Aughnacloy, Tyrone, Shooting: Statements.

The Taoiseach

I would like to report to Dáil Éireann on the circumstances surrounding the shooting dead of Mr. Aidan McAnespie at Aughnacloy and related matters, and on the action taken in this regard by the Government.

First of all I would like to express on behalf of the Government our deepest sympathy to the family and friends of Mr. McAnespie.

On the evening of Sunday, 21 February, Aidan McAnespie of Aughnacloy parked his car in that town and walked through the Aughnacloy checkpoint on his way to a GAA football game in a field close to the Border. The Aughnacloy checkpoint is a permanent checkpoint on the main Dublin-Derry road where all through traffic is stopped and scrutinised. It consists of a number of heavily fortified buildings, including some elevated observation and firing posts, known as Sangars, and is manned by heavily armed British security forces. The post is situated back about 1 kilometre on the Northern side of the Monaghan-Tyrone border. Mr. McAnespie had walked about 400 metres past the checkpoint toward the Border and was about 600 metres from the Border when, at 2.50 p.m. he was killed by a bullet fired from the checkpoint.

A soldier believed to have been involved was immediately taken off duty and placed in military custody pending the outcome of an investigation by the RUC. The British Army have publicly expressed "deep regret". Subsequently, the RUC issued a statement to the effect that three bullets had ricocheted off the road, and that one had struck Mr. McAnespie. On the Wednesday after the shooting a member of the British Army was charged with the unlawful killing of Mr. McAnespie.

The Government expressed immediate concern on Sunday evening and sought a full report on this incident through the Secretariat in Belfast. The concern of the Government was subsequently conveyed formally to Secretary of State King by the Tánaiste at last Wednesday's Intergovernmental Conference.

Local reaction has been vehement. Aidan McAnespie worked in Monaghan and passed through the Aughnacloy checkpoint very frequently, on his way to and from work and at other times. There are reports that he has, over a lengthy period, been subjected to continual severe harassment at this checkpoint — so much so that he and his family had fears for his safety. The same fear is shared by others in the district.

Following the incident the Garda, at the request of the RUC, closed the road for just over three hours, but then reopened it shortly after 6 o'clock. Some four hours later at around 10 o'clock the road was closed again until 12 noon on the following day. The first comparatively short initial closure of the road and the second closure later that night until noon the following day were both for the purposes of forensic examination.

As soon as we were apprised of this shooting the representatives of this State in the Secretariat of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference took up the matter with the British authorities. The British explanation was that while a British soldier at the checkpoint was demonstrating, to the soldier who was replacing him on duty, that his weapon was "clear", the weapon discharged three rounds accidentally. There is other evidence that at the time in question there was a burst of fire, three or four rounds, from a machine gun in an elevated observation post which is part of the checkpoint. A later British statement is to the effect that bullet marks on the road indicate that Mr. McAnespie was killed by a ricochet bullet.

Given the background of harassment to which I have referred, I believe it is understandable that the suggestion of an accidental death caused by a ricochet bullet accidentally discharged is suspect to a great many of the victim's friends and neighbours, and indeed to a great many other people besides. Where the death of a person towards whom there is known to be a history of hostility by the security forces is caused by the same security forces, it is inevitable that a suggestion that death was due to a freak accident of an extraordinary kind must give rise to disbelief.

In view of the very deep and widespread public concern, the Government directed the Garda Commissioner to institute an inquiry immediately into the fatal shooting of Mr. McAnespie at Aughnacloy and the circumstances surrounding his death. The Garda Commissioner appointed Deputy Commissioner Eugene Crowley to carry out this task, and to take statements and obtain information from all persons able and willing to assist. I believe that the institution of this inquiry was widely welcomed by representatives of the Nationalist community.

Apart from the certain fact that a member of the public on his way to attend a football match was shot dead in circumstances that have not been satisfactorily explained, there are a number of issues that are cause for considerable concern. As the shooting is now the subject of court proceedings, however, we must not prejudge the issue of responsibility for the killing but I can inform the Dáil that a number of concerns to which this incident gives rise about the handling of weapons by the security forces in Northern Ireland have been raised through the Secretariat in Maryfield.

Much of the public disquiet about the observation towers and posts along the Border has arisen from fears that an accident of this kind could occur. This anxiety was, indeed, expressed very recently to the Minister for Tourism and Transport by the parents and school authorities at Cloughoge primary school near Newry. The decision to establish these posts was taken without consultation with the Irish Government. They are obviously intrusive and can provide a hazard to the lives and property of people living nearby.

The fact that the Garda conduct an inquiry should not be taken as a reflection on any other inquiry undertaken. It must be clear to everyone that the shooting dead of an unarmed civilian going about a normal and legitimate activity in broad daylight by a British soldier from an observation post along the Border is a matter of utmost gravity. It must be thoroughly investigated and every effort made to have the full truth established. If part of that truth can only be established from this side of the Border, and by the Garda, then it is obligatory for us to pursue that course of action.

