Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 28 Jan 1988

Vol. 118 No. 6

Adjournment under Standing Order 29. - Stalker-Sampson Report: Motion.

Mr. Manning

I move: "That the Seanad do now adjourn."

I am very pleased that the Cathaoirleach was able to make this time available this evening to discuss a number of very serious matters which in some ways follow on almost directly from the last debate we were having until a few moments ago. The past four days have been the most potentially dangerous for Anglo-Irish relations since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement two years ago. Two events have conspired to create the sense of danger and threat to Anglo-Irish relations. The second one was one over which the British Government or British executive had no control. The first, the one which happened at the beginning of this week, was one over which it had direct control and for which it must be held directly responsible.

The second of these events was the decision of the British Court of Appeal within the last hour or so to reject the appeal of those who had become known as the Birmingham Six. That decision will be received with, I believe, a great deal of sadness in this country and I am sure also with a great deal of frustration and for many people a deep sense of anger and helplessness. I am not going to say that the appeal was not properly carried out, I am not going to say that the judges are not honourable men, I am not going to say that the Birmingham Six did not get every chance to make their case.

I would say from reading the reports that the level of commitment and the skill of their advocates was of the very highest level and that they were indeed very well served by those who made their case over the long weeks of that appeal. Nor this afternoon am I going to talk about the quality of British justice especially as it affects Irish people in Britain. I believe that such talk is unhelpful and I believe that it is frequently inaccurate and often offensive to those who are of good will towards this country. Most important of all I believe that talk of this kind, attacking the British legal system, the British judicial system, does not get us very far in trying to redress those things about which we feel more strongly and where we feel there has been a miscarriage of justice. I am going to say, however, that it would be almost impossible for any British court to be objective, to be dispassionate, to be disinterested or uninvolved as far as the issues raised by the Birmingham Six Case are concerned. This, perhaps, as happens only rarely in the history of a country, was a case of the British legal establishment trying the legal establishment. As had been said by Lord Denning very early on in all of this process, a verdict which overturned the original decision of the lower courts would virtually turn the whole judicial system, the whole system of British justice on its head, and nothing would be secure after that.

I believe the great weakness in what has happened is that it was so much a case of the establishment trying the establishment and that, no matter how hard the judges may have tried, that this, subconsciously or consciously, was always part of the process. Had that appeal been carried out in an international court, had there been international judges on the bench, then whatever the verdict was it would have been easier to accept and there would not be the great sense of frustration which is so manifest at the outcome of today's decision. As it is it is a fact that a great many people will simply not accept this result.

The whole process is reminiscent of that great issue which tore apart the Third Republic of France at the end of the last century, the whole issue of Dreyfus, whether he was innocent or guilty. I believe that the question now of innocence or guilt is for most people a matter almost of faith, belief or principle rather than of an assessment of the evidence.

The decision today, for whatever reason, has now created and placed on the agenda a new source of enmity between the peoples of the two islands and a sore that can fester. This issue and the issue of the Birmingham Six, the result of which has become known since this motion was raised this morning, are very much tied up. The British Government, who acted so crassly, so brazenly and with such insensitivity in the early part of this week on the Stalker-Sampson affair can rescue something from the wreckage of this black week by listening to the very honest doubts which have been raised by so many honourable people, some of them in the Conservative Party, in the Labour Party, in the other political parties in Britain and in all the Churches in Britain right across the political, social and cultural divides in that country.

That Government can rescue something from the wreckage all round them at the moment by listening to those doubts. If they feel their hands are bound by the legal decision today, at least they can act quickly in a humanitarian way and do something to lessen the damage by proceeding for a quick parole for those people. This is not what they want. They want their names cleared but, at least, on the outcome of today, with so much other wreckage all around, there is that possibility for the British Government to act in a way which is humanitarian.

I mentioned at the beginning that the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the process established by that agreement are the context within which we are looking at this issue. In spite of what I may have said last week, I do not have to stress in this House the over-riding importance of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and of the overwhelming commitment of the vast majority of the people in this part of the country and a growing number in Northern Ireland to ensuring that that process will work. Progress has been made and there is a real possibility for future progress arising from the Agreement.

One of the purposes of the agreement was to be in a position to resolve difficulties like this. If the agreement is to work it needs to be worked in a way which shows sensitivity on the part of both Governments. That applies equally to us. Insensitive Anglophobia on the part of members of our Government or Members of either House is something which, intentionally or unintentionally, can do damage to the very delicate process set up. It needs sensitivity; it involves a great deal of give and take; it is a two-way process.

The problem, however, is that on this Stalker-Sampson affair the British Government have, for whatever reasons which have not been explained either publicly or privately, pre-empted the possibility of this being treated with sensitivity and with a certain amount of respect. The British Government have behaved in a way which showed that no calculation was made about the results of the acts which they were taking in Northern Ireland or on the Anglo-Irish process.

What has happened at the beginning of this week has given the Provisional IRA the biggest boost that evil organisation have had for many a long day. They can now point to their shoot-to-kill policy as being no different from that carried out by the alleged forces of the crown, the forces of law and order. They have the example of that to bolster up their own threadbare position. It is the biggest boost of their credibility for many a long day. What has happened also has greatly boosted those who say that, where Britain is concerned in a matter like this, reasons of State, State security, will always make a casualty of truth or make a casualty of the delicate situation existing in this country and in Northern Ireland.

