Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 5 Nov 2002

Vol. 556 No. 3

Leaders' Questions.

The Omagh bombing was the single worst atrocity of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, leaving 31 innocent people dead, including unborn twins, and many more sustaining horrific injuries. The grief of the families has been exacerbated by the numerous and conflicting allegations about what was known about this attack by the authorities North and South of the Border. In recent weeks there have been further allegations and confusion. There has been a major television documentary on the issue and there was a major newspaper report last weekend.

In view of the fact that the Taoiseach has confirmed that there was no formal ministerial contacts between his Government and the Real IRA, will he indicate if there was any informal contact, either with somebody nominated by him or by his then special adviser on Northern Ireland? Will he confirm that charges against seven men who were prime suspects in the Omagh bombing were brought about as a consequence of voluntary confessions? Will he indicate if these charges were subsequently dropped and, if so, why and on whose authority? Is he happy that the distinction in the division of powers legislation is as it should be?

A number of suggestions and allegations concerning the Omagh bombing were made in a newspaper last weekend and in a recent television programme. I would like to address them all but it would take me some time to do so. At the outset I wish to address a vital point by again repeating that no deal was done by the Government with the Real IRA, either directly or indirectly, in return for a ceasefire. The allegation is as outrageous as it is deeply offensive. The evidence is entirely to the contrary. The ceasefire announcement on 7 September 1998 had nothing to do with anything on offer from the Government to the Real IRA because there was nothing on offer, either then, before that time or at any subsequent time. No member of the Government made contact with the Real IRA.

However, I can confirm that some weeks before the Omagh bombing efforts were made by my then special adviser, Senator Mansergh, in his contacts with the 32 County Sovereignty Committee to persuade it to use its good offices to bring the Real IRA campaign to an end. Unfortunately, these efforts failed. It is important to stress that in the lead-up to the Real IRA ceasefire in September 1998, no initiative for contact was made by my special adviser. It was not the case that Senator Mansergh organised secret talks about a ceasefire. It is my understanding that Fr. Alex Reid, who had already been instrumental in helping to bring about two IRA ceasefires, received an approach after the Omagh bombing from some of those associated with the Real IRA campaign. At subsequent meetings he took the opportunity to impress on them the need to stop and he reported some observations to my special adviser and took advice from him. I am entirely satisfied that Fr. Reid in all his contact emphasised that, regardless of a ceasefire, the Omagh bombers would be pursued and the law would take its course in regard to all other crimes committed before a ceasefire. Any security consequences arising from the real IRA ceasefire would have been a matter exclusively for the Garda Síochána.

There was no question at any time of instructing, or promising to instruct, the Garda to do other than conduct police operations as they judge right and appropriate in the circumstances facing them. In this connection, it is right to recognise that the Garda have done an outstanding job in pursuing those involved in real IRA activities. It is a matter of regret that two people who played a central role in brokering peace on this island, Senator Martin Mansergh and Fr. Alex Reid, should find themselves the subject of harmful innuendo concerning their role in the period following the Omagh outrage. They both acted at all times with commitment, honour and propriety in their efforts to contribute towards peace.

In relation to the last part of Deputy Kenny's question about those who were subsequently released on an offence, I have the details and assure the Deputy that nothing untoward happened in that case. I understand these allegations are the source of examination by some named outside officials. I think I have a note on that and I will pass it on.

I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. Can he confirm that the Garda crime and security section was aware of the theft of a black Mazda 626 in the early hours of 14 February 1998 for the purpose of carrying out a mortar attack? Can he also confirm that the Garda crime and security section was aware of the theft of a Fiat Punto in May 1998 on behalf of the Real IRA and that the thief was offered immunity in the event of being caught? Can he further confirm that the Garda crime and security section was aware of the arrest of four English tourists in a white BMW in order to protect the credibility and integrity of a Garda informant?

These are allegations that are causing confusion in the public mind. Will the Taoiseach take the opportunity to issue a more comprehensive and complete detailed statement on these matters? Finally, can I ask the Taoiseach—

Sorry Deputy, I would prefer if we stay within the new Standing Order.