Incidents along the Border are and must be a matter of legitimate interest and concern to the Garda who have a special responsibility for Border security. In circumstances where many of the witnesses permanently reside on this side of or near the Border, it is entirely appropriate that the Garda should take statements from them. If there are witnesses who for whatever reason which they consider valid are unwilling to give evidence to the RUC, then that evidence should be assembled by the Garda in order to establish the full truth as far as it is possible to do so.

During our recent debate here on the Stalker Sampson report, many Deputies made the point that the handling of that affair by the British authorities would cast a shadow over the credibility of future investigations of fatal incidents involving the security forces in Northern Ireland. That was a perfectly valid argument. In these circumstances does anyone expect Northern Nationalists to accept that their only knowledge of this killing should come from an internal inquiry in Northern Ireland? Are they not entitled to expect that our security forces who are on the scene would attempt independently to find out as much as they possibly could about this happening which took place within yards of the Border? Having regard to the feelings of anger and outrage that followed the decision by the British Attorney General in regard to the Stalker report, an inquiry by the Garda was obviously necessary.

A question has been raised about the establishment of this inquiry when the matter could be pursued through the Anglo-Irish Secretariat. In fact, full use was and is being made of the Secretariat since the incident occurred, and it has been the point of contact between the two Governments.

No-one would claim that policing in areas of the North close to the Border, including the area where this killing took place, is policing as we know it here or as it is known, say, in England, Scotland or Wales or, indeed, in any normal democratic society. For security reasons the RUC are, to a great extent, unable to patrol openly and with the same access to people and places as other police forces. I know the dangers to which members of the RUC are subject in many areas but the fact is that policing along the Northern side of the Border is, of necessity, of a restricted nature. In addition to that is the fact that the RUC in many areas, certainly along the Border and the area where this incident occurred, do not enjoy the confidence of many people in the Nationalist community. Many people will not co-operate with the RUC even, possibly even particularly, when a matter which touches them so deeply as this, the McAnespie killing, is involved.

It is clear that in relation to this killing there is much information available in this area which would not be properly reported and recorded were it not for the institution of the Garda inquiry. We have an interest in knowing all the facts relevant to this case, so far as the Garda can ascertain them. We know that there are certain vital matters that the inquiry will not be in a position to cover, but there may well be other facts, just as vital, that can be established by the Garda inquiry and that could be established in no other way.

The Government statement establishing the inquiry made clear that the Deputy Commissioner would "take statements and obtain information from all persons willing and able to assist". Deputy Commissioner Crowley is a very senior and most experienced Garda officer and no one is in a better position to decide who should or should not be interviewed for the purposes of the inquiry, and what weight should be given to each piece of evidence that is put before him. In any Garda investigation information or evidence may come from many different sources. If these sources were to be restricted in this or any other case according to the acceptability of the informant, then a full investigation would often be impossible. I categorically reject as irresponsible, and indeed, detrimental, to our security interests the criticisms which have been made in this connection.

No terms of reference other than those given for the Garda inquiry, would have been credible. The Government could not possibly exclude from the scope of the inquiry any person or piece of evidence which might be relevant. To have done so would have constituted political interference with the work of the inquiry. We would have been rightly and severely criticised by Dáil Éireann in such circumstances.

The Garda authorities have informed me that Deputy Commissioner Crowley is getting a great deal of co-operation from the people of the locality and has taken a number of statements from the people who were in the vicinity at the time of the shooting or who have other relevant information to volunteer. It is not possible at this stage to say when this inquiry will be completed. Deputies will appreciate that it is proceeding carefully and methodically and that this takes time. It will be made available to the Government as soon as possible and the Government will then consider the report and decide on whatever further action is necessary. An undertaking has already been given to private citizens who have made, or are prepared to make statements, that anything they say will be treated as confidential should they so wish. I repeat that undertaking here.

It is the Government's view that not only are the Garda absolutely entitled to conduct this inquiry, to provide information on the killing, but that they have the duty to do so. The Garda inquiry was instituted for the purpose of constructing as complete a picture as possible of the event and to provide as much information relating to it, as quickly as possible, to the Government.

At an early stage, the Deputy Commissioner conducting the Garda inquiry was approached by members of the McAnespie family with the request that the body, which had been buried in a cemetery on this side of the Border, should be exhumed and submitted to a further post mortem examination by a pathologist here. The family had not been represented at the post mortem carried out by the British authorities and had been given to understand that they would not be supplied with a copy of the autopsy report until after all the legal proceedings had taken place — which could be expected to take several months at least. In these circumstances the Government felt that the family's request was reasonable and the relevant provisions of the Coroners Act, 1962, were put into effect. The Minister for Justice decided that the necessary exhumation order should be granted on the basis that it is in the interests, not of the family alone but in the public interest, that the nature of the injury sustained by the deceased should be established to everybody's satisfaction, so far as it is possible to do this. An exhumation of a body is a traumatic and extremely distressful event for all concerned. I need hardly say that it is a matter that is never undertaken lightly. I am satisfied that had the second independent post mortem not been allowed to take place, questions would continue to be asked and the nature of the cause of death would have remained one of controversy for a very long time. There are two points I would like to emphasise. First, I wish to repeat that the question of exhumation was raised in the first instance by the family and that it was to the family's request that the Government acceded. Secondly, our law provides for exhumation when the body is buried in our jurisdiction in circumstances of this kind.