What happened this week also makes it very difficult for those who still believe in the inherent goodwill of the British Government as far as resolving in a political and acceptable way the problem of Northern Ireland. It is very difficult to be sustained in that sense of goodwill, to be sustained in a sense of believing in the honest motives of the British Government as a result of what happened last Monday. The British Government had long enough to calculate and predict the results of their action last Monday. They had long enough to work out who were the people who would be hurt by what they were doing, to know that it was the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, to know that it was the Government and the political parties in this country who would be most hurt by what they were doing and to know that the biggest casualty of all would be those in the Catholic Nationalist community of Northern Ireland who are striving to promote peaceful political solutions, who are trying against many odds and a great deal of inherited enmity to promote a belief in the honesty and even-handedness of the RUC. The British Government must have known that these would be the casualties of the announcement made last week.

When we look back on what happened, we see that Mr. Stalker was appointed to investigate allegations of a shoot-to-kill policy allegedly implemented by senior members of the RUC. His appointment was made by the Chief Constable after the Director of Public Prosecutions had requested that such an investigation should be made. In all of this sorry episode the Director of Public Prosecutions appears to be the fall-guy, the one who is suffering as much as anybody else.

Two trials have taken place already and members of the RUC have been acquitted. After these trials the DPP concluded that the evidence did not warrant criminal proceedings but, when it transpired afterwards that there had been omissions and that the evidence given was at the very least misleading, there was a need for the urgent investigation. When John Stalker was appointed to lead this investigation it was seen to highlight the concern felt by both the British and Northern Ireland authorities. However, after two years heading this report Mr. Stalker was replaced in circumstances which have never been explained and which the British establishment have never sought to justify or explain.

The last Government led by Deputy Garret FitzGerald had reason to believe that a number of RUC members could be faced with serious charges. This had come directly from high British political sources. It is astonishing now to hear from the British Attorney General that no charges are to be proceeded with.

After the previous trial the DPP in Northern Ireland said:

The director has, however, concluded that there is evidence of the commission of offences, of perverting or attempting or conspiring to pervert the course of justice or of obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty and that this evidence is sufficient to require consideration of whether prosecutions are required in the public interest.

However, after the DPP and the Attorney General had consultations, it was agreed that no proceedings would take place in the interests of "national security" and in the "public interest". The questions which we must now ask are the questions of national security, where the trial led, why this support is being suppressed, to whose door would the trial eventually have led and what is so embarrassing for the British establishment that the future of the Anglo-Irish process and the Anglo-Irish Agreement can be jeopardised in this interest.

This brings to mind Article 7 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement which deals with relations in the security forces. In Article 7 of this agreement it is stated that policy issues and serious incidents would be addressed regularly at joint Anglo-Irish meetings. These serious allegations against members of the RUC, made in the Stalker-Sampson report, should without any doubt be discussed and addressed at some such meeting. The British would have no reason whatsoever for refusing to proceed or for drawing back from treatment of the issue under this particular Article of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

This issue is one which gives nobody any great joy in this part of the country. At this stage the British Government have only one option, one acceptable option, and that is to ensure that the matter is examined in the fullest possible way at the next and most urgent meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference and to ensure that a full disclosure of the report is made to the Irish Government. The Irish Government will decide in their wisdom as to whether to make this public but at least they are entitled to be given full possession of the Stalker-Sampson report and to be told the reasons the British Government did not proceed.

The whole episode is unnecessary and as I have said it constitutes the biggest threat to the stability, survival and workability of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I believe that the British Government have no alternative but to see it in that context. Their treatment of the Irish Government and of the Anglo-Irish process in this matter has been shabby and unworthy and the onus is now on them to persuade us that there are good reasons for what they have done — which I think will be very difficult to do — and, failing that, to treat the matter as it should have been treated in the first place, which is openly and honourably.

Mr. McGowan

Anybody who comes from the North or who is associated with the difficulties there will have been very saddened this afternoon on hearing the news in regard to the decision on the appeal of the Birmingham Six. We also have had the unpalatable decision of the DPP not to furnish the Stalker-Sampson report. I think that there is a crisis at present — and I welcome the Taoiseach's speech which was crisp and positive. Few of us would have known who John Stalker was before the shoot-to-kill policy became public knowledge. There was an outcry about this policy that had been evident and public knowledge in the North. It is important to recognise that the seriousness of the shoot-to-kill policy which was being implemented, whether by M15 or M16, has now surfaced because the refusal to publish the Stalker-Sampson report implies and insinuates that people of a higher level were involved. I want to say a few words on this.

I live very near the Border and fear is very rife in that area. I compliment and admire Senator John Robb's contribution even though I did not totally agree with everything he said. If we have fallen down in any area it is that we have failed to convince the British that their go-stop policy and their entrenchment has helped keep the fires burning in the North. I will not delay this House by covering areas that have already been well covered in speeches, documents, reports and so on but let me go back to Bloody Sunday when the British went in and shot 13 innocent people in Derry. The frustrations which the people felt were such that it was of great relief when the British Embassy was burned down. At least, it provided a channel for the venting of the frustrations which the people felt. They were in a very serious mood at that time. Tonight I would say that the frustration the people are feeling is not much different from that experienced in the days following Bloody Sunday.

I cross the Border three or four times a day and I do business with people in the North whose politics and religion differ from mine. You can never blanketly condemn and categorise. The ordinary reasonable people in the North are trying desperately to get away from being classified as a tribal people and to shake off the mantle of being tagged as bandits. John Robb's presence in this Seanad has been of benefit in this regard. I am delighted to see him here and that he has the courage of his convictions to speak his mind. He is a Northern voice in this House and one I value very much.

