Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)

I do not disagree with anything Deputy Kenny said but it is worth going back over some recent history. The Bloody Sunday inquiry took place in part during the life of the government of which Deputy Kenny was part, but the British Government did not want such an inquiry. It took a great deal of persuasion and in the end it was the Prime Minister who ruled, against much opposition, to operate a successful inquiry. Nevertheless there were difficulties involving so-called "soldier A" and "soldier B", people who were not named, and the sessions not held in public session, and so on. I believe most people, though not all, were satisfied with it. It was enormously costly, involving some £100 million, but it was highly important.

In more recent years, the British Government, when involved in some other inquiries with which I am not familiar, looked at the legislation and decided to bring in the Inquiries Act, which was clearly in gestation for some time.

The British Government, including the Prime Minister and the Attorney General, say they intend to bring forward the arrangements for this inquiry. They clearly believe the truth can be established through an inquiry under the new Act, and that this is the only way they can do it. This is the belief right across the system. As well as talking to the Prime Minister I have talked to the Deputy Prime Minister and to others. We do not take that view. I have brought the Attorney General to some of the meetings with the Finucane family and he is assisting them as best he can. We take the view that the proposed British inquiry will not work.

Knowing that we could not take thousands of cases — as time passes there are more and more people who feel very little was done about their cases at the time of the Troubles — as a result of so many terrible deaths on all sides, we decided to take a representative sample, and that was the Weston Park agreement. The issue then became one of how we were to arbitrate, which is when we suggested an international judge and legal team.

That is where Judge Cory came in. He is considered one of the most eminent judges in the world, and though elderly he agreed to take on the job. He put a great amount of effort into it, even when his wife was dying — she subsequently died. Judge Cory deliberated, and I understood that was the end of the matter. We have to honour our commitment in Ireland, such as in the Breen case, which we have begun. All that happened prior to the final position on the Act. On the restricted case, at least there was much progress, with a good deal of debate on the amendments. It was an Act in which we and the Nationalist parties in the North took a great interest. There was a good deal of input and comments on the Act but in regard to the restrictive position, people have their own judgment. I have my view but there is no point in giving personal opinions on why they would have that view because I cannot prove it. During the past year I have tried to work out why they might have such a restrictive view.

Whatever the reasons, and many people have suggested several other reasons, whoever is right or wrong does not matter. The fact is that we are trying to ascertain whether there was collusion by the British forces at whatever level. The inevitable questions are where they went within the system, whether they moved up through the system, went into the political end or whether they were in the Northern Ireland Office. Given the restrictive notice, how can one say it is a full, independent or public judicial inquiry when the judge has a right to see things but cannot publish them, say them in public or show them to the family? How is that a full, independent or public judicial inquiry? It is not any one of those three. That is the position. I wish it was just an issue between Mr. Tony Blair and myself at this stage because the powers of persuasion might persuade him but it is not at that level. This is a strongly held view of the British Government and I believe it is wrong.

To answer the Deputy's last question, I was in London on the day the Dáil debated the motion. I gave Mr. Blair the motion, told him its history, said all the political parties were involved in it and that I believed it would be unanimous. I also told him that the House would be critical of him and his Government on this issue. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Hain, has written to us to say he is still going ahead with the inquiry. I told him last week he could do that if he wanted to. He told me it could cost €50 million to which I replied he could spend that amount of money on it but it would not convince anybody in the collective interest of this case. I have spent hours on the Finucane case because it was picked out as one of the three. I still do not think we have got to the position we want. I would like to tell the House that another meeting, shouting exercise or table banging exercise would change the British Government, but at this stage I must be honest with the House and say I do not see it moving on this position.

The only other new issue is that there is a possibility that the Houses on Capitol Hill will take our motion and also pass similar motions. We briefed the President and the US Administration in the White House last week. Without taking too much licence, I do not think they disagree with our view on this issue, whatever about other issues.

See this speech in context