put by the security services, North and South, and in England. We will continue to play our part in trying to get a satisfactory conclusion on that.

To be clear on the matter, if Sam Kincaid was talking about the information that was given to the Garda by MI5 — I cannot be certain that is what he was talking about — that information was acted on and the bomb that was in preparation was intercepted and dealt with.

Mr. Rabbitte

From my memory of the report, which I read carefully at the time, it is clear that the Nally report regarded Mr. Dixon as an ordinary commercial car thief who would have no intelligence of relevance to pass on. I do not know the truth of the matter. However, from my contacts in Northern Ireland, I know that the former assistant chief constable, Sam Kincaid, was and is very highly regarded and what he said is very clear. He said that his view was that both MI5 and the Garda Síochána had relevant information which was not passed on to the RUC and which, if taken together, would have placed the RUC on a much higher state of alert as far as the Omagh case was concerned. In the light of this statement, does the Taoiseach accept that the Nally report is not the final word on this matter?

We have, for example, taken up a position across this House on the matter of the Finucane case. In condemning the inadequacy of the Finucane inquiry we have sought for the British authorities to lift the veil of secrecy from their security services intelligence on the Finucane case. In this case, we know that the Omagh families and the PSNI still have questions. The former assistant chief constable said that if he had the information from MI5 and the Garda, which he did not get, that information, taken together, would have put the RUC in a position to be on a much higher state of alert.

This is an important development as the bomb in Omagh was the single worst atrocity in the history of the Troubles and it obliges us to examine the contention of a respected former senior policeman. If Mr. Hugh Orde is making a report to the British Prime Minister on the matter, the Government should consider and make a public statement on its response to this information.

The Taoiseach

The Government will, obviously, consider all these issues. The Deputy is right that we have not got to the end of this matter. The end will come only when we get successful prosecutions against the people who perpetrated the bombing in Omagh and killed, injured and maimed so many people, affecting many families for the rest of their lives. The issue continues.

I have dealt with this matter over a long period and I remember the events fairly well. I will make a few points. The Nally report asked Mr. Dixon to co-operate with it, but he did not at the time. What he has done since, I cannot recall. I recall that it has been raised in the House a number of times that he tried to contact people here to put his side of the case. My recollection is that at the time the Nally report asked Mr. Dixon for his co-operation but he did not do so.

I do not think I have ever met Sam Kincaid, but I am sure he is a fine policeman and his record shows that. If his intelligence sources did not tell him something, I have no comment to make on that. If MI5 did not tell the PSNI about the information it had, I have no comment to make on that. Previous to that, however, long before the explosion, MI5 gave information to the Garda Síochána. The Deputy may recall there were a number of interceptions that summer and a number of incidents, including people being arrested leaving Ireland by ferry. The information the Garda got was acted on and a bomb that was in preparation was dealt with. That was hugely significant at the time.

I am not aware of any information, but I will check again. It appears there are two issues. The Deputy says that Sam Kincaid said his sources did not give him information and my information has always been that the information we got was acted on. I do not believe there was any other information. That was my understanding.

Mr. Sargent

I note the Tánaiste apologised to victims at the publication of the Drogheda hospital report and I welcome that. Will the Taoiseach apologise on behalf of the Government to the trauma experienced by victims of Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital which has been documented comprehensively through the publication of the Judge Harding Clarke report?

Does the Taoiseach accept that this report raises fundamental questions for the Government? Is it not shocking and bizarre that 20 times the national average of caesarian peripartum hysterectomies continued to be performed in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda for 25 years before any professional raised a concern? Is it not a terrible reflection on the State that it took a midwife who had been trained outside the State to blow the whistle on this saga of trauma and malpractice? Is there not a grave onus on the Government to quickly make some amends to the victims for years of failure by the State to properly inspect and regulate the medical profession and for the irreversible damage done to dozens of patients who have sought justice for many years?

I urge the Taoiseach to indicate the Government's willingness to set up a redress board to provide crucial justice to the victims mutilated in that Drogheda hospital. Will he alleviate some of the distress of the 44 or so patients whose files have been stolen by placing the onus on the hospital to say it carried out each operation properly, rather than placing the burden of proof on the distressed patients?