I do not have the answers but I do know that, as Senator Manning has said, this is a glorious day for the Provisional IRA. They will be able to claim that politics have failed both North and South and with some justification. I could give, without having to document, numerous examples. The British not too long ago said that they wanted to make politics work in the North but at the very same time that that statement was being made, the Assembly in the North was being abandoned along with the people elected to it. We realise that politics is a way of life and that it is not a richman's club by any means. Those who were part of that Assembly put everything in to it and had little home life during that time. Their salaries were withdrawn at one stroke of a pen. I could never understand why the British made statements to the effect that they would like to see politics work in the North of Ireland while at the very same time eliminating those who were elected by the people on the ground. By eliminating the people who were elected to represent a very difficult area it will prove harder to get politics going again. That sticks out in my mind as a clear example of how Britain has yet to grasp the nature of the problem.

Merlyn Rees in Opposition had all the answers but when in Government he had very few answers. I am deeply concerned about the repercussions of this decision. The hopes of the people who hold the middle of the road have been dashed. I do not know what the response of the British Government will be, only time will tell.

The reasons behind the decision to withhold the publication of the Stalker-Sampson report will come to the surface but, unfortunately, will not come out quickly enough to prevent many innocent young people being encouraged to join paramilitary groups and from going out to commit murders and atrocities and plant bombs. Those who now hold the middle of the road and those who are not involved will commit themselves and feelings will run to the point where people will be prepared to put money on the plate which will be used to buy arms. Unfortunately, this is that kind of seesaw. If the IRA were to commit atrocities and kill innocent people tomorrow there would be an anti response to them but the British have also committed atrocities and the British Government are fairly and squarely behind those. There was M15, M16 and local police involvement. The policy was crystal clear and I am interpreting it as I see it. The policy was to eliminate those who might be carrying out military operations in the North. The policy was crystal clear and it is policy not carried on anywhere else in Europe. If it were to happen in any other part of the world, we would despise it. We see it happening in Africa and we despise it. In Northern Ireland there is only one step short and that is the banning of the media. Those atrocities have been condoned and it is crystal clear that the decision was taken by the British Government and it is one I fear which will have very dangerous repercussions. It will encourage the paramilitaries to keep going and the biggest tragedy of all is that it will encourage people who would not normally get involved to support the paramilitaries. The British Government have created this problem and I will wait with interest to hear what their answers to those charges are.

Professor Murphy

I wish to support what Senator Manning has said. I am very much in agreement with his analysis of the situation. If this kind of brazen denial was given in the United States, in a hypothetically similar situation, we would be absolutely appalled. In fact, it is only the British who can get away with that cocking a snook, so to speak, at all proper values in a situation like that. There attitude towards the Stalker-Sampson report and their admission that justice was perverted but that the national interest must prevail is as blatant a piece of Machiavellianism as you could possibly get in modern politics. It is really quite breathtaking. It illustrates some eternal historical truths, one of which was enunciated long ago by the Rev. Sidney Smith. His exact words excape me but it was to the intent that when it comes to Ireland all the decent values that the British like to attribute to themselves simply disappear and sanity goes out the window. That seems to have been borne out in this case again.

It also illustrates something which we find very hard to take and grasp and that is that Ireland and Irish affairs are of only marginal interest to the Government of the United Kingdom and always have been whereas with us they occupy a major part of the forefront of our attentions. That is why we feel so upset, I think, at not alone the blatant injustice and cynicism but at the underlying implication that we do not really count so far as they are concerned. The report has revealed, quite nakedly, a measure of cynicism and indifference to Ireland which has always been part of the British establishment. It is my view that there is far more evidence of anti-Irishness in British establishment circles than there is of anti-Britishness in Irish political circles. This may be my day for praising the Fianna Fáil Government but I think their reaction so far has been a very correct one and, indeed, the Opposition have been similarly responsible.

As regards the Birmingham Six, Senator Manning has again expressed the views of most of us. Even if their innocence in the last analysis was not proved, certainly there were so many shadows of suspicion about their guilt and so many reservations expressed by so many people that the most fundamental principle of humane British law should apply in that case. It is, as Senator Manning suggested, over and above the machinery of the judicial process. This is surely a case which calls for Government clemency, for an act of prerogative. After all, a Government here had to save face over the imprisonment of Nicky Kelly. In the end they bit the bullet and I see no reason that the bad work of this week cannot be undone in Britain in the same way.

Another casualty of the events in the House of Commons earlier this week will be the Royal Ulster Constabulary which is going to be enormously damaged by what has happened and here I mean the rank and file member of the RUC, the constable who over the last difficult two to three years in the North has done his best to discharge his duties, frequently at the cost of a tremendous conflict of allegiance with his own tribe, as it were. The rank and file in the RUC deserve a great deal of admiration. Their position is going to be made doubly dangerous by this week's decision.

All that being said, I would deprecate any self-indulgence in anti-British feeling. It is too late in the day for reacting in the blind and instinctive way we did in 1972 at the time of Bloody Sunday. Too much blood has flowed under the bridge since then, most of it the blood of our own people. Therefore, we cannot afford to be stampeded into a display as I have said of self-indulgent anti-Britishness. There is no future in that, it is totally pointless and negative. We have to continue the dialogue and to put pressure on the British through the constitutional means available and I am sure the Government will do that responsibly. We must always remember that our real interests are with the British security forces, the security forces in the North. The real alignment of sanity in this island lies in British-Irish relations and the real enemy is not the British but those paramilitaries who have murdered for so long in our name.