(Interruptions.)

Of course it is important, but there is a new Standing Order and we have to operate it in fairness to other Deputies who will be submitting questions later on.

When the charges were dropped in respect of the seven men, was it on the instruction of the then DPP who is the same person carrying out the inquiry now? That is fundamental to the security of our State, Sir.

In relation to the last part of the Deputy's question, I have seen a note in regard to the seven which I will make public. I cannot put my hand on it now but it is part of the investigation. Most of the other points that were made in regard to the cars are all matters for the Garda and I cannot answer them because I do not have the details. I have details on many of the other issues and I will make a more detailed statement available on the points that have been made both in the TV programme and the news programme regarding the circumstances at that time.

Both Senator Mansergh and Fr. Alex Reid were involved throughout the 1990s in contacts with the political wings and those representing various paramilitary groups. They spent much of their time talking to these groups who were on ceasefire and also with the 32 County Sovereignty Movement. They also dealt with people from the loyalist community. The inference is that they were involved in some untoward deal acting indirectly, but I want to make it clear to the House that they were at all times working towards doing something useful, as were others.

I will pass on the other questions raised by Deputy Kenny to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform regarding the issues of the cars and the arrests.

Will the Taoiseach reveal if it is the Government's intention to amend the terms of reference of the Morris tribunal and to make some financial provision in line with the precedent in the haemophiliacs case for legal representation for the McBrearty family and others?

I do not wish to comment in any way on the sensational and grave allegations regarding it that have confounded most law abiding citizens. Does the Taoiseach not agree that there is a compelling case to have expressly included in the terms of reference the former Minister for Justice, the Garda Commissioner, the State Solicitor in Donegal and arguably the former Attorney General?

Is it not the case that Government spokespersons and the Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, last night on a television programme, have been seeking to give the impression that the terms of reference may only be amended if the sole member so requests? In fact, is it not the case that we passed a second item of legislation last year which again expressly provided for consultation between the Attorney General and the tribunal and that where the tribunal consents, amendments can be made to the terms of reference? Is it the intention of the Taoiseach to use that facility specifically designed for this kind of circumstance to make those other key personages amenable to the tribunal?

Is it not correct that the former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was put in possession of information going back more than three years by my colleague, Deputy Howlin and former Deputy, Jim Higgins? Is it not the case that no effective action was taken by the Minister and that may be why he was so anxious to flee the Department?

Deputy Rabbitte has raised two issues, the first of which relates to the matter of costs. As I understand it, costs are at the discretion of the tribunal. The norm in tribunals is that this position is made at the end, but it is open to any party, as has been pointed out to the McBreartys, to make the case to the tribunal. If it is deemed necessary to change the terms of reference in that regard they can ask us to do so.

It is correct to say that the terms of reference were decided by the House based on the recommendations of a senior counsel who advised us on it. The tribunal said that it would consider arguments or submissions for the extension of the terms of reference. There is provision in the Tribunal of Inquiries Acts for an extension of the terms of reference upon request by a tribunal. In this case the terms of reference have been raised by Mr. McBrearty with the tribunal, which has indicated it is open to considering it. In the circumstances it would not be appropriate for Government to pre-empt the tribunal at the request of one individual, so I do not have any proposal at this stage to change it.

Anyone whom the tribunal wishes to bring forward, as in all the tribunals governed by legislation, can be asked to appear. Just because one is not listed in the terms of reference does not mean one is precluded from it. If Mr. Justice Morris believes he does not have that power it is open to him to ask us to do it. My advice is that there is not a difficulty with either issue at this stage. If a difficulty arises, Mr. Justice Morris will ask for his terms of reference to be amended and the House will do so.

Is it the case in regard to the Lindsay tribunal that when interested parties sought expansion of terms of reference, they were told it was too early and to wait and see and that when they raised the issue again during the tribunal, they were told it was too late? Does the Taoiseach understand the issues involved? I do not want to repeat the gravity or scope of the allegations, but if the McBrearty family does not have the financial wherewithal to be legally represented, why can the same arrangement not be made that was made in the case of haemophiliacs?