The examination has been carried out by the State Pathologist of this State in the presence of a medical practitioner nominated by the family. His report has not yet been finalised. It will of course be made available to the Government as soon as possible.

The extraordinarily early release of Pirvate Thain and his return to duty in the British army naturally have raised the most serious concern in Northern Ireland and throughout this country. Given the small number of prosecutions taken against members of the security forces — indeed, Private Thain is, I believe, the only British soldier ever to be convicted of murder while on duty in Northern Ireland — this concern is understandable.

The shooting of unarmed civilians by the security forces cannot be tolerated. Nothing less than the fullest possible investigation and explanation of the circumstances, followed by appropriate legal action in each case can be accepted. It is regrettable to have to say it but it must be said, that a number of events and circumstances, the allegations of a "shoot-to-kill" policy investigated by Mr. Stalker, the early release of Private Thain and the shooting at Aughnacloy, have combined to create the impression that the security forces are above the law. Any such impression among the public in Northern Ireland must have disastrous consequences on the community and impinge on every aspect of British policy for the administration of justice in Northern Ireland.

Confidence in the rule of law and in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland is necessary, if the cause of peace and reconciliation there is ever to be advanced. This Government believe that in establishing an inquiry with the objective of helping to establish the truth, they have made an important contribution to that end. I will, of course, listen with great care to what the party leaders may have to say on this issue.

Mr. Dukes

It has been very useful for us to have the information the Taoiseach has given in his statement. I would like to add that the innovation we have made in the course of providing for these statements, that the Taoiseach would have an opportunity to reply at the end, is a very useful one and one which we could bear in mind for other occasions also. The first point I wish to make about the Taoiseach's statement is that I am very glad to note that use is being made of the channels and the structures that are set up under the Anglo-Irish Agreement because, in a certain sense, they were designed with this kind of mutual exchange of information in mind.

All the reports we have had so far about this incident — the Taoiseach has indicated it a little more fully here today than it has been set out so far — are agreed on a certain number of points. Mr. McAnespie parked his car on the northern side of the Border; he walked past the checkpoint at Aughnacloy, apparently without any incident and he was struck and fatally injured by a bullet as he was walking towards the southern side of the Border. There is no indication — and perhaps this is something the Taoiseach could confirm in reply to these statements — that he was challenged, requested to stop or asked to turn back. There is no indication that there was any objection or query raised in any way to his crossing the Border at that time. He worked in Monaghan town and under our law he was a citizen of this State. His death, in the circumstances that have been described here, is therefore a very legitimate matter of concern for this House, for our Government and for the people of this country.

The shooting did not happen in our jurisdiction but in the jurisdiction of a country which has signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement and which has accepted Article 2 and Article 7 (b) of that agreement. I think it would be useful to point out, not so much for people in this House but for people outside, what the provisions of Article 7 (b) of that agreement contain. It states: "The Conference shall consider the security situation at its regular meetings and thus provide an opportunity to address policy issues, serious incidents and forthcoming events." Apart from any other provision of the agreement, that provision clearly establishes the Irish Government's right to be informed about incidents of this kind and it establishes that right clearly within the framework of the agreement. As I have said, that is something which people outside this House, who have been commenting in recent days on the involvement of the Garda in an inquiry, must bear in mind and it is something that must be borne in mind particularly by our counterparts in Westminster. I hope all of us take advantage of whatever opportunities we have to make that point clear beyond any doubt.

It is not the immediate or direct responsibility of our authorities to investigate this shooting to a conclusion; that responsibility lies in another jurisdiction and is to discover the full circumstances of the incident, to determine responsibility and to take any action which may appear justified in the light of those circumstances and that responsibility. The process has begun and we must acknowledge that. It must be followed up and the Government must keep insisting, through the mechanisms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, that it be properly followed up and brought to a proper and full conclusion, whatever that conclusion might be.

There is no record so far that I am aware as to how many other people were in the vicinity at the time of this shooting. Apart from any other aspect of this matter, Mr. McAnespie obviously was not the only person crossing the Border to go to the football match on the day in question. I wonder if at this stage there is any information available to indicate how many other people were at risk on that occasion. That does not in any way affect the gravity of the shooting dead of an unarmed person but we are entitled to know, and it is material to the whole investigation, how many other people might have been at risk as a result of that incident.