This is a week which also saw the discovery of some more of these bunkers which pose such a great security threat and a week that saw the Provisional IRA in possession of armour-piercing grenades in Belfast and with all the implications that go with that. I will conclude by saying we must not lose our sense of balance or our sense of proportion here and that the policy of bombing and shooting to kill is also exercised in this island by paramilitaries from both communities, but particularly those paramilitaries who have been responsible for most of the fatalities in the North since 1971 and who are the main cause of the continuing violence and who act in the name of the Irish people.

Mr. Robb

When travelling down here this morning at some speed I had to suddenly stop at Newry because of a tail back a mile long of large articulated trucks. I must confess it was the first time in my life that I took myself off onto an unregistered road in order to get here, as I hoped I would, for the Order of Business. On my way down I listened to a report from England on the radio. In that report the Chief Justice who was managing the appeal was reported to have said at the opening of today's events that he saw absolutely no reason for a retrial and my heart sank. He went on to say that in a number of hours time he would give his verdict and, quite obviously, there is just one thing to be decided: will the conviction be quashed or will it be sustained? I felt that he was preparing us and the people in England for the fact that the convictions would be quashed. In not having a retrial, the dirty linen that the English seem to be particularly worried about would not have to be viewed in public.

It was, therefore, with a bitter sense of disappointment that I heard the news about the outcome and it was all the more so, as other Senators have said, as it came on top of a fortnight in which we first suffered the insensitivity and arrogance of the decision in regard Trawsfynydd and then the decision in regard to the Stalker-Sampson report. Last night I took the precaution of sending a letter to the Irish newspapers about the latter and I will conclude my short delivery by reading it to you after I have made one or two points.

I would like first of all, to support what Senator Murphy has said concerning Senator Manning's contribution. It should give us all hope for the future that both Government and Opposition, in spite of feeling tremendous resentment which they must feel following their years of endeavour to change things and to change things for the better, and in spite of the enormous setbacks they have had to suffer in the last fortnight have appealed — and I would like to join in that appeal — to the people of Ireland to show themselves to be bigger people than the people across the water and to show that we can occupy the moral high ground rather than the imperial high ground. In doing so we can patiently ferret away to ensure that these men will get justice. I am certain that if the Irish diaspora, the diplomatic corps, exercise themselves positively, albeit in a constrained way, to ensure that what has not happened today will happen, we will be able to obtain mercy for these men. As has been suggested, even if their guilt could not be disproved, there comes a point where there is so much doubt in a case such as this — so many other people's lives are involved and they have already served such a long period of time incarcerated in a jail — that we have to come back to the old dictum that justice should always be tempered with mercy. In this case it has not been, and we are all the poorer for it and no more so than the English.

I would like to say a formal word of praise for the work which has been done by people such as Fr. Denis Faul in this case and by our friend and former Senator, Seamus Mallon, who probably first brought our attention to the shoot-to-kill policy way back in 1982. There have been other people involved in this in the North of Ireland who have appeared to come out honourably. Sir Barry Shaw seems, as far as one can detect, to be a man who honourably intended to play fair. I also think that my old neighbour Richard Ferguson did the appeal proud with his defence of the members of the Birmingham Six.

Having said that, I would now like to make one appeal to this House as a person coming from the North of Ireland and living in a predominently Loyalist area. Do not forget that these decisions have been made in England. They were not made by Irishmen in Northern Ireland. It comes back to what I said in my other contribution earlier today and that was that such unworthy developments in England should not become a pretext for anything less than the fullest possible co-operation in Ireland between Irish — and I emphasise Irish — security forces in all legitimate action against those who seek political change and who seek to obtain political change by deliberate killing. We must always hold that in the forefront of our minds.

We may be facing something like the Dreyfus situation. We are quite entitled and justified to use that famous statement by Emile Zola in relation to that trial in which he turned to the French Government, as I am now turning to the English Government, to say "j'accuse".

Having said that, the people of Britain must be made to realise what the feelings are in Ireland today about what has happened. At least one of those shot way back in 1982 was a young boy who had no association with any paramilitary organisation. I do not know the details about the others. How are his parents feeling today? How does John Stalker feel today? If an injustice has been done to anyone, one has only to read the story of what happened in the whole evolution to feel that probably a very profound injustice was done to John Stalker himself.

Finally, I would like to read this short statement:

In contrast to sincere attempts which have been made to create a political climate less conducive to violence the Stalkerisation of justice is an indictment of Mrs. Thatcher's Government. In a settled society failure to equate law and order with justice would be a source of dissension. In a bitterly divided society such a failure would undermine the work of men and women of goodwill, further erode confidence in institutions and seriously affect the strenuous efforts which were being made to advance the acceptability of the Royal Ulster Constabulary throughout the whole community in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ferris

I would like to thank you, a Chathaoirligh, for your courage, generosity and impartiality in allowing this very important debate which was moved by Senator Manning to go ahead. It is a pity that this debate is now taking place in the light of what has happened in regard to the appeal of the Birmingham Six, which has been referred to previously in this House and which has been the subject of many comments. Many of us were worried, to say the least, about the outcome of that appeal but at all times we were hopeful that, having gone through the process that the British Government decided should take place, justice would be meted out to those unfortunate people. However, that was not the case. Now, as other speakers have said, the only recourse available to the Birmingham Six is to the political process or whatever intervention our Government can make through diplomatic channels, and other political channels, to ensure that a pardon is forthcoming from the British Government. It is obvious that they have ruled out any court of appeal, an appeal to the House of Lords or any other process, and that leaves the unfortunate people convicted for this crime no process to which they can resort. I hope the Government will use every conceivable effort to ensure that political pressure is brought to bear on the British Government in the case of the Birmingham Six.

