Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to table this motion seeking the establishment of a tribunal of inquiry into suggestions of collusion in the brutal and callous murders of RUC Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and RUC Superintendent Bob Buchanan by the Provisional IRA in 1989.

The background to this motion originates as far back as August 2001 when, following discussions with the Northern Ireland parties at Weston Park, the Irish and British Governments committed themselves to the appointment of a judge of international standing from outside both jurisdictions to undertake a thorough investigation of allegations of collusion between British and Irish security forces and paramilitaries in six cases.

The six cases are the murders of Mr. Pat Finucane, a solicitor, Mr. Robert Hamill, Ms Rosemary Nelson, a solicitor, Mr. Billy Wright, the two RUC officers and Northern Ireland Lord Justice Maurice Gibson and Lady Cecily Gibson. The first four of these cases relate to allegations of collusion by British security forces while the latter two cases relate to allegations of collusion by the Garda.

Arising from the Weston Park agreement, Mr. Peter Cory, an eminent retired Canadian Supreme Court judge, was asked by the two Governments to investigate and report on the allegations of collusion. Judge Cory was appointed by the Governments in May 2002.

The aim of the inquiry process under Judge Cory was to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of collusion between State security forces and those responsible for the killings in each case to warrant a public inquiry. The resultant reports into the six cases were submitted to the Governments by Judge Cory in October 2003. On behalf of the Government, I thank and commend Judge Cory once again for his diligent and painstaking work in producing these reports.

In December 2003, following Government approval, I published redacted versions of the two reports to the Government. All the redactions to the two reports were performed with the explicit consent and approval of Judge Cory and occurred solely on the basis of the Government's obligations to ensure unprejudiced justice.

The two reports make grim reading for anyone with even an ounce of humanity. Both Lord Justice and Lady Gibson were cruelly killed in a carefully planned and executed bombing attack on the morning of 25 April 1987. The south Armagh brigade of the Provisional IRA claimed responsibility for the killings. The IRA also issued other public statements indicating that the murders had been planned in advance.

Deputy Glennon spoke of some of the collateral damage caused by that explosion to friends of his coming to Dublin to play rugby that day in preparation for the World Cup and they had an horrific tale to tell.

Suggestions of collusion related to claims that a member or members of the Garda advised those directly responsible for the killings or members of their organisation of the Gibsons' itinerary on that fateful day. However, Judge Cory concluded in his report on this appalling crime that there is no evidence of collusion by the Garda or other Government agency that would warrant the holding of an inquiry. I welcome this finding in that it removes doubt or suspicion that a member or members of the Garda committed a gross act of treachery in colluding in the murder of two innocents. However, I fully realise that is cold comfort to the victims' families.

The other case relevant to this jurisdiction examined by Judge Cory is different, but involved an equally horrific act of callous murder. While I appreciate that the detail I am about to relate concerning this appalling act of savagery is distressing, it is worth recalling, if only to demonstrate the depravity of those who perpetrated it.

On the afternoon of 20 March 1989, Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan were shot dead in an ambush just north of the Border as they returned from a prearranged meeting with a senior Garda officer in Dundalk Garda station. The Provisional IRA subsequently claimed responsibility for the double murder. This meeting was concerned with the mundane but important issue of co-operation to prevent cross-Border smuggling. The two RUC officers were wholly unarmed and had to be so at the time.

The location of the ambush, on the Edenappa Road, was found by Judge Cory to have been well chosen in terms of topography and tree cover with respect to a nearby British army observation post. The ambush involved PIRA members establishing a checkpoint on the road only minutes before the arrival of Superintendent Buchanan's private car carrying the two RUC officers. The two officers were unarmed.

From the available information, it appears that two armed men, dressed in army style fatigues and with camouflage on their faces, stopped southbound cars and strategically placed them so as to funnel northbound traffic into a single lane. Shortly after the last southbound vehicle was stopped and in place, Superintendent Buchanan's car appeared, driving northwards. It was also flagged down by the armed men in the middle of the road. As the car slowed, a van, which had been following, overtook Superintendent Buchanan's car and pulled into a nearby laneway. Four armed men, wearing camouflage and balaclavas, emerged from the van and started firing immediately. Superintendent Buchanan attempted to reverse his car to escape but the car apparently stalled and he was unsuccessful.

Both Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan, while still in the car, were hit several times by a hail of bullets. Examination of the vehicle the following day indicated no less than 25 strike marks from bullets along both sides of the car, with the majority aimed at the driver's side. The autopsy performed on Superintendent Buchanan revealed that he had suffered many fragment wounds in the head and upper body, and it is probable that he was dead by the time his car came to a halt. He had also been shot in the head at close range, almost certainly after he had died.