I have raised a number of questions about the inquiry being carried out by the Deputy Commissioner of the Garda Síochána and the Taoiseach has addressed a number of those questions today. The first question is what is the Deputy Commissioner's remit; secondly, what is to be done with his report and, thirdly, what role, if any, the Anglo-Irish Secretariat is playing in this affair? In relation to the remit, I would have to ask why it was decided to put a Deputy Commissioner of the Garda Síochána specifically in charge, on a day-to-day basis, of this inquiry. There is an aspect to that which I will come back to later. It seems it is fair to ask the question why it was not an officer at a lower level under the direct supervision of a Deputy Commissioner who was put in charge of the inquiry. Any investigation of this kind would be carried out in any case under the supervision of a very senior officer. I would like to know why it was decided in this case to put a Deputy Commissioner in charge and associate him so closely, directly and personally, with the inquiry. I ask that question not to discover anything about the Deputy Commissioner, a man worthy of the full confidence of this House, but to ask why an officer at that level was chosen to carry out the inquiry in this way.

If the remit of the inquiry is to investigate the immediate circumstances of the shooting, then it is clear that the inquiry can only be incomplete since the Deputy Commissioner will be unable to get statements from members of the security forces in Northern Ireland and he can have no direct access, by his own efforts, to forensic evidence of any kind. In that connection, it appears from reports in the media that the post mortem examination carried out on the remains of Mr. McAnespie by the Chief State Pathologist was not of any material assistance in elucidating the question of whether Mr. McAnespie was killed by a ricochet or a bullet fired directly at him. There is, of course, only one channel through which the Deputy Commissioner or anyone else here can have access to that kind of information and that is through the structures set up by the agreement and through cross-Border security co-operation. I want to emphasise again that those channels must be used to the full by the Government in this case.

It is understandable and right that we should have reservations about the explanation that Mr. McAnespie was killed by a bullet which ricocheted off the road. We have a right to have serious reservations about the explanation that one member of the security forces was demonstrating to another that his weapon was clear. Most of us will be familiar from the outside with those structures. One of their features is that the field of fire is carefully selected but the apertures and sizes of the firing points are such as to make it, on the whole, unlikely that any accident or accidental discharge of a weapon taking place inside could home in and target on a person on the road some hundreds of yards away from the point it happened. Until there is a good deal more information about that, we will all be entitled to have serious question marks in our minds about the suggestion that the death was caused by a ricochet.

The Deputy Commissioner can get eye witness reports of the incident and statements about the general conduct of the British army at that checkpoint and the general conduct of the RUC in the area. I understand he has had a number of statements about such matters which may or may not provide useful background to an investigation that has access to the full facts of what happened inside the post. On the basis of media reports it seems the Deputy Commissioner had got a series of such statements but that they have not been of any great assistance in helping to determine whether the killing was deliberate or accidental.

The question then arises, what is to be done with the results of the Deputy Commissioner's inquiry when he has satisfied himself that there is no further information to be gleaned from the kind of operation in which he is involved at the moment? On this point the Taoiseach was not very forthcoming, limiting himself to saying that the results of the inquiry would be made available to the Government as soon as possible and that the Government would then consider the report and decide on whatever further action is necessary. If the Deputy Commissioner's inquiry is to have any point, the results must be made available to those in charge of the investigation on the other side of the Border so that they can use any useful information in elucidating any aspects of the affair to bring it to its proper conclusion. In that connection I am somewhat taken aback by a point made by the Taoiseach in his statement. He said:

An undertaking has already been given to private citizens who have made, or are prepared to make, statements that anything they say will be treated as confidential should they so wish. I repeat that undertaking here.

I can understand why a number of people who might make statements to the Garda Síochána would wish to be anonymous and I hope that is what the Taoiseach means, but if there are people who wish to remain anonymous I still would not be persuaded that any information they might anonymously give might be regarded as confidential and not to be used in the furtherance of this inquiry. I would like to ask if the Taoiseach meant to convey that some information would not be passed on at the request of individuals or whether — and I think this would be understandable — persons who make statements would not be identified. The latter is the more useful and correct course of action.

The Taoiseach also said:

If there are witnesses who for whatever reason, which they consider valid, are unwilling to give evidence to the RUC, then that evidence should be assembled by the Garda in order to establish the full truth as far as it is possible to do so.

I understand that perfectly. I can imagine numbers of people would be hesitant about going directly to the RUC, and if a Garda inquiry can help to bring out information which would otherwise not be made available, then the results can only be useful, subject to the qualification and the concern that any such information should be passed on, with due respect and regard to the anonymity of the sources, to the people who have to carry this inquiry because, as I said, the only jurisdiction where that inquiry can be fully carried out and the proper conclusions drawn is in Northern Ireland, not here.

