Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 16 Dec 2003

Vol. 577 No. 3

Nally Group Report on Omagh Bombing: Statements.

On 22 March 2002 the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, Mrs. Nuala O'Loan, presented a report to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen. The report related to allegations made by a person described as a serving officer of the Garda Síochána concerning the handling of intelligence information about the activities of a paramilitary group in that year and about drug related matters in the period 1995 to 1996.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs passed the report to my predecessor, the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy O'Donoghue, who, in view of the gravity of the allegations involved, decided an examination of the issues should be carried out independently by Dr. Dermot Nally, former Secretary to the Government, Mr. Joseph Brosnan, former Secretary General of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Mr. Eamon Barnes, former Director of Public Prosecutions, with the terms of reference to examine matters arising from the report raising concerns of the activity of the Garda Síochána during 1998, dated 22 March 2002, prepared by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland for the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and on the basis of the examination to report to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and, if considered appropriate, to make recommendations.

I received the group's report earlier this year and I have consulted the Attorney General about it. It is against that background that I am now making this statement. Certain legal issues arise because all the allegations which the group looked into were made by a member of the Garda Síochána who is suspended and facing criminal charges on unrelated matters. In those circumstances, in making a summary of the group's findings publicly available at this stage, I want to make it clear that nothing I say is intended to, or should be taken as, reflecting on the general credibility of the person in question.

In summary, the group has informed me that the allegations can be summarised under three headings. The first is incidents which it is alleged could have been prevented. These are allegations that actions which could and should have been taken by the Garda Síochána could have prevented three terrorist attacks in Northern Ireland in 1998, that is, the mortar attack on the RUC station at Armagh on 10 March, the mortar attack on Beleek RUC station on 9 May and the bomb attack on Omagh on 15 August. The second is alleged ministerial interference with prosecution process. This is an allegation of a ceasefire deal after the Omagh bomb between the Irish Government and the Real IRA and of ministerial interference in the judicial process. The third is alleged unlawful or improper conduct on the part of Garda officers. These are allegations of encouragement or of complicity in criminal offences or other improper conduct by senior Garda officers.

The group has informed me that it held its first meeting on 29 April 2002 and subsequently met on 62 occasions. It interviewed 25 persons, some more than once. It received a number of written submissions, some from people it did not consider necessary to interview in person. In particular, the group states as follows:

When setting up the Group your predecessor indicated that the Garda Commissioner had confirmed that the Group would have the full co-operation of the Garda authorities, including access to all relevant material. The Group wishes you to know it has received this full co-operation and access. The Group's thanks are due also to other persons including serving and retired PSNI officers who helped it in its work.

My predecessor, when announcing the establishment of the group, indicated that he would make a statement on the group's findings. In accordance with this commitment, I can now inform the House that the group has informed me that it concluded that there was no foundation for the allegations which it examined. While there was never a commitment that the report would be published, I am aware of the strong desire of the relatives of those killed in the appalling atrocity at Omagh for what has become known as the Nally report to be published. I am also aware that the failure to do so may lead some to suggest that the State is refusing to come clean. I will return to that suggestion before concluding my remarks.

If there were no other considerations of the wider public interest I would be more than happy to put the report into the public domain. It is a lucid and compelling document and if people had access to it few if any would dispute its conclusions. The group's covering letter states that the report "deals with highly sensitive matters involving the security of the State and possible risk to the lives of individuals. It also describes Garda operational procedures and methods, public disclosure of which could adversely affect future operations." I hope it will be generally accepted by Members of this House that under these circumstances no Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, no matter how strong his or her desire to deal with the concerns of the relatives, could put such a report into the public domain. To issue a redacted form of the report is not a practical proposition as it would require the deletion not only of the names of individuals but also of details of operational procedures and methods to an extent which would render the logic and force of the report nugatory and its conclusions no more meaningful.