Chief Superintendent Breen had been wounded in the abdomen, the upper right shoulder and the arm, and had sustained wounds to his head. It appears that he had left the car after it came to a stop, waving a white handkerchief. It was obvious that he had suffered several gunshot wounds before he left the car which, although severe, did not appear to be fatal. Eyewitness accounts indicated that a member of the Provisional IRA murder squad walked up to him and shot him in the back of the head. It is worth restating that these were two unarmed RUC officers returning from a meeting with their colleagues in the Garda Síochána. They were two policemen doing their duty.

That, then, is the appalling scene which Judge Cory paints of the last moments of these two men's lives. As he says himself in his report, those shootings were brutal, cowardly and demonstrated a callous insensitivity to both the suffering of individuals, their relatives and to life itself. In the course of the proceedings in the Dáil yesterday, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe drew to my attention that immediately after this event the Provisional IRA issued an account in which it claimed that the two policemen had come on a group of IRA men and surprised them and they were fired on in self defence. One can see what credibility can be attached to some of the statements coming from that organisation, even that far back.

I now turn to suggestions of collusion. These relate to claims that a member of the Garda Síochána, or a civilian employed within the Garda, advised either those directly responsible for the killings or members of their organisation of the visit of the two RUC officers and, in particular, of the time they left Dundalk Garda station. In his report, Judge Cory examined the known circumstances, the intelligence reports and other matters in drawing conclusions about the case. From a review of the relevant factors, Judge Cory stated that it might be said that the Provisional IRA did not need any assistance from within the Garda to carry out the ambush. Moreover, Judge Cory suggests that the intelligence reports received shortly after the murders, considered by themselves, might be thought to point to a similar conclusion.

However, Judge Cory considered that a statement made by Kevin Fulton, which is a code name for a British army informer, could be found to constitute evidence of collusion on the part of a Garda officer, referred to as Garda B in the report. Kevin Fulton is the pseudonym of a former agent with a British intelligence agency who, in that capacity, is supposed to have become a member of the Provisional IRA. In a statement delivered to Judge Cory, Kevin Fulton claims that on the day of the ambush of the two RUC officers, his senior IRA commander was told by another member of the IRA that Garda B had informed the Provisional IRA that the two officers were at Dundalk Garda station.

Judge Cory goes on to state that this statement would add credence to two intelligence reports which spoke of a Garda leak. In all this, it should be noted that Judge Cory does not make findings of fact. Rather, he states that if that evidence were accepted by those eventually making the findings of fact, it could be found to constitute collusion. Accordingly, on that basis, Judge Cory concluded that there must be a public inquiry in this case.

As part of the Weston Park agreement, the two Governments gave a commitment that, in the event that a public inquiry is recommended in any case, the relevant Government will implement that recommendation. Accordingly, the Government is committed to holding a public inquiry in respect of allegations of Garda collusion in the killings of the two RUC officers. In light of Judge Cory's recommendations, I secured Government approval to hold a public inquiry into the murders, to take the form of a tribunal of inquiry pursuant to the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts 1921 to 2002. I sought that type of public inquiry because it meets all the essential criteria set down by Judge Cory for a public inquiry. I subsequently secured the authorisation of the Government to lay the necessary resolutions before both Houses of the Oireachtas to enable the establishment of the tribunal of inquiry, according to the formulation contained in the motion before the House, which constitutes the tribunal's terms of reference.

I briefly draw the House's attention to some of the more important aspects of the terms of reference. After a straightforward recitation, the main operative section is, of course, that a tribunal shall be established to inquire into suggestions that members of the Garda Síochána or other employees of the State colluded in the fatal shootings of RUC Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and RUC Superintendent Robert Buchanan on 20 March 1989. By any stretch of the imagination, this is the broadest possible interpretation of the findings of the relevant Cory report, and it delimits in no way whatsoever the tribunal's latitude to inquire into whatever organisations and individuals it sees fit.

The other notable feature of the terms of reference is paragraph (II), which states that if the tribunal finds that there is insufficient co-operation from any person not compellable to give evidence, that fact should be reported to the Clerk of the Dáil for consideration by the Houses of the Oireachtas, in conjunction with myself, having regard to the public interest. The thinking here is simple. It is a fact that likely key witnesses reside outside the jurisdiction. As with domestic legislation in general, the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts 1921 to 2002 apply only within this jurisdiction. Hence, the statutory provisions relating to compellability to give evidence would not apply to likely key witnesses. Accordingly, it is anticipated that the tribunal of inquiry would be obliged to rely on the goodwill and co-operation of non-compellable persons to make progress with aspects of its work. Paragraph (II) of the terms of reference provides a mechanism by which the tribunal can report back to the Houses of the Oireachtas should non-compellable persons decline to co-operate with it.