In the course of carrying out his inquiry the Deputy Commissioner has been put in the position of meeting two prominent members of Sinn Féin. Again, I come back to my question why a Deputy Commissioner was asked to carry out this inquiry. It is clear beyond any doubt that a Garda officer conducting an inquiry cannot refuse information from any source. It would be a perversion of the role of the Garda to suggest that information should be refused. The nature of any source is something that has to be evaluated by the officer carrying out the inquiry. I take the view that it was undesirable and unnecessary to create a situation where a Deputy Commissioner, the second highest rank of the Garda Síochána, had to interview members of Sinn Féin, an interview which he could not refuse but which could potentially be used for propaganda purposes. The propaganda value that might come from such an interview would be minimal if the inquiry were being carried by a superintendent or a chief superintendent. The position of Deputy Commissioner should not be exposed to that kind of possible manipulation.

It is clear that the Deputy Commissioner's report will be inconclusive, and I say that without any reflection on the ability or dedication of the Deputy Commissioner but because, in the nature of things, there are certain key pieces of information to which he will not have access through the normal investigation process. That information which he would need to make his inquiry complete can come from only one source and that is the Northern Ireland security authorities and those in Northern Ireland who are carrying out the investigation. We need to have that information because the case concerned a person who, in our law, was a citizen of our State, walking across the Border, going about normal, legitimate business, apparently unchallenged at the time, not subject to any question, request to turn back, or request to be interviewed by the security authorities. That is clearly a case in which we have the most direct and immediate interest. It must be treated in that way. It must be treated in that way by both sides to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. If the Deputy Commissioner's report is such that it adds useful elements to the overall inquiry then it must be passed on through the mechanisms set up by the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

I must agree with the Taoiseach in his statement to the effect that the security forces cannot be regarded as being above the law. Unfortunately, this is the second occasion in recent weeks on which we in this House have felt obliged to make that point. In this case I am glad to see that the first steps have been taken in carrying out an inquiry. As the Taoiseach has pointed out — and indeed it happened fairly quickly — a member of the British security forces has been detained and charged. Our concern and the principal concern of our Government must be to ensure that that inquiry is fully and properly carried out. Our Government must ensure that, on every occasion when it is appropriate to do so and when the Government are in a position to do so, they make that point forcibly.

Miss Kennedy

I should like, first, to protest most strongly on behalf of the Progressive Democrats about the form of the so-called debate in the House today on the serious shooting incident in Aughnacloy in which Aidan McAnespie was killed last Sunday week and the implications of events surrounding it for the administration of justice in the North and for the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

The Taoiseach gave a specific commitment to Deputy Dukes on the Order of Business in the Dáil on Wednesday last that the Opposition parties would be entitled to and given time to examine aspects of the Garda inquiry into the shooting of Mr. McAnespie at Aughnacloy. The Taoiseach said on Wednesday last:

There are questions down to me which will be taken next Tuesday and I propose to make a fairly substantial statement in reply to those questions.

I had tabled questions to the Taoiseach which, if answered, would have allowed for a more informed debate in the House today. Instead of a questions and answers session which we were promised — and which would have elicited some information from the Government — we are presented once again with statements to the House. The decision to have this so-called debate in the form of statements rather than questions to and answers from the Taoiseach was taken unilaterally by the Government and outside of the Whips' meetings. This statements procedure, which is creeping into the business of the House more and more each month, is a most unsatisfactory form of debate in that, in effect, it allows for no debate at all since the Government have to come forward with no immediate answers. In the context of Anglo-Irish affairs alone this statements format was used twice in regard to the Stalker/Sampson affair recently and again here today. Effectively it means that this House is not entitled to ask the Government direct questions about matters pertinent to their decisions.

I hereby give notice, on behalf of the parliamentary party of the Progressive Democrats, that we will not agree to the Order of Business if this statements procedure is trotted out as the only method of posing questions to the Government on important issues of the day. To a large extent the procedure is a charade. Normally it produces no information because the Government are not obliged to answer any direct questions.

I have mixed feelings about the Garda inquiry set up by the Government into the McAnespie incident. I do not question for one moment — I want this to be absolutely clear — the right of our sovereign Government to set up a Garda inquiry into any incident. I want to make that absolutely clear before continuing. I want to raise serious questions on different related matters.

Aidan McAnespie was shot in extremely suspicious circumstances on Sunday week last. In the next day's papers the Government said they would be demanding a report on the shooting within the context of the Anglo-Irish Conference. However, a day later, the Government decided to set up their own separate Garda inquiry into the shooting.

The questions I want to put to the Taoiseach and the Government today are: first, did the Government fail to get a satisfactory response from the Anglo-Irish Secretariat to their legitimate inquiries about the shooting of an Irish citizen between Sunday and the establishment of the Garda inquiry on Monday, the following day? Second, why did the Government decide within 30 or so hours of the shooting incident to send Deputy Commissioner Eugene Crowley — the man responsible for Border security and liaising with the RUC — to carry out his own investigation and inquiry? Third, was it because of the lack of co-operation from the Anglo-Irish Secretariat that the Government felt it necessary to send the Deputy Commissioner to conduct our inquiry into the incident or, another theory advanced by many people, were the Government merely playing a green card in the circumstances?