On Monday last the leader of our party, Deputy Dick Spring, issued a statement in connection with the Stalker report. Deputy Dick Spring, who played a major role in the last Government and was co-signatory of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, resorted to making a statement in which he said that the situation which was now developing in Anglo-Irish relations was, perhaps, the most serious since the early 1970s and that it was rapidly reaching a point where it transcended the ordinary Anglo-Irish process. He said the apparent willingness of the British Government to sanction the perversion of justice displayed an arrogance which was unworthy of any democratic State and which must raise concern in Britain itself as well as here. It would unfortunately, be seen by many as a sign of the increasing authoritarianism of the British establishment.

That was a very strong statement by a person who was involved in a process of dialogue with the British Government over a number of years culminating, after the Forum report, in the Anglo-Irish Agreement. This House, and Members of it from all sides, and councils throughout the country of which many of us are members, have never been slow to condemn the Provisional IRA for indiscriminate acts which resulted in loss of life of people of another tradition in the North of Ireland. On many occasions, like Enniskillen, where there was the loss of the lives of innocent bystanders we rightly condemned such acts. Our Garda and Army have made every effort to bring the people responsible to justice. Quite often our efforts in this regard were subjected to snide remarks in the British media, and in some of the Northern Ireland media, and, indeed, from some Unionists in the North. We were the subject of cheap jokes in connection with the efforts of our security forces but we are now dealing with a subject for which the British Government must stand accused in that they decided on Monday not to proceed to prosecute anybody following the Stalker-Sampson report or to publish its findings.

The least we can hope for in this House, and that the Government should look for, is the privilege of having access to the full findings of the Stalker-Sampson report. How can any sovereign government of an adjoining State with which we have continuous trade possibly justify a decision of their DPP in this regard? We must take it that if evidence was available following that report that there was no shoot-to-kill policy then, as sure as night follows day, that headline would be emblazoned across every British newspaper. We can also assume that if the DPP found evidence that there was no need to prosecute anybody that would be publicised and the reasons given. It is obvious to everybody, impartial or otherwise, in this House that there was something to hide, that the British Government were afraid of something.

That brings us back to the political decision. I have no doubt — I accept the point made by Senator Robb that this was a political decision by the British Government — that the North of Ireland authority had no influence over this and that the findings, if they were allowed to be published, would indict people in very high authority as the only people who could issue instructions on a shoot-to-kill policy. We have to be extremely worried in this House, and in this country, about the developments that have taken place over this week with the Stalker-Sampson report, the judgment in the case of the Birmingham Six and the decisions of the nuclear industry in Britain, that they tend not to treat us with the respect that we deserve as a sovereign State. The least we can expect from them is that there should be dialogue in those areas that concern us, particularly when the Government and the Opposition parties have adopted a common policy against the violence that has led to the loss of 2,500 lives in the North.

We have to accept that there was something sinister behind the decision not to publish the report. We can take it that if the report indicated that maverick members of the RUC decided that there should be a shoot-to-kill policy it would have been published because that would immediately take the political decision-makers off the hook. I have no doubt in regard to the decisions or instructions which Mr. Stalker, and later Mr. Sampson, obviously solicited from their inquiry that it was in the interests of British politicians to have that information suppressed. Through this resolution from the House we must call on the Government in Britain to be forthcoming with us. After all, there is a binding agreement between the two sovereign States relating to Anglo-Irish relations at all levels, including security. If any security forces are guilty of any misdemeanour or any acts which are not in accordance with normal procedure within a security service of any country, then the Government responsible for that have a moral and a legally binding obligation to communicate those findings to the other party to that agreement. I am not sure if the Anglo-Irish forum is the appropriate one to deal with this matter but it is a forum to deal with it.

Once the Conference meeting takes place next week specifically to deal with this item the findings and the results of that meeting should be communicated widely. The efforts of our Government in that regard should be emblazoned across the Irish media. Otherwise, we will be giving succour to the Provisional IRA. Today is the day when they have benefited from this propaganda. Today is the day that they make all of us reasonable people look silly because we are trying to have dialogue with a Government who are, obviously, on matters like this, to say the least, unfriendly to us. I hope that an improvement takes place in this dialogue. The last number of weeks and, indeed, months have led us to believe that there is a deterioration in this dialogue. The Government have a responsibility to ensure that Britain lives up to their side of the Agreement which we signed in good faith with them.

Mr. Norris

This is the second time that we have had an opportunity today to discuss this kind of area and so I will address myself briefly to the specific instances under consideration. I have no difficulty whatever in supporting the resolution. It is remarkable that in this sensitive area of policy there should be such a degree of unanimity throughout the House, among persons of all shades of opinion, politically speaking, and from all areas of the country. It seems clear that the British Government are indicating that although there may be people guilty in this regard they shall not be prosecuted, that the report will be suppressed.

There appears to be an obsessive, neurotic need for secrecy in the Thatcher Government and this is not the first instance of it. We have had it repeatedly. We had it with regard to the memoirs of various officials of the Secret Services and we had it with regard to Mrs. Thatcher's own behaviour over the Malvinas conflict which was successfully suppressed despite the efforts of Mr. Tam Dalyell to uncover it.

I believe this is extremely wrong, immoral and also unfair to those members of the security forces in the North of Ireland who may not have been implicated in this policy because they will now inevitably come under suspicion. I wonder if Mrs. Thatcher has now taken to herself the right to grant pardons because this is coming perilously close to it. It seems to me that this is a very dangerous delusion of power for her to engage in. It appears at least as if some policy decision was taken to allow a shoot-to-kill policy. This is an extraordinarily dangerous thing to do because it implies that the legitimate authorities of the State are descending to the level of terrorism and that we, therefore, have what amounts to State terrorism.