There have been many media reports about allegations that the group was asked to examine. I do not propose to comment on or respond in detail to this speculation. There is, however, one suggestion that has been persistently reported which, subject to the constraints I have outlined, I must deal with specifically: that the Garda failed to pass on to the RUC information which could have prevented the Omagh bombing. It is hardly necessary for me to spell out the grave implications of this if it were true. Everyone will understand why such an allegation is of such profound concern to the Omagh relatives and all right-thinking people. In fact, no such allegation was made to the group. On this point the group says:

The core allegations. . . about events preceding the Omagh bombing are that: a senior Garda officer would have been prepared, if a vehicle had in fact been stolen. . . to allow it to go through in order to protect [an] informant; and [that] no intelligence was passed to the RUC about information, alleged to have been received on the eve of Omagh that the RIRA, who had been trying to steal a vehicle in the Dublin area, had obtained one elsewhere (place, vehicle type and destination unspecified).

These are very serious allegations. However they are quite different from allegations that the Gardaí let the vehicle which was used in the bombing in Omagh go through or that they had intelligence about that vehicle. . . which they had failed to pass on to the RUC. No such allegations have been made to the Group and no basis for any such allegations has come to its attention.

As I outlined earlier, the group dismissed the allegations as being without foundation.

The group also made some recommendations. In doing so it stated:

The Group's only general recommendations relate to the desirability, while preserving confidentiality and security, of keeping better records of North/South contacts and exchanges in intelligence matters, and a written code of instructions and guidelines on intelligence-gathering and agent-handling.

The Group understands that action has now been taken on both of these matters but recommends that the arrangements should be reviewed in the light of its report. The Group also recommends that consideration should be given to whether legislation covering intelligence-gathering and agent-handling would be desirable.

These recommendations are receiving the necessary attention from me and the Garda Commissioner.

I am sure all Members of the House are grateful to the members of the group for undertaking a difficult task in the best traditions of public service. That such a group concluded that the allegations had no foundation is to be welcomed, not least by those gardaí who have been living under their shadow. However, I am aware from my contacts with the Omagh relatives that some of them will be disappointed that I am not in a position to offer further information. I emphasise that had evidence of Garda wrongdoing been established by the group there would have been no hesitation on my part or that of the Government in making that finding public.

What I have set out today is not my assessment of the allegations in question but that of the independent group asked to examine them. I do not believe any Member of this House would have grounds for calling its work into question. I am aware of calls which have been made for a public inquiry into these matters on the basis that it would dispel people's genuine concerns, but on the basis of the group's report there are no grounds for such an inquiry to be established. Any repetition of unfounded allegations will not change that. What happened that day at Omagh was one of the worst outrages in the history of this island. Accordingly, allegations of culpability on the part of the Garda Síochána or others must be fully examined and that has been done.

Earlier I said that the non-publication of this report, for what I and the investigation group believe are valid security reasons, may lead some to suggest that the State is refusing to come clean. I doubt that any reasonable person approaching this matter in a fair-minded and objective way will consider it remotely likely or credible that not just one but all three of the following criteria apply. First, a group of senior gardaí, knowing the truth to be otherwise, have conspired to distort and misrepresent the facts about one of the most serious atrocities in the history of this island. Second, the Government of the day has decided to support that Garda conspiracy. What motive could any Government have for such action? Why, if such a conspiracy exists, are so many members of the Real IRA behind bars? Why would the Garda or the Government risk exposing the conspiracy by continuing to pursue the perpetrators vigorously – a pursuit which has already resulted in one of those involved serving a sizeable prison sentence? Third, three distinguished individuals whose integrity is not at issue and who, as they have acknowledged, were provided with access to all relevant material, have proceeded to join in and support the other conspirators in a cover-up. The likelihood that any of these is true must be considered remote. The likelihood that all three apply is non-existent.