The most important questions posed by the Government's sudden decision to set up a Garda inquiry are: first, what was the remit of the inquiry and what did the Government hope to achieve by it? Second, what were the precise terms of reference of the inquiry and, third, what will become of the result of the inquiry? This last is the most important question in the context of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I hope that the results of the Garda inquiry, when completed, will be handed over to the RUC.

It is disturbing to read in The Irish Times today the Government statement about week-end developments on the McAnespie incident stating that the Minister for Justice had acceded to the family's request to have the body of the deceased exhumed and examined by the State Pathologist, Dr. Harbison and that a report on the post mortem examination of the body by the State Pathologist will be supplied to the McAnespie family. I notice that the Taoiseach said in the course of his remarks today that a report on the post mortem examination of the body will now be supplied to the Government and that a commitment is given to private citizens that their confidentiality will be respected. I wonder, in respect of the Garda inquiry, in the context of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, whether that is a wise decision. I should like the Taoiseach to address this point when answering the debate.

Given that the Government have embarked on a course of conducting a separate Garda inquiry I believe it is vital, in the current climate of Nationalist lack of confidence in the administration of justice, that the Government should be able to establish whether the fatal bullet which killed Aidan McAnespie was a ricochet or a direct hit. What part of his body did it hit? One must pose the question: did the Government seek to establish these facts at last Wednesday's full meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference in Iveagh House in Dublin? Did they fail to establish those facts? Furthermore, are the results of the first postmortem carried out in the North available to the Government at this stage or will they be made available through the Anglo-Irish Conference?

It is reported in today's papers that the findings of the week-end autopsy conducted by the State Pathologist, Dr. Harbison, are still inconclusive and that Dr. Harbison will be seeking access to the RUC photographs of the body taken immediately after the fatal shooting. Is this the case? Have the Government now sought access to RUC photographs and is such access to be granted within the context of the Anglo-Irish Conference or outside it?

Once again there is clear evidence from the Government's handling of the McAnespie incident, that they are failing to make the Anglo-Irish Agreement and, now, the Anglo-Irish Conference Secretariat work to their full potential. There is serious concern in many quarters that, by degrees, the Government are returning to the days of megaphone diplomacy when there was no Anglo-Irish Agreement in existence. There is serious concern that the Government are, quite frankly, allowing the Anglo-Irish Agreement to wither away. If any other conclusion should be reached by the onlooker at last week's events, the Taoiseach has a clear obligation to report to the Dáil on the nature of the impasse on administration of justice issues under the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

There is concern in this House also about the decision of the Deputy Commissioner of the Garda Síochána, Mr. Eugene Crowley, to meet a deputation of Sinn Féin councillors, the Chairman of Fermanagh District Council and a Monaghan councillor.

I noted that the Taoiseach had the following to say in the course of his remarks today:

In circumstances where many of the witnesses permanently reside on this side of or near the Border, it is entirely appropriate that the gardaí should take statements from them.

I agree with those remarks. Most people's fear is that these Sinn Féin representatives were met by the Deputy Commissioner of the Garda Síochána as a Sinn Féin political deputation for their propaganda purposes but not as eye witnesses to the McAnespie shooting. In replying I should like the Taoiseach to clarify and elaborate on the important questions I have posed.

The statement format being followed today — despite the fact that the Taoiseach will reply later — is a most unsatisfactory method of having questions and answers in this House on important matters.

Mr. Spring

I should like to begin by expressing my sympathy to the family of Aidan McAnespie whose tragic death motivated this debate here today. Despite what others have said, there is, as yet, no way for us to know whether his death was murder or the result of a grotesque accident. We cannot prejudge that. We know that it was a tragedy for his grieving family and the community of which he was a member. We must take the time to ensure that the community know they have our sympathy and solidarity here today. It was a tragedy too for Anglo-Irish relations which had been tottering on the brink of calamity for some weeks now. Those relations have been damaged further by this incident and by the stories of continued harassment which we are hearing in connection with this shooting.

The question which has been in most minds ever since our Government announced they were setting up their own investigation into the shooting is why our Government felt that was necessary. Until the Taoiseach spoke in this debate no answer to that question was set out. We were left to draw our own conclusions. Now that he has spoken, we are not a great deal wiser in relation to the reasons. It remains the case that there are only two possible conclusions that can be drawn.

The first possibility is that the investigation into this killing was initiated because the Irish Government felt that the British authorities or those in charge of the investigation in the North could not be trusted to make certain that the full truth came out. It may or may not be the case that the lack of trust was warranted. On the one hand it is certainly true to say that the experiences of the past few weeks, and especially the running sore of the Stalker affair, do not give rise to any degree of confidence that the British will prosecute in situations like this, whatever the odds might be. It is clear too that the information which became available last week that a member of the security forces who had been convicted of murder had been released after a very short time and was back in the British army again illustrates the appalling insensitivity of which the British establishment are capable. On the other hand, the fact that a person has already been charged may lead us to the conclusion that there were some lessons learned on the British side.

