I thank the Deputy for the question. I will answer it to the best of my ability. It requires an exceptionally wide answer and if I miss out, please bring me back to the main matter. When I was asked by Mr. Justice Barron what I knew about Ludlow, I answered and it is all there in the report — I knew nothing. I was not aware of it.
This must be very distressful to the family of the victim because one might ask how the Minister for Justice of the day was aware of that. It is not good enough, I am sure, in their eyes for me to say it happened before my watch. Most regrettably, it happened and that is the saddest part of it. The family has had to live with this all along and I read what they said at their press conference some 20 years after the event. I can understand the pain and the suffering they have had to endure.
I cannot answer for the RUC as to why it delayed for 18 months in giving the information it had to the Garda. From the co-operation that I know existed during my time, and in the time of my predecessor, former Minister Paddy Cooney, there was good co-operation between the Garda and the RUC. There were regular meetings, as former Commissioner Wren stated, growing in frequency as time went on. That was not easy either because, whether the committee can recall this, it was common for the day that the Garda force would be blamed for the atrocities in Northern Ireland when, in fact, the atrocities were committed well within the Northern Ireland territory.
We were always accused by the media, inspired or not — I cannot say — by the Northern Ireland Office, of not being serious about our efforts in security. This was so far from the truth that it was difficult to contend with because the cost to the taxpayer of what our forces were doing in an effort to try to maintain law and order were far greater than the costs of the manpower of the other side.
The level of cross-Border activity was high and serious. As has been stated by former Chief Superintendent Courtney and former Commissioner Wren, there were efforts at the time by the then British Prime Minister and the British Parliament during its debates, to portray our police force and our courts as unable to fulfil the basic requirements of a sovereign state. These accusations were made at a time their own failures in Northern Ireland allowed atrocities to occur. The relationship between the two governments was up and down and it suffered at the time. This applied not only to my Government but to previous and successive Governments. There was still good co-operation between the Garda authorities and the RUC, including a constant exchange of information. This was also stated by former Commissioner Wren and former Chief Superintendent Cotterell.
I am amazed the information the RUC had was not taken up and investigated by the force. The key question is why the RUC did nothing about it. Why did the force only pass on the information after 18 months? There was a proviso that it had to protect one particular man — I think his name was Hosking — who was the informant. The sub-committee must understand this type of subversive information gathering is a difficult, unsavoury business and its price is often the informant's life. Perhaps the RUC had some good reasons for not passing on the information but I cannot say. Perhaps there was a political reason, which was adverted to earlier or perhaps the RUC wanted to use it as leverage for other reasons. We can come back to that later.
However, the RUC had the responsibility to question those suspects and to pursue the case. At the time, legislation was enacted — the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction Bill) 1975 was on our Statute Book — which allowed the RUC to gather the evidence and have these people tried up there. Our gardaí who were involved in the investigation in County Louth could have been facilitated by going to the courts in Northern Ireland and giving their evidence there in the same way as the facility was provided down here. That was in place to get us over the delicacy of the political situation that existed at the time. This was good legislation when it was used. However, I speak as political head of the Department at the time and it was not used as it should have been by the people in Northern Ireland. They found reasons not to use it because they wanted to pursue the long-term political objective, which was to push us into a situation whereby they could be seen to take over our task as a police force within our sovereign State.
They wanted many things and they are matters of public knowledge, which are mentioned on page 84 of the report. It is a question of the hot pursuit of suspects across the Border, which in my mind and the minds of the professionals within the Garda, would have been the height of folly in practice. Who would protect those who were pursuing the suspects from ambush? If they flew in spotter aeroplanes 800 ft. or 1,000 ft. across the Border, who would protect the small aeroplanes from being shot down? If they came and questioned suspects in Garda stations, who would protect them as they travelled in and out? There was no way the Government could have a situation where any of its agencies was involved in handing over persons who were suspects only and who were needed for questioning by the authorities in Northern Ireland. That was the policy of the day.
Deputy Murphy asked about the 18-month delay. Was it for political reasons or was it to encourage us to do what they wanted? Their objectives were stated many times by the Secretaries of State or the deputy Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland. These issues were raised many times at cross-Border meetings at ministerial level, right through the late 1970s and well up into the late 1980s, until things began to ease off and quieten down.
Speaking as the political head of the Department at the time, there appeared to be a concerted campaign to try to force us into submission on these three main political objectives that were spoken about publicly within the House of Commons and by Ministers of the House of Commons. I recall when the newly elected Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, was coming to Ireland on her first visit to attend a Heads of State and Government meeting of the European Union which was held in Dublin Castle in 1979 or 1980. There was a request to me from the British authorities that three naval vessels would anchor in Dublin Bay to provide appropriate back-up protection if needed, that British Army-RAF helicopters would travel to Dublin and ferry her from the ambassador's official residence in Glencairn to Dublin Castle and back and other demands, including that she should have her own private police force on the ground. That was totally unacceptable to me, which I refused. I notified the Government of the situation at the time because we were a sovereign State. One of the basics for any state in existence is to be able to provide security for visiting personnel. If we could not do so, then we should not hold the meeting, which we did. I believe Mrs. Thatcher had a much nicer stay in Dublin Castle as the first lady there in approximately 700 or 800 years than she would have had in Glencairn and having to suffer the throes of the traffic congestion travelling in the morning by car, because she certainly was not coming by British RAF helicopter.
There were political reasons for this decision. There may have been police reasons with regard to protecting sources, but I cannot say this because I do not know. However, there is no reason the RUC could not have carried out a thorough investigation at the time.