How can the Taoiseach say he has no intention to amend the terms of reference having regard to what has come into the public domain and given that it is anticipated more information and allegations will come into the public domain? How can he exclude the former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who voted down in this House a joint motion tabled by the Labour Party, Fine Gael and the Green Party on 21 November last year, thus preventing a tribunal of inquiry?

The Deputy's minute has concluded.

What is the point in embarking on a two year tribunal of inquiry at considerable public expense if it is not seen to be effective and excludes the main parties involved, against whom the most serious wrongs appear to have been perpetrated?

I ask the Deputy to stay within the terms of the Standing Order.

I also do not want to comment about the seriousness or gravity of the issues before the Morris tribunal. I reiterate our position, about which Deputy Rabbitte asked. Under the Acts the awarding of costs is a matter for the tribunal, not for the Minister. The Acts provide that persons can be awarded or denied their costs or, in certain circumstances, be required to pay the costs of the tribunals. These legal provisions are regarded as of major significance to the tribunal's capacity to function effectively and secure full co-operation from the relevant parties.

This was put in a different formulation in an Act passed in 1998. It would be almost impossible to distinguish between different witnesses and interested parties in making a decision to pay their costs in advance. In these circumstances it is not possible to select one potential witness or interested party for special treatment in regard to the costs issue. However, I have no doubt that McBrearty family members want to fully co-operate with the tribunal and that, therefore, they should seek that their costs be paid. I checked this issue earlier and it is only in extraordinary cases of non-co-operation that tribunals do not pay costs.

The real issue is the terms of reference.

The Deputy is out of order.

What went on in County Donegal was also out of order.

The Deputy is aware we have had leaders' questions for a number of years and leaders have always stayed within the terms of the Standing Order.

Is it the Government's intention to axe 13,000 community employment scheme places, in flagrant breach of commitments made in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness? The Taoiseach will be aware of the value of such schemes to the countless number of community projects throughout every constituency and the damaging effect that the axing of these jobs will have on such projects, the communities they serve and, very particularly, the position of the people concerned. What plans does the Taoiseach have to offer alternatives, both to the community projects and the 13,000 gravely concerned about their positions?

It is not true that the number of places is being cut by 13,000. The year end figure for community employment scheme places is 25,000 with more than 10,000 involved in the various training schemes. I hope the good work of CE schemes in priority areas will continue.

I am even more alarmed at the Taoiseach's response. He said the figure was not 13,000, but did not say how many thousands would be directly affected and how many community group projects savaged as a result.

Does the Deputy have a question?

I am unclear about the Taoiseach's response. Sometimes the audio position in the House is not as it should be. Perhaps the Taoiseach will state the position with greater clarity.

The Deputy should not hold his breath.

The Taoiseach gave a figure less than 28,000, which I understand to be in breach of the commitments in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. What will replace these schemes, both in the lives of the individuals concerned and in the community projects which they will damagingly affect?

The Deputy is concerned that the number of CE scheme places will be cut by 13,000 because of something that he read and I told him not to be concerned. I mentioned an agreed year end figure of 25,000 places for last year. His concern that 13,000 people will be displaced and unemployed is not the position. The position is as I have outlined, with the year end figure at 25,000. Those who need to find another course, about whom the Deputy wants me to respond, are not being displaced. I cannot respond, therefore, about people who are not being displaced.

Are there plans to cut the number of places or does this echo the statements of the Minister for Finance prior to the general election?

The figure announced last year was that we would end up this year with 25,000 places on CE schemes in addition to training places. I do not have the exact number of training places, but I think it is 11,000 or 12,000. Those are the figures on which we are working. The figures for next year have not been agreed and will not be until the Book of Estimates is published.

Or until the Minister of State has visited all the schemes with FÁS officials. Is the Taoiseach sure about that?

The Deputy should have no worries.

The Government is politicising the issue.

Barr
Roinn