Having regard to these factors, it is important that the full reason for initiating the investigation be spelt out to the House. It is deeply regrettable that it has not been, because in the absence of any full reason, the second possible conclusion I mentioned must be considered, and it is this. It is possible that the decision to initiate this investigation was no more than a gratuitous knee-jerk response to the situation, particularly given the statement that had proceeded it 24 hours earlier. It is possible that the Irish Government thought there would be propaganda value in letting it be known or thought that the Irish people had no faith in the RUC and that they chose this mechanism for doing so. If the latter is the case, then clearly relations between the two Governments are in even a worse state that we thought. This kind of approach, if this is the motivation, bodes very ill indeed for future cross-Border co-operation at all levels. I know full well that if the shoe was on the other foot and if the RUC announced that they were going to undertake an investigation into an accident on this side of the Border, we would need a great deal of convincing about the reasons for that decision if we were not to draw the inference that our security forces were being deliberately insulted.

Given all of this, I must seriously question the wisdom of this kind of investigation without a full spelling out of the reasons for it. I should not like anyone to infer from this that I am questioning the right of the Government to set up an investigation anywhere they see fit within our jurisdiction. Clearly the Government do have that right but in situations like this they also have the obligation to spell out very clearly why it is being done. We have the right to demand assurances in relation to this investigation.

The first assurance we must seek here is that any and all the results of this investigation will be used to ensure that justice is done in this case. The only way in which that can happen is that whatever information is gathered must so far as possible be given to those who are prosecuting this case in the courts. The second assurance we must seek is that in the fullness of time a full report will be made to this House outlining the conclusions that the Government have reached as a result of this investigation. I am not asking that the Garda investigation per se be published, particularly as such publication might prove prejudicial to the notion of justice being done in the case, but I regard the statement made by the Taoiseach today as an interim one and I expect him to come back to the House when he and the Government have reached a conclusion in the matter.

There is an additional point I have to make. Many of us were taken aback by the news that evidence had been given to this inquiry by members of Provisional Sinn Féin. I do not here question the right of the Deputy Commissioner to take such evidence; he must gather information as he finds it. I feel sure he will accord that evidence only the weight that is appropriate. In this context perhaps we in this House should congratulate the Deputy Commissioner for persuading Sinn Féin to recognise for the first time the legitimacy of the Garda Síochána as an organ of this State. Perhaps now that they have shown themselves willing to give evidence in this case we can expect them to come forward and tell us what they know about the shameful murders in Enniskillen.

In general, relations between the two Governments and the two communities are now fraught with extreme danger. Therefore, I will conclude by calling on the Government to make every effort to ensure that some good comes out of this whole fiasco. It is clear that there is a mood among the Unionist community for change and progress. I applaud the sentiments of the Taoiseach in recent times in expressing a willingness to meet and talk with them in any form that can be organised. If this is a serious offer he will have my full support in any initiative he takes to push such talks forward. It is an objective worth taking risks for and it would make the troubles of recent times worthwhile if real dialogue were to begin.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I wish to associate myself with the message of sympathy the other Deputies expressed to the McAnespie family. The Dáil finds itself again discussing a series of incidents which have bedevilled Anglo-Irish relations since Christmas and which have made an already difficult situation in Northern Ireland even more complicated and confusing. First we had the Stalker affair, then the Birmingham Six case and the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and now the killing of Aidan McAnespie and the early release of Private Thain.

The first thing that must be said is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to accept that these are a most unusual series of coincidences which happened to take place at around the same time. After all, the Stalker-Sampson investigation and report and the decision not to publish and not to prosecute were all made and timed by the British Government. Similarly, the decision to hold an appeal on the Birmingham Six, when to hold it, what the court should decide and when it should give its verdict were also decisions which were made and timed by the British Government, directly or indirectly. Lord Denning made it clear that the verdict was preordained. It was also the British Government who decided that the Prevention of Terrorism Act should be made permanent. They agreed on the release of Private Thain and they also, one assumes, agreed that he should be allowed back into the British Army and also, one thinks, they leaked the information at the most appropriate time to make the maximum impact on Anglo-Irish relations. Only the killing of Aidan McAnespie was not planned and timed by the British Government. We wonder what is next.

The whole pattern is a grave cause for concern, especially when we see the enormous quantity of arms which are apparently being freely supplied to both Provos and Loyalist paramilitaries. We have got to ask who is planning what, and why. It is right that the Dáil and people should be concerned about the circumstances of the shooting of Aidan McAnespie at Aughnacloy on Sunday week. We have quite rightly been concerned about the difficulty of Irish people getting fair trials in Britain due to the atmosphere of prejudice and intolerance that has been promoted there, especially by sections of the British media. We must now be careful not to fall into the same trap of prejudice and intolerance of which we accuse the British. A British soldier has now been charged with the unlawful killing of Mr. McAnespie and he is entitled to the same fair trial and hearing as any other person. However, it is imperative that all the circumstances of the shooting are revealed at the trial and that there is no attempt at a cover-up on the part of the British security forces in Northern Ireland.