I believe it is for institutions like the Oireachtas to make clear our strong feelings on this issue. It ill-behoves, I may say, any representatives of Sinn Féin, or the Provisional IRA, to attack this policy because it is the same kind of policy in which they are engaged. We are the only people, the democratically elected representatives of a sovereign people, who have the moral authority and status to make this strong complaint which I am very glad the Government are making to the British Government.

I regret that the British Government appear to be unconcerned at the fact that they are themselves undermining the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I would like to take this opportunity to place on record my strong support for the Anglo-Irish Agreement and my hope that despite this set-back it will continue to function. I congratulate the Government on their tenacity in holding to such an agreement in what must be very difficult diplomatic circumstances. I also would have to say that I regret very much the marginalising of a very responsible police officer, Mr. Stalker. It is remarkable that he should be marginalised by somebody of the character of Mr. Anderton, who appears to receive his orders directly from God, if one places much credence in radio interviews that he has given. It is worrying that a responsible police officer should be marginalised and an irresponsible police officer consolidated in his irresponsibility.

I feel that the principle underlying this must be addressed. The British Government appear to place the interests of particular organs of State above the individual's right to justice. This is highly dangerous. It is also the principle that underlies the most regrettable decision in the case of the Birmingham Six. Other Senators have indicated that there will be general dismay in this country at this decision. I would like to echo this dismay as somebody who was brought up to believe in the concept of British justice, of fair play, and one of the cardinal principles of that is that you are entitled to something known as the benefit of the doubt. On the technical evidence alone in this case there is clear room for doubt. It is obnoxious that the accused in this case should be required to demonstrate their innocence. All that is necessary is to demonstrate doubt and that has effectively been done.

I would like also to say that I was deeply shocked by the interventions of several of the judges, including one at least whom I regretted to note has a distinguished Irish name. I found the interventions of various judges in this case to be deplorable, as recorded in the extensive coverage by The Irish Times. It seems almost as if the British Government are now operating a system of guilt by attainder. I would very much like to think that the British Government would regain their good sense and return once more to what used to be regarded as internationally current standards of morality in judgment. I very much hope that they will do so.

I hope, despite what may appear to be provocation, that our own Army and police force will continue to maintain their high standards. I congratulate them on the arms finds they have made over the past few days. I am afraid it may be discouraging to our armed forces to realise that they are expected to co-operate with forces who do not have the standards which we would all feel entitled to expect from those who are, after all, our servants. An army, whether it be the British Army, the Irish Army, the Israeli Army or any other army, are nothing other than the servants of the people. It is extremely dangerous to allow any organ or arm of State to place itself above the law. That way, in my opinion, lies disaster and that is what is wrong with the suppression of the Stalker-Sampson report.

Minister of State at the Department of Education (Mr. F. Fahey)

I should like to thank all the Members of the House for their interest in this subject and to thank Senator Manning who tabled the motion. I propose to read for the House the statement by the Taoiseach made just a short time ago:

It would normally fall to the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Brian Lenihan, as Minister and as Joint Chairman of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council established under the Anglo-Irish Agreement, to make this statement to the House. However, in his absence and in view of the importance and urgency of the matter and the serious concern of the Irish people, the Members of the Oireachtas and the Government about recent developments, I have thought it appropriate to make this statement.

On Monday, 25 January, the British Attorney General, Sir Patrick Mayhew, in the course of a statement in the House of Commons in relation to the Stalker-Sampson report, announced that the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland had concluded that the evidence did not warrant any further prosecutions in respect of shootings which occurred in Armagh on 11 November 1982 and 12 December 1982 and did not warrant any prosecutions in respect of either the fatal shooting of Michael Tighe or the wounding of Martin McCauley which occurred in Armagh on 24 November 1982.

The British Attorney General also announced that the Director of Public Prosecutions had concluded that there was evidence of the commission of offences of perverting, or attempting or conspiring to pervert, the course of justice, or of obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty, and that this evidence was sufficient to require consideration of whether prosecutions were required in the public interest. The Attorney General stated that he had taken steps to acquaint himself with all relevant circumstances, including matters concerning the public interest and, in particular, considerations of national security which he felt might properly affect the decision or not to institute proceedings. He said that he had informed the director fully with regard to his consultations as to the public interest, and in the light of all the facts and information brought to his notice, the director had concluded, with the Attorney General's full agreement, that it would not be proper to initiate any criminal proceedings.

The language used by the British Attorney General was of an elaborate and complex construction but in essence amounted to a blunt admission that while prosecutions were warranted they were not going to be taken for reasons of national security. It was also stated that the report would not be published.

My Government immediately indicated that they were deeply dismayed by the decision of the British authorities not to proceed with prosecutions in respect of those matters which were the subject of the inquiry initiated by Mr. Stalker and completed by Mr. Sampson concerning allegations of a "shoot-to-kill" policy by the security forces in Northern Ireland in 1982 and allegations of a subsequent perversion of the course of justice. The Government further stated that they would be seeking urgent clarification of the announcement by the British Attorney General and of those other matters addressed by the inquiry — specifically, questions relating to the management and structure of the RUC, to Constable Robinson's statement on an incursion on the night of 12 December 1982 and to the question of the publication of the report.

