Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

I reiterate, as doubt seems to be creeping in already, that as soon as the criminal prosecution is out of the way, regardless of what happens in that regard, I will set my mind to producing as much as I can of the Nally report in a form in which it can be read by the public. I will explain this to the relatives when I meet them.

There are two reasons, why in effect, I am "between a rock and a hard place", as I said earlier. The first reason relates to the criminal proceedings which are in train. A good deal of the Nally report centres on the motivation and credibility of a person against whom serious charges are about to be made. I could not place that material in the public domain without saying, in effect, that the criminal proceedings have come to an end. That would have its own implications. The second reason I am "between a rock and a hard place" relates to the security interest. I will do my best to overcome the considerable and substantial difficulties that exist in that context.

I emphasise that the Real IRA and the 32-County Sovereignty Committee, the political adjunct of the Real IRA, are planning, as we speak, to plant another bomb of this type. They have made many efforts to put together bombs of this type and they have been frustrated and thwarted in a number of ways. They have attempted to take many people's lives and they intend to continue trying to do so. My first duty must be to prevent another incident such as that in Omagh in 1998. Therefore, I cannot place in the public domain something which assists the organisations in question in changing their modus operandi, so that they can get away with it the next time. Everybody agrees with me that it should be my first priority.

Deputy Kenny asked me why the relatives were not interviewed in Northern Ireland about this matter. I have no official function in this regard, but I presume that any relatives with information such as that to which Deputy Kenny refers are available to the PSNI now. I stress that the file is not closed. If admissible evidence is ever made available which enables the Director of Public Prosecutions or his counterpart in Northern Ireland to prosecute anybody — somebody who was centrally involved or a person who was peripherally involved — I do not doubt that there will be a trial. I cannot decide whether evidence is or is not available. It is a decision to be made by independent constitutional officers on either side of the Border.

Deputy Kenny asked if something analogous to the Cory report would be beneficial. Deputy Costello put his finger on the problem in this regard, which is that the Cory report, just like the Barron report, operates on the basis of an absence of statutory powers. If there are no statutory powers, there is only so far one can go. A method of inquiry — the tribunal system — is in place under the 1921 Act and subsequent legislation, but it would be wholly unsuitable for this matter because tribunals are required to operate in public. One could not have a public tribunal dealing with this kind of material. In the near future I hope this House will get on with the commissions of inquiry legislation so there will be alternatives to public tribunals of inquiry. If I asked Judge Cory, Mr. Justice Barron or any other judge to look at what these three men have done, whoever that judge might be would face exactly the same problems they faced as regards the informer who was on a witness protection programme.

Superficially, one might ask why there should be a problem about getting somebody who is on a witness protection programme to co-operate with the subsequent inquiry. The whole point of a witness protection programme is that that person's anonymity is fully respected, and that his or her privacy and new life are sacrosanct. In this case, I want to make it clear that it is not as if the three people did not make every effort to contact him. They first approached the individual through his legal advisor. He was on the witness protection programme of the State. They put questions to him, via his legal advisor but, despite repeated efforts to elicit replies, they never received any. They were told on more than one occasion by his legal advisor that he was not prepared to reply to questions but it was held out to them that he might be prepared to do so at some time in the future. They also requested through the legal advisor, an interview with the informant but that was refused. They concluded and stated that it is deeply regrettable that they should have to report without having had replies to those questions. The implication has gone out that somehow they said, "Well, that's fine. We're indifferent to that issue", but it is quite the reverse. They regarded what happened as deeply regrettable but they were not in a position to punch through the witness protection programme and somehow summon this person before them and examine him on the issues that arose. Neither Judge Cory, Mr. Justice Barron nor anybody else would be in a position to do that, as far as I can see.

Deputy Rabbitte said that some things were used to bolster the official line. I know that may just be a turn of phrase, but I certainly repudiate the suggestion that there was an official line of the Irish State and that these three men hunted for material to bolster the official line. If I thought for one minute that the allegations that were made were true or had a really substantial element of truth in them, I would act immediately to deal with this issue.

See this speech in context