It must be appreciated that even though a reasonable person objectively considering claims made about any atrocity involving major loss of life may conclude that the claims do not stand up to scrutiny, it does not necessarily follow that those who have directly suffered the consequences of the outrage will readily be able to bring themselves to take the same view. It is a perfectly understandable human reaction for people whose lives have been scarred by such outrages to attach weight to accounts and interpretations of events, especially those presented by what are taken to be informed sources, in the hope that they may help to explain or throw more light on the circumstances that have brought unbearable tragedy and suffering to their lives. Understandable though that reaction may be, responsible commentators, especially those in positions of authority, do no service to those who grieve when they persist in lending credence to presentations of events that lead us away from rather than towards the truth, even if it is done in the name of keeping hope alive.

Against this background, it would be the height of irresponsibility for me to put in the public domain information that would be of use only to terrorists in waging their campaigns. We should not lose sight of the fact that the cruel mass murder at Omagh was committed by terrorists who are intent on using violence to overturn the democratic will of the people on this island. Our continued priority should be to support and assist the Garda Síochána and the PSNI in their fight to defeat the evil agenda of the perpetrators and bring them to justice. As I indicated earlier through the Taoiseach, I am prepared to revisit this matter when we have more time in the new Dáil term.

When the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform met the families of the victims of the Omagh bombing during the summer he gave an undertaking to make a detailed statement to the Dáil on the Nally report when the House resumed at the end of September. I regret that it has taken so long for this to come about, although I understand the complications. However, aspects of the report were selectively leaked to a certain journalist in the meantime, including the main conclusions and the Government's intention never to publish it in full. This information is contrary to the repeated answers given to the House by the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste, most recently last Thursday when the Tánaiste told the House that the Minister "has the report and is anxious to publish it as quickly as possible". This follows similar replies given by the Taoiseach on 5, 12 and 19 November. I regret that this commitment is not being honoured but I appreciate there are sensitive elements that cannot be put in the public domain.

The bombing in Omagh in August 1998 was the worst single atrocity in the history of Northern Ireland. It left 31 innocent people dead and many more wounded. I have met the families of the victims and my only interest is in ensuring that they get the truth and justice for their loved ones. Their suspicions can only have been increased when they discovered that the Taoiseach had blatantly misled them about the contacts between the Government and the Real IRA, following the Omagh atrocity, and the fact that he has persistently refused to meet with them. We do not want a repeat of last week, which saw the impact of a 30 year wait in the case of the victims of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. I do not want the Omagh families to be subjected to that kind of delay.

I am grateful to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform for providing me with a copy of the Nally report last Friday. Unlike the Minister and the Department, I do not have the benefit of five months to consider it. I do not want to jeopardise in any way any legal proceedings or other investigations, therefore, I do not propose in this contribution to comment to any great extent on the details of the report.

As pointed out by the Minister, the report was commissioned on the basis of information provided by the Northern Ireland police ombudsman, Nuala O'Loan, who, I understand, was given an assurance that the Nally group would meet her again before the report was finalised. Perhaps the Minister will explain why this did not happen.

Having read the report in the short time since I received it, I am not happy with it for a number of reasons. A key participant was not interviewed by the group. In a report which seeks to draw conclusions from seriously conflicting evidence, this is a major omission. The report does not adequately explain why a group appointed by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform could not have done more to secure an interview with this participant. In addition, there appears to be unresolved conflict in a key area between the information supplied to the group by the PSNI and that supplied by the Garda Síochána – a direct contradiction in regard to a serious matter of evidence and intelligence. It is disappointing that the report makes no attempt to resolve this conflict, regardless of whether it is an issue of the degree of intelligence or a difference of opinion between the police forces or between individuals.