The report recommends various legislation. It calls for a wide-ranging medical practitioners Bill. This Bill was promised in 2004 and 2005 and it is on the list again for 2006. Will the Taoiseach give the publication date of that legislation? Will he also indicate whether he will take on board the need for legislation for whistleblowers. The scandal of Leas Cross would not have come out but for media reports. It is obvious we need legislation on whistleblowers.

The report makes clear that we need legislation to protect the medical records of patients in these circumstances. That legislation needs to be documented carefully so that the information will not be privy to freedom of information requests and will be kept sacrosanct for any need that may arise in the future. Will the Taoiseach act on the need for the legislation recommended in the report and particularly on the need for a redress board? Anything else will not be adequate.

The Taoiseach

I express my deep regret to the women affected by the trauma and suffering as a result of the events of recent years. Since these issues came to light in 1998, they have been acted upon and have been thoroughly investigated and the Cabinet approved publication of the reports of today. I commend the work that has gone into the preparation of this report. It is a good job and an excellent bringing together of an enormous amount of facts and reports. The findings and recommendations will be examined immediately and in great detail by the Department of Health and Children in consultation with the Health Service Executive and the various professional regulatory bodies involved in quality assurance in the hospital service. This affects a range of groups and that will happen. The Tánaiste will meet Patient Focus tomorrow and discuss the other issues mentioned by Deputy Sargent. She will discuss matters with the support groups and many of the former patients who attended at Drogheda hospital. We promised we would do that as soon as the report was published and it is there that those matters should be discussed.

With regard to legislation, the report's findings and recommendations will be dealt with and will be of considerable benefit in terms of informing the approach being taken in the preparation of the medical practitioners Bill. That Bill is already well advanced but the recommendations of this report will help in its completion and will be very beneficial. It will also be beneficial in the work that is well advanced on the health information equality authority and in the current consultant contracts negotiations. It will feed into all of these issues. I assure the House, now that we have this report, that we will be able to deal with these issues and to move on as quickly as possible.

Mr. Sargent

I hear the Taoiseach expressing regret and I ask him to be quite specific. Does he apologise on behalf of the Government or has the Tánaiste simply apologised on her own behalf? It is very important to clarify that. What does the Taoiseach mean when he says the matter has been dealt with? I understand and appreciate the work that has gone into the investigation but does the Taoiseach accept we still have a culture in this country of consultants being viewed as gods, somewhat like priests in the 1950s? We are still dealing with the legacy of that perception. Does the Taoiseach accept that many nurses are living in deference, if not fear, of consultants and that there is a need to deal with that culture? We have had inspections, based on what is in this report, that did not inspect. The inspections were simply dealing with the training facilities and not with medical performance. We do not just have a scandal——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy's time is concluded.

Mr. Sargent

——we have a cover-up. This is fundamental. We have a cover-up, with files removed and a crime that needs to be investigated. Will the Taoiseach follow through on that? We have victims who have suffered horrific injustice, who have a deep emotional hurt where they should have a womb. We must act. We must have a redress board and the Taoiseach has not told us if that will happen. We need to put the burden of proof on the hospital concerning the operations carried out and we need legislation. Will the Taoiseach tell us the date for the introduction of the medical practitioners Bill and the legislation dealing with records, risk management and clinical incident report forms, all of which are mentioned in the report? Can we have the dates for the legislation that is recommended and that for whistle blowers? We need an apology and a redress board if we are to have some justice here.

The Taoiseach

As I said, the Tánaiste has already made a statement today. I repeat, on behalf of the Government, that we are all very sorry. We deeply regret and are equally appalled at the contents of this report. Let us be very clear about that.

We have promised throughout, over the last seven or eight years, that as soon as the report was available the Minister of the day, in this case the Tánaiste, would meet the group and discuss the issues with it. We are going to stick to that promise and will do that tomorrow. Deputy Sargent should understand and appreciate that. These matters will be discussed with Patient Focus first.

On the findings and recommendations, while over the last number of years they have been acted upon and thoroughly investigated, now we have the complete recommendations and findings. They will be of considerable benefit in finalising the medical practitioners Bill, in the work that is well advanced on the health information equality authority Bill and in the discussions that are ongoing on the doctors' contracts and other discussions taking place with medics. They will assist in all of that work.