I presume that the decision of the Government to request the Deputy Commissioner of the Garda, Mr. Eugene Crowley, to conduct an investigation into the shooting of Mr. McAnespie was designed to reassure Nationalist opinion in the North of their concern at the shooting and also to gather whatever evidence they could in order to be in a position to check the veracity of the RUC investigation. It was clear that Mr. Crowley's investigation would be necessarily incomplete and likely to be inconclusive. Mr. Crowley was clearly not going to have access to the sort of forensic evidence that is always crucial in determining the circumstances of a shooting like this. He could not interview the person who had admitted to firing the weapon. He could not inspect the weapon for defects nor could he even inspect the scene of the shooting. It is possible however, that Deputy Commissioner Crowley may come across some evidence which, when taken in conjunction with the evidence gathered by the Authorities in Northern Ireland, may be helpful in disclosing the full details of the shooting. If this is so I hope that, bearing the confidentiality of the sources in mind, as mentioned by the Taoiseach, any such evidence will be passed to the Authorities in Northern Ireland. If this were done it would help to assure Unionists that the purpose of the inquiry is to arrive at the truth and not simply to annoy Unionists or the British.

If this co-operation were shown we should expect a return of co-operation and to receive from the RUC photographic or forensic evidence which they have in the case so that the whole matter would be open and above board, the way it should be. In cases such as this it is most important that both police forces co-operate in investigating the facts and then presenting these to the appropriate Authorities for prosecution if such is merited.

The public concern about the shooting of Mr. McAnespie was exacerbated by the disclosure that Private Robert Thain had been released after serving just three years of a life sentence imposed for the murder of Thomas Reilly in Belfast in 1983. The decision on early release was not in itself necessarily wrong. Indeed the policy of early release of persons convicted of crimes of violence who show genuine remorse and a determination not to be involved again has much to recommend it. However, there are very many people in jail in Northern Ireland and in Britain who have shown genuine remorse for their actions, who have cut all links with paramilitary groups but who have not been shown the same sympathetic treatment as Private Thain.

There are many, particularly those who committed crimes when young and who were given indefinite sentences, who have served 15 years or more for crimes which were certainly no worse than that of Private Thain. Whatever justification there may have been for the early release, there was absolutely none for the decision to take him back into the British Army as if nothing had happened. This makes an absolute mockery of the law and shows the total contempt by both the British Government and the British Army for the decision of the court and for the feelings of Mr. O'Reilly's family.

In considering individual instances like the Aughnacloy killing or the release of Private Thain, which remain matters of great concern, it is important that we should not lose sight of the overall problem in Northern Ireland and the need to vigorously pursue the search for peace. It is also important to remember that those who have been responsible for the overwhelming majority of death and destruction in Northern Ireland since 1971 have been the Provisional IRA. Only last week they claimed another two victims, two young Protestant workers, James Cummings and Frederick Starret, who were members of the UDR and two young members of their own yesterday in a bomb explosion. Despite all the problems of the past few months there have been some indications of the possibility of political progress in Northern Ireland and the Unionist parties have in particular shown cautious signs that they are preparing to adopt a more flexible position, but there is need for a similar flexibility among other democratic parties in Northern Ireland and on the part of the Dublin Government.

The immediate aim for those who want to see peace and progress in Northern Ireland must be the establishment of democratic devolved Government. The building of democratic structures in Northern Ireland is a prerequisite for the establishment of peace and the elimination of terrorism. The development and implementation of a devolved administration in Northern Ireland would put the onus on local political parties there to engage in real politics and would penalise those who continue to indulge in the sectarian shadow boxing that many are trying to pass off as politics in Northern Ireland.

It is nearly three years since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, a main objective of which was the implementation of devolved government. It is time that the Governments in Dublin and London recognised that there is a considerable groundswell of opinion in Northern Ireland in favour of devolved government and an end to violence and that democratic structures be established, guaranteeing equal rights and liberties to all citizens. The longer Northern Ireland is denied some sort of democratic political structure the more terrorism will be allowed to divide the community. The longer democracy is denied to Northern Ireland the louder the gunman and bombers will claim victory. Democratic parties, North and South must support the demands for devolved government. It is the only way to move forward to secure peace and bring an end to the violence and destruction which have been inflicted on the North for almost 20 years. The Government should be playing a positive and constructive role in bringing this about. If the Anglo-Irish Agreement is hindering progress in this direction it should be set aside, the priority must be peace and democracy.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Tuesday, 1 Mar 1988

Aughnacloy, Tyrone, Shooting: Statements.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 1 Mar 1988