Joe O'Toole (Independent)

During the years we have been regularly critical of much of what the United Kingdom has done on this island but one can only stand in awe at the performance and sheer raw courage of Lord Saville in putting the Widgery report to the sword and the facts in front of us. The statement by the British Prime Minister, Mr. David Cameron — I am not his greatest fan — in the House of Commons yesterday was uninhibited and breathtaking. In many ways, it was also unexpected. As Senator Fitzgerald said, it brought extraordinary vindication and consolation to those who had spent a lifetime dealing with an issue of justice, defending and trying to restore the reputations of innocent people killed on Bloody Sunday. I support strongly the need for a debate on the Saville report in order that we can record our appreciation and acknowledgement of what has been done. It is not easy for a sovereign government to put up its hand and state it made a mistake and got it wrong. A lesson can be learned by politicians on this island also. It seems the old mantra of "Never explain, never apologise" went out the door at approximately 3.20 p.m. yesterday afternoon when the Prime Minister spoke in such terms.

Another lesson can be learned from the report in terms of the tribunals. It is interesting that there is a rule that people may not criminalise themselves in the evidence they give to tribunals, except in one significant regard, namely, that if they swear to tell the truth, they can be found guilty and charged with perjury, a serious charge. It is something worth remembering in the tribunals, given that issues arise in terms of obstruction and non-co-operation. I would like the Leader to assist in providing a clear understanding of this point. Those who do not tell the truth in their evidence to tribunals under oath cannot be dealt with by way of criminal charges, but I assume they can be charged with perjury. I look forward to having a debate on the Saville report.

One other issue came to the fore some weeks back, namely, the proposal to computerise all the records of the Land Registry. What is left of our history as a nation is to be found in Land Registry offices which contain information on how we divided our land, shared, bequeathed and bought it. We could learn more from the Land Registry records than from many history books. Our history, culture and heritage are bound up in its offices. As I understand it, the proposal — daft as it seems — is that once the information has been computerised, to destroy all of the hard copy records, as it is considered there will no longer be any need to hold them. We should stand firmly against that proposal. I do not know if Members have followed the work of Diarmaid Ferriter, not just in his programme that was broadcast last night but during the years, almost all of which is based on the extant records available to him in order to learn how we have lived our lives culturally and otherwise. This is invaluable documentation. I ask that the appropriate Minister — I think it is the Minister for Justice and Law Reform — be invited to come to the House to explain his plans for the documentation held in Land Registry offices and also to allow us to have a free and open debate with him. It is not a political matter; it is one on which Members on all sides would share a view.