It should also be noted that the allegations which prompted the report appear to be given far more credence by the authorities in Northern Ireland than in this jurisdiction. The House will be aware that a person is facing trial in the Northern Ireland courts on 15 charges, one of which relates to Omagh. In the meantime I appeal to the Minister and the Taoiseach to meet with the Omagh families, perhaps to brief them on the scope of the work of the Nally group and on the conclusions reached. It would be difficult to refuse a meeting when it is requested. Such a meeting will convince the Government that the report on its own is not sufficient to satisfy the Omagh victims and their families. This is in no way a reflection on the eminent former public servants who served on this group, but they are not professional investigators and further investigations will be required to resolve the outstanding issues. I look forward to the more detailed statements on the report in the House in the new year and to comment on matters arising from the report and on issues with which it has not dealt.

In respect of the allegations that have given rise to the Nally report, there can be no argument but that they are the most profoundly serious that could be made against a law enforcement agency tasked with the preservation of life and public safety. In particular, the families bereaved and the individuals wounded and maimed by the devastating bomb attack on Omagh were entitled to every assurance that these allegations would be investigated independently and rigorously. There could be no reasons of state that would justify a cover up.

The report's firm conclusion is that "there is no foundation for the allegations" and "the allegations were a direct consequence of and were motivated by concerns arising from the difficulties in which the named garda found himself with his superiors in the Garda Síochána and with the criminal law." The group conducted its own inquiries which it details in its lengthy report. In addition, the PSNI forwarded to the group a transcript of a statement made to its officers by the garda detective in Scotland. The group was advised that parts of the transcript had been removed on the grounds, bizarrely it seems, that they were defamatory. Are police investigations usually hampered by fears that defamatory matter might lie on the file? Additional correspondence was received from the PSNI. That force has requested that it be consulted about any intention to place sensitive details in the public domain.

The group advises that its report deals with highly sensitive matters involving the security of the State and possible risk to the lives of individuals. It also describes operational procedures and methods, the public disclosure of which, it says, could adversely affect future operations. In these circumstances, a copy of the report has been furnished to me by the Minister, for which I am grateful, and I am now given the opportunity to make a brief statement in the House. The sensitivity of its contents has been impressed upon me and the Minister's intention not to publish the report has been made known to me in advance.

I am aware that the Minister has committed himself, since at least August 2003, to addressing the House on the Nally report. He has not, so far as I know, committed himself to its publication, either in its entirety or on a redacted basis. As I am conscious of the high degree of sensitivity attached to the report, I will not place any more of it in the public domain than the Minister has done, nor in the time available to me am I in a position to query the group's methodology of analysis, to point to unexplored lines of inquiry, to put forward alternative hypothesis or to second-guess its conclusions. I confirm that the Nally report, which I have now returned to the Minister, details the allegations made by the garda in question in statements and interviews, that it also details the rebuttals provided by the officers of the Garda Síochána against whom the claims were made and that the balance of the evidence leads, compellingly, according to the members of the group, to the conclusion that these claims are false and without foundation. I confirm also that in the course of its analysis and findings the report goes into matters of Garda procedure and method, including, for example, the handling of informants, in a detail which I would not expect to be put into the public domain.

Yesterday, a further seven suspected dissident republicans were arrested in Limerick and Cork. None of us is in a position to dismiss the continuing real and substantial threat to the peace process constituted by these groups and the importance of continuing police work to counter that threat. However, the Minister's decision not to publish this report will cause great distress and anxiety to the Omagh families. Security sources on both sides of the Border claim to know the identity of those involved in the bombing but say they are unable, at this stage, to charge them because of insufficient evidence.

At a stage when there is still no prospect of a successful criminal prosecution, the families have placed their hopes in civil litigation against the bomb suspects. They have sought the assistance of the authorities in both jurisdictions for that purpose. The Minister and the Government must make up their minds on a fundamental question. Are they willing to lend their full support to the civil case? What assistance can the Government offer to the Omagh victims and their families in circumstances where all right-thinking citizens want to support and assist them, as has already been done, to some extent, by the British authorities?

The Omagh victims and their families have already suffered the crocodile tears of Mr. Gerry Adams and others in Sinn Féin who, shockingly, cited "historical as well as contemporary reasons" for refusing to call on those with information on the bombing to pass it on to either police force on this island. They have no need of further expressions of sympathy, no matter how genuine, if they are accompanied by a refusal to provide any concrete and worthwhile assistance.

