Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)

I welcome the Minister's statement and offer my sympathy and condolences to the survivors and the relatives of the victims of the most serious atrocity to take place in Northern Ireland in the course of the troubles of recent decades. As the Acting Chairman, Deputy Ardagh, will agree, it is ironic that the House, through a sub-committee, is currently dealing with the Barron report on the most serious atrocity ever to take place in this jurisdiction.

I have not seen the Nally report. It is unsatisfactory that a party spokesperson on justice should not be given a copy of it and that it should be made available to only two party leaders. This level of non-disclosure raises a major question mark about the report's value, particularly given that the Minister has informed the House that no further disclosure will be made until such time as the court hearing takes place in the case of the prime participants who feature in the report. The Minister must reassess this approach and consider the possibility of returning with some form of redacted report. The House should not forget that the report before the sub-committee hearings on the Dublin and Monaghan bombings redacted but the sub-committee has still been able to perform its function in recent months.

This is the reason for the considerable dissatisfaction among the relatives and survivors which was evident yesterday in the manner in which the Taoiseach was treated. Clearly, the perception among them is that they are not receiving a fair hearing from the powers that be and this resonates among the relatives and survivors of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings who have felt for years that those in power did not want to effect a resolution or deal seriously with their troubles, grief and problems. I hope we do not arrive at a position in which the same sense of grief, frustration and anger is reflected among the relatives and survivors of the Omagh bombing in the years ahead.

Deputy Kenny's suggestion that the Minister consider establishing a Cory-like inquiry or investigation has some merit. The downside of his proposal, however, is that it would still be a private investigation and we would end up with material which is not amenable to public disclosure in any form. Nevertheless, that approach has merit as a step forward.

As the Acting Chairman is aware, the sub-committee on the Barron report has been engaged in its role for a considerable period. The sub-committee could provide a public forum, in the Houses of the Oireachtas, for the relatives and survivors of the Omagh bombings to tell their story. One of the major grievances is that nobody has heard the story told by survivors and relatives themselves and that there is no public forum for them to do so.

We could also invite the Nally group to attend the sub-committee. Its members, a former Secretary of the Department of Justice, a former Director of Public Prosecutions and a former Secretary to the Government, are all senior experienced figures who know the ropes. It would be valuable if they were to attend the sub-committee to explain the methodology they used and the lengths to which they went to elicit information within their terms of reference. The sub-committee could then question them on the issue because some serious questions have been raised by Deputy Rabbitte.

Furthermore, we could also invite the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, Ms Nuala O'Loan, before the sub-committee. Is there a good reason that the ombudsman, who raised this issue in the first instance with the Minster for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, and has taken considerable interest in the matter, should not come before a sub-committee of the House to find out how far we can advance the issue?

What I am proposing is a format or formula to enable us to progress the matter. The worst course of action would be to allow word to go out again that, having conducted an inquiry, we have information in a report but it will remain on a shelf and will be treated in the most exclusive and secretive fashion of any report to this House.

Two Members of the Oireachtas, apart from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, have been given copies of the report. It is ridiculous in terms of investigation or reportage if it has to be left at that. I suggest that would be a reasonable avenue to be explored by the Minister and I welcome his response to that suggestion. The House could go further and look for statements and written submissions from anybody who might wish to provide them.

The discussion on the Nally report highlights the need for an ombudsman. The three gentlemen who compiled this report had no investigating experience. An ombudsman would have people at his or her disposal and would be in a position to conduct a forensic and professional investigation in accordance with the terms of reference. An ombudsman would have the powers, the methodology and the ability to carry out an investigation in a fine fashion and would produce a credible report.

On the question of informants and how they are to be dealt with, there seems to be a very lackadaisical, ad hoc approach to the matter. There are no guidelines within the Garda Síochána. I tabled a question to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on the witness protection scheme and Garda informants. It appears they are run on an ad hoc basis. The Minister is not in a position to give any guidelines or suggestions on the level of Garda scrutiny, monitoring and control of informants. We need to know precisely how a Garda informant is dealt with by the police handler.There is a question about the person responsible for this particular informant and questions about the bona fides of the informant, but who knows other than the person who is the immediate handler. There are serious issues of this nature coming to light.

I respectfully suggest to the Minister that we should find ways of moving forward and the suggestion made by Deputy Kenny and me might be usefully explored.

See this speech in context