Deputies will be further aware that on Tuesday, 26 January the Government decided that, because of the serious implications of the British Attorney General's statement for public confidence in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland and for cross-Border security co-operation, they would seek an immediate special meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference for the purpose of clarifying the issues involved. A meeting which had been arranged between officials and members of both the Garda and the RUC on policing matters was deferred in view of the call for a special meeting of the conference. I can inform the House that the special meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference sought under Article 3 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement will take place in the very near future.

Let me say immediately that the Government were neither consulted nor informed under the procedures of the Agreement, or in any other manner, about any aspect of the statement made by Sir Patrick Mayhew to the House of Commons on Monday. It is a point to which I will return.

I would like now to outline for the Dáil the sequence of events and the principal happenings in this long-drawn out affair.

Allegations of a deliberate shoot-to-kill policy on the part of the RUC first arose following the deaths of six people in three separate incidents in County Armagh in the period November-December 1982.

The three incidents concerned were as follows:

(i) On 11 November, three men, Eugene Toman, Gervaise McKerr and Sean Burns, were shot dead by the RUC at a road block near Lurgan;

(ii) On 24 November, a 17 year old youth, Michael Tighe, was shot dead, and a companion, Martin McCauley, was injured, by the RUC in a hay shed near Lurgan; and

(iii) On 12 December, two men, Seamus Grew and Roddy Carroll, were shot dead by the RUC on the outskirts of Armagh.

The court trials which followed these incidents lent credence to allegations of a deliberate shoot-to-kill policy and a co-ordinated attempt by members of the RUC to cover this up:

— During the trial of Constable John Robinson, charged with the murder of Seamus Grew, Constable Robinson stated that he and other members of the RUC had been involved in a "cover up" of the existence of a special anti-terrorist group in Northern Ireland and also of the fact that members of the RUC Special Branch had operated outside the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland. An incursion by the Northern Ireland security forces on 12 December 1982 was subsequently admitted by the British Government. It was shown, furthermore, in the trial, that several of the shots which had killed Seamus Grew had been fired from a distance of only 30-36 inches. It was also shown that Constable Robinson had emptied his weapon, reloaded and continued to fire.

— During the trial of Martin McCauley (Michael Tighe's companion) who was charged with possession of arms in suspicious circumstances, it was revealed that RUC officers had lied in statements about the incident. The officers claimed that this had been on the orders of senior RUC officers who wanted to conceal the part played in the operation by the Special Branch and by an informer.

— The conduct of two of the trials (the Robinson trial and the trial of three RUC officers charged with the murder of Eugene Toman), was itself a source of concern on a number of counts. Mr. Justice McDermott's decision to acquit Robinson was widely criticised, for example, on the grounds that Constable Robinson's decision to reload and continue to fire into the car at unarmed men did not appear to be consistent with the judgment of the Court that he was firing in self-defence.

— Furthermore, Mr. Justice McDermott did not refer the evidence of a cover-up to the DPP. A number of Mr. Justice McDermott's comments, notably his praise of Constable Robinson's marksmanship, were also a cause of deep concern. In the case arising from the murder of Eugene Toman, the late Lord Justice Gibson's acquittal of the three RUC defendants and his remarks on the occasion were also deeply disturbing.

An investigation into the question of the appearance of a cover-up was instigated by the Northern Ireland Director of Public Prosecutions. The results of this investigation, however, did not satisfy the DPP who exercised his statutory power to require full information with regard to the circumstances in which false or misleading evidence was provided by the RUC. Consequently, on 24 May 1984, Deputy Chief Constable John Stalker of the Greater Manchester police was appointed by the Chief Constable of the RUC, Sir John Hermon, to the investigation. Mr. Stalker's initial inquiry took 15 months and in September 1985 he submitted an interim report to the RUC Chief Constable. There have been persistent suggestions that this report was highly critical of the RUC and that it recommended the prosecution of a number of RUC officers. It was submitted by the Chief Constable to the DPP in February 1986, and the DPP requested additional information before deciding whether or not to press charges.

Mr. Stalker was continuing his work on the inquiry when, on 29 May 1986, he was suspended on leave pending the investigation of certain charges against him. Following his suspension as Deputy Chief Constable, he was removed from the RUC inquiry and Mr. Colin Sampson, the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, who had been appointed to carry out the investigation into allegations of misconduct against Mr. Stalker, was asked by the Chief Constable of the RUC to take charge of the RUC investigation also. Mr. Stalker was cleared of all charges of misconduct and was reinstated as Deputy Chief Constable in August 1986. He was not, however, returned to the RUC investigation. On 19 December 1986, he announced his decision — for "personal and family reasons"— to take early retirement from the Manchester police force. That is the background to this affair.

There are four main elements which cause particular concern. First, in the circumstances in which six people were killed and one injured in what have been called shoot-to-kill incidents in Armagh in 1982. These incidents have been a cause of continuing deep anxiety to the Government, to the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland and to human rights organisations in these islands and elsewhere. Second, is the question of a covert operation by the Northern Ireland security forces in this jurisdiction on 12 December 1982 which was revealed in court by Constable Robinson in 1984. Third, is the falsification of evidence, instructions to commit perjury and other actions designed to pervert the course of justice which were alleged against the RUC in the aftermath of the shoot-to-kill incidents and which the British Attorney General has now confirmed there is evidence to support. Fourth, is the question of the response of the British authorities to the many questions raised by this whole affair.