The Government has confirmed that the House will return to this issue in the new year. There will be further statements and an opportunity for the Minister to answer questions. I strongly believe that, notwithstanding what the Minister has just said, he should use the intervening period to examine whether a version of this report that does not prejudice ongoing security operations may be made available to the Omagh families. The House and the families would expect no less.

That concludes statements on the Nally group report on the Omagh bombing.

On a point of order, the Ceann Comhairle said speakers from the Technical Group could have five minutes.

Acting Chairman:

These statements have been allocated 25 minutes and that time has expired. If it is agreeable to the House we can extend the time for five minutes.

It is ordered that we have five minutes.

I have no objection so long as Private Members' time is catered for at the other end.

Acting Chairman:

Is that agreed? Agreed. Deputy Ó Caoláin, you may speak for two minutes, Deputies Boyle and Finian McGrath may speak for one and a half minutes each.

At the time of the Omagh atrocity I utterly deplored the bombing. I accused those responsible for the atrocity of attempting to destroy the peace process and I said their ill-conceived campaign set back the cause they claimed to serve. I reiterate each of those points this evening. I also express, once again, the deepest sympathy and condolence of my party and myself to all those who lost loved ones or who suffered injury in the bombing.

It is unsatisfactory that some parties and the Independent Deputies are being asked to make statements on a report which they have not yet seen. Why have some Opposition party leaders had sight of this report while others have been denied the same access? I note with regret that the Minister and the Government have decided not to publish the report. As the Minister has indicated he will revisit the report on the floor of this House in the future, are the Minister and the Government also prepared to revisit their decision regarding publication?

In the North of Ireland the police ombudsman's report on Omagh called for a review of the role and function of the RUC special branch. As Sinn Féin has pointed out time and again that one of the fundamental problems with the current policing arrangements in the North is the incorporation of the RUC special branch in the PSNI. The special branch was described in the Patten report as a force within a force. Of course, there are many accusations surrounding the Omagh bombing which highlight the role of the RUC special branch as an unaccountable force.

The decision of the Government to withhold the report from public scrutiny and to be selective in giving sight of the report to parties and Independent Deputies creates great concern in this House which will be reflected outside the House in the coming days and weeks.

I thank the Minister for the Nally report and commend him on it. The victims of Omagh are our priority. The bombing was an horrific act. I support the Omagh families and their friends and I express my sympathy to them. All attacks on civilians are wrong and there should be no debate on that issue.

Silence on the issue of bringing people to justice is not an option, nor is selective condemnation. All acts of violence in the last 30 years must be deplored and I include in this condemnation the use of state violence and collusion. In this regard, the Barron report has already been mentioned. This debate must be about listening and supporting the victims of violence. There should be no hierarchy of victims. All should be helped and respected.

I commend those who were involved in the peace process and who have taken risks. The peace process is not over. It needs to be further developed.

I welcome the Nally report finding that there are no foundations for the allegations or evidence of wrongdoing. I am heartened by this aspect of the report. However, I agree that the Taoiseach should meet the Omagh families as a matter of priority and I urge every Deputy to support the victims of Omagh.

The undertaking and finalisation of the Nally report were intended as an exercise in inspiring and restoring public confidence. The formation of the group was part of that exercise. Unfortunately, in not making even a truncated version of the report available, the Minister has not inspired that confidence. In choosing to quote elements of the report selectively in the House he has further fuelled the demand that as much of the report as possible be made available.

Many Opposition Deputies are at a disadvantage as we did not have the facility offered to other Opposition parties. More important, when we revisit this issue in the new year when time will be provided for a fuller debate, we must be presented with as much information from the report as possible. Otherwise we will debate in a vacuum. Until that information is made available, many of the people affected by this despicable atrocity will continue to have concerns.

Barr
Roinn