That is an important element of the terms of reference of the tribunal. In the normal course of events, if co-operation from outside the jurisdiction necessary for the tribunal to complete its work was not forthcoming, we would be left with the prospect of the tribunal reporting in an incomplete way. By virtue of this provision, the tribunal can report that fact to the Government. By that means, the problem of securing co-operation from non-compellable persons can be elevated to the political sphere, where I, the Government and the Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas can determine the best way forward. In particular, it provides an opportunity for formal approaches to be made to the British Government, should the need arise, to seek to secure the co-operation of persons residing in either Britain or Northern Ireland, whether they be British citizens or otherwise. It provides a form of political leverage, grounded in the restated will of the Oireachtas, that can be used, should the need arise, to ensure the tribunal is given every opportunity to secure the co-operation of all those who might be able to shed light on this appalling act of barbarism.

The House will be aware that the sole member of the tribunal of inquiry will be the current President of the District Court, Judge Peter Smithwick. I am confident that Judge Smithwick, based on his long and distinguished career as a solicitor and a judge, will conduct this inquiry with all due diligence and with the professionalism that is the hallmark of the Judiciary. Given the onerous nature of a tribunal of this kind, Judge Smithwick has indicated that he proposes to tender his resignation as President of the District Court, he is ex officio a judge of the Circuit Court, and to concentrate full time on this activity.

I know this House will join with me in advising everyone involved to co-operate fully with the tribunal. I have full confidence that the Garda Síochána, as well as any other institution of the State, will be forthcoming in its engagement with the tribunal. Nothing less than full co-operation is demanded, and nothing less should be expected from the guardians of the State.

There is, however, one organisation that could provide full answers to the tribunal, and that, of course, is the IRA. I challenge that organisation, and I challenge its political alter ego, Sinn Féin, to offer and ensure that co-operation to the tribunal. Sinn Féin and the IRA cannot have it both ways. They cannot clamour for justice and truth in regard to other barbaric acts, which are among the list of acts mentioned earlier and considered by Judge Cory, and stay silent on this one. If Sinn Féin and the IRA want to convince the Irish people, North and South, that they have truly taken the democratic path, this tribunal offers them one opportunity to demonstrate that fact.

This tribunal is being established by the will of the people assembled here in the Houses of the Oireachtas and, I believe, would have the support of the great majority of people in Northern Ireland also. Sinn Féin and the IRA would do well to remember that fact because it is the will of the people that savage acts, such as the brutal murders of Chief Superintendent Breen and Superintendent Buchanan by the Provisional IRA in 1989, should have no place in this Republic.

Pursuant to the Weston Park agreement, the State is under a political and moral obligation to establish a public inquiry into the brutal murders of these two RUC officers. We do so, not just out of those obligations imposed on us by acceptance of Judge Cory's report but out of a genuine desire to see justice done in the form of ascertaining the truth. I believe that the form of public inquiry proposed and its proposed terms of reference constitute the most open, expansive and powerful form of inquiry available here or anywhere else to ensure that the full truth emerges.

I considered whether the commissions of inquiry legislation which I brought through the Houses would be adequate. Section 8 of that Act urges a commissioner appointed under it to have as much of the proceedings as possible held in private whereas Judge Cory made the exact opposite recommendation which was that, in so far as can be, everything should be done in public.

The issue of cost arose in the Lower House. For the guidance of Senators, it was generally accepted that this should be a time-limited and economic tribunal of inquiry, given that the full panoply of inquisitive procedures under those Acts was being used to arrive at the truth. Last year, the Government adopted guidelines for the payment of counsel in tribunals. Instead of the extremely large amounts that were being paid on a per diem basis to counsel, it has been decided that the fees should be structured in such a way that no senior counsel's remuneration should exceed the annual salary of a High Court judge. I intend to inform the sole member of this tribunal that this is the ball park in which he must play.

Judge Cory said the tribunal was to be free to select its own counsel. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe persuaded me, in the context of the debate on the Commissions of Investigation Bill, to introduce the concept of counsel tendering for work. Since Judge Cory said that the tribunal must be free to select its own counsel, I am not in a position to impose my tendering process on the sole member.

We owe it to the families left behind, the people of Northern Ireland and the people of this jurisdiction, given the concerns raised about the organ of the State, to put in place an inquiry of this kind. I did not read out the names — these were contained on the list given to Judge Peter Cory — of the persons whose killings were the subject of the first four inquiries. However, I wish to pay my respects to them now. The people to whom I refer, Pat Finucane, Robert Hamill, Rosemary Nelson and Billy Wright, were the subjects of cruel killings. The barbarity of the offence that will be investigated by the inquiry under discussion was matched by that which occurred in these other cases. In that context, one need only consider the killing of Pat Finucane in front of his family, the blowing-up of Rosemary Nelson, the kicking to death of Robert Hamill in horrendous circumstances with which I became closely acquainted when I served as Attorney General and the circumstances in which Billy Wright was killed. Regardless of the identities of the victims, the families should not be placed in some hierarchy of sympathy. Everybody is equally entitled to whatever rights can be vindicated under the Constitution and to the greatest extent possible, by an inquiry of this kind.