It is a matter of the most serious and grave concern to the Government:

— that it has taken over five years to decide on the question of further prosecutions;

— that it has taken four years for the British authorities to reach a conclusion on the claims of perversion of the course of justice made by Constable Robinson under oath in 1984;

— that the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland failed to obtain the necessary co-operation from the RUC, and indeed was misled by the RUC, in regard to the shoot-to-kill incidents and the RUC investigation of them;

— that the subsequent formal police inquiry itself has taken almost four years, and is still not complete in that general recommendations of Mr. Sampson are being considered further by another senior police officer;

— that the original leader of the inquiry, Deputy Chief Constable Stalker, was removed from the inquiry in circumstances which caused widespread unease; that no action or statement of intention has yet been undertaken by the British Government in regard to the structures, organisation and management of the RUC arising from the Stalker-Sampson inquiry other than the decision to refer the recommendations in the report to a senior police officer, for further consideration;

— that no prosecution has been taken in regard to the killing of Michael Tighe and the injuring of Martin McCauley on 24 November 1982; and

— that after five years of consideration by the prosecuting authorities, by the Northern Ireland courts and again by the prosecuting authorities, no member of the security forces appears to have been held to account for the alleged shoot-to-kill incidents or for the attempt to pervert the course of justice.

This is a most extraordinary series of events which has done the gravest damage to confidence in the ability and intention of the authorities to uphold the rule of law and to administer justice fairly.

In his statement in the House of Commons, the British Attorney General has indicated that it was, apparently, not in the public interest to prosecute for a perversion of the course of justice in the police investigation of the "shoot-to-kill" incidents. The Government are not aware of the basis for this decision. Let me say that I recognise that the security forces in Northern Ireland are required to operate in a turbulent situation but this can never remove their solemn obligation always to uphold the law. In our view it is most clearly in the public interest and in the interest of our Government who commit so much of their resources to security in this island that there should be confidence in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland and that there should be good relations between the community and the security forces.

Indeed, it is essential that there should be such confidence if we are to make progress towards the achievement of peace in Northern Ireland. Public confidence in the administration of justice is a matter which cannot be divorced from the public interest. In the Government's view, it should be possible for the British Government to provide a great deal more information than has so far been provided, by way of publication of the Stalker-Sampson report or otherwise, in order to answer the widespread unease which this affair has caused.

The Anglo-Irish Agreement provides that the Intergovernmental Conference shall consider security policy in Article 7, relations between the security forces and the community in Article 7, issues of concern to both countries relating to the enforcement of the criminal law and the importance of public confidence in the administration of justice, Article 8. The Agreement also provides that with a view to enhancing cross-Border co-operation in security matters, the conference shall set in hand a programme of work to be undertaken by the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána and the Chief Constable of the RUC and, where appropriate, groups of officials. Although it is clear that under the Agreement the Conference has no operational responsibilities, it is also clear from the provisions and practices established under the Agreement that consultation and the provision of information are the very least that should be expected of both Governments under the Agreement.

The British Attorney General has stated to the House of Commons that he has taken steps to acquaint himself with all relevant circumstances in the matter of the Stalker-Sampson report, including matters concerning the public interest and in particular considerations of national security which might have properly affected the decision whether or not to institute proceedings. It will be part of the purpose of the Government at the forthcoming special Intergovernmental Conference to establish what was the basis of the Attorney General's consideration of the public interest. At this point I can only say that at no stage did the British Government seek the views of the Irish Government on any of the issues dealt with in the Agreement which it seems to us should have been taken into account in any consideration of the public interest.

I want to make it quite clear that the Government have attached the greatest importance to the Stalker-Sampson inquiry and have kept constantly in touch with developments. As the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs has told the House on three occasions, in his Estimates statement on 28 May, 1987, in response to a parliamentary question on 16 June, 1987 and in response to a further parliamentary question on 4 November 1987, the Government have been concerned about the whole range of issues surrounding the Stalker-Sampson inquiry and believed that it was essential from all points of view that the matter be cleared up and the necessary follow-up action taken, as quickly as possible. The Tánaiste indicated to the Dáil that he has been using the framework of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference to convey his concerns on this matter to the British Government. The British Government have been left in no doubt through repeated references and inquiries at the Conference, in the Secretariat and through other means, right up to the present, of the Government's great concern and interest and of our wish to be informed.

It must be clear to any reasonable observer that the only persons likely to benefit from what has now happened are the paramilitaries. I would have thought that a decision to prosecute would be in the best interests of the RUC and that they would have welcomed action by the British authorities to uphold the principle that in a democratic society the use of lethal force by the police must be the very last resort; that perjury, misleading statements to the authorities and other actions designed to pervert the course of justice should not be tolerated.

I believe it is clear also that the British Attorney General's statement and any other decisions which may be taken on foot of the Stalker-Sampson report have serious implications for the administration of justice in Northern Ireland and the relations between the security forces and the community. A further improvement in those relations which might have been hoped for will be seriously affected by these recent events. We have also indicated in our public statement our concern that it may have serious implications for cross-Border security co-operation.

Co-operation and cross-Border security had been steadily developed in the face of the continued campaign of violence and attempts to import large quantities of arms for subversive use. But such security co-operation can only be conducted in an atmosphere of mutual trust between the two police forces on the basis that the two Governments are firmly committed to political progress by peaceful constitutional means.

The Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference exists as a forum in which Northern Ireland issues of mutual concern to the two Governments can be dealt with. The Government will at the forthcoming special meeting of the Conference put forward their views on the serious crux which has arisen. They will emphasise the importance of confidence in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland and will seek an appropriate course of action and a process by means of which the deep and widespread doubts and anxieties which have been aroused by the British Attorney General's statement can be removed. Matters cannot be left as they are.

That is the Taoiseach's statement.

Question put and agreed to.

The Seanad adjourned at 6.10 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 3 February 1988.