Enquiry into the Omagh bombing

Speech by David Ford delivered to Assembly, 14 October 2008 on Tue 14th Oct 2008

Proposing the motion: that this Assembly calls for the establishment of a formal, cross-border, legally binding process, designed to secure full disclosure from the Intelligence Services and Security forces in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, to establish what relevant information they had before, and immediately after, the attack which killed 29 civilians, and two unborn children, on 15 August 1998.

Mr Speaker, this is, possibly, the most important motion that the Assembly has debated since March 2007. It is, certainly, the most important piece of private Members' business that has reached the Chamber.

The events in Omagh on 15 August 1998 were horrific, and every Member will be aware of the facts surrounding them. Those of us who have family connections in the Omagh area have particularly strong feelings on the matter. Although I did not experience that afternoon's events as directly as my colleague Dr Kieran Deeny, my family roots are in Omagh and, a generation earlier, I might have been walking up Market Street with my family. Therefore, I understand the feelings of the community in Omagh and the Omagh district.

We must recognise the suffering that the bomb caused to the bereaved; to the injured; to those who were involved in the rescue efforts, the nursing and other aspects of hospital care; and to those in the Omagh community who were traumatised by the bomb. We must make clear our utter condemnation of those terrorists - in every sense of the term - who perpetrated the bombing. I mean those who made it, those who planted it and those who detonated it. They are solely responsible for the crime. Those points are clear and do not need to be reiterated at length.

The purpose of the motion is to consider what the organisations that were, and are, responsible for security on both sides of the border now need to do. It is not just about the past and about Omagh but about learning lessons so that future generations are protected. In recognising that the victims of the Omagh bombing came from all sections of the community and from three nations, it is important that the Assembly unite in support of the families and all those who suffered, and, therefore, in support of the motion.

Too often in the past, victims came from one section of the community and were supported by public representatives from that section of the community alone. In the case of Omagh - a town with good community relations, and where people from every section of the community suffered together - it is important that we, as representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, come together today.

Over the years, there has been a slow, steady trickle of information from various journalists who engaged in background research. That trickle culminated in the revelations of the BBC's September 'Panorama'. In contrast to those alleged and apparently accurate suggestions, the security services - potentially North and South - have failed to disclose the information that they had that might have either led to the prevention of the bombing or to speedy moves to arrest the perpetrators. Those possibilities must be considered.

We may well discount the allegations that were made by the alleged informer Kevin Fulton, who accused the RUC of having prior knowledge of the bomb and of taking no action. Those allegations were subject to full investigation by the previous Police Ombudsman. However, serious journalists have made credible allegations that certain security agencies held intelligence that was not passed on to the detectives who investigated the bombing. Whether or not that could have occurred before the bombing, it certainly appears that there are strong reasons to believe that information that could have been passed on within hours of the bombing was not passed on for days, or even weeks or months - particularly the specific information that was highlighted on 'Panorama' that related to the use of mobile phones on both sides of the border.

There is, therefore, a shadow over Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) and the other security services. Nobody knows who knew what and who withheld what information. It certainly seems that security services tend to work to protect their informers, methods, technology and general sources. However, if they got it wrong, there is absolutely no excuse for their having failed to pass on the information subsequently, and as early as possible.

If there is any truth in the suggestion that GCHQ had information that was not passed on within hours after the bombing, who knows what might have been discovered if the RUC or Garda Síochána had had the opportunity to raid appropriate places within hours of the bombing? Who knows what prospect there might have been of turning up a weak link in the gang, or what forensic scientists might have determined if they had had access to appropriate samples at an early stage? If any of the intelligence services failed to take action that they could have taken in the wake of such mass murder, they have serious questions to answer.

The failure to get answers to those questions so far calls into question the promises of the then Chief Constable, Prime Minister and Taoiseach about leaving no stone unturned.

Those promises have subsequently been repeated by others in Government, including the Secretary of State. For example, when the leader of the SDLP asked questions in Westminster, he received no significant answer from the previous Secretary of State.

5.00 pm

We understand that the Prime Minister has called for a review by the Intelligence Services Commissioner of the information that was available, but that is simply not good enough. The Prime Minister's record on dealing with the security services is not one of openness and transparency, and it does not inspire confidence. I doubt whether anyone in Northern Ireland - and certainly no one in Omagh - would believe the Prime Minister if, in the next two or three months, he were to rise to his feet in the House of Commons and announce that, following an investigation, there were no causes of concern. There must be a much wider investigation.

Moreover, there are concerns about the relationship between the security services in both jurisdictions. Investigative work by journalists suggests that co-operation was distinctly less than that which was promised. Indeed, what should have been a joint investigation by the police and the gardaí appears to have been two parallel investigations. The point about parallel lines is that they never meet. It is questionable whether information sharing occurred, and that is a further matter for concern.

It is understandable that the families are calling for a full public inquiry, and I share the families' and the Omagh Support Group's concerns. However, although the motion does not rule out a public inquiry, it does not call for a commitment to one. Much of the required information - which is held by the security services - is unlikely to come out directly to a public inquiry and, therefore, that may not be the right route to take. The motion is broadly based and non specific; it calls for:

"a formal, cross-border, legally binding process."

Such a process will probably require legislation in Westminster and the Oireachtas. That will require an innovative solution because it cannot be conducted solely in a single jurisdiction. The Assembly must not be prescriptive about how that might be achieved; rather, it must set out the required principles and make the moral case for action by the two Governments, and I trust that we can all agree on that.

I turn to amendment No 1. I hope that it is clear to DUP Members where the supporters of the motion stand concerning violence in general, and their condemnation of this crime in particular. The motion focuses on the Omagh people's legitimate demands for closure, through the disclosure of the information held by the security forces, including information about actions that were not taken. The focus of the motion is not on the perpetrators.

In addition, rather than shifting the focus back to the terrorists, it is important to send a clear message to the security services on both sides of the border about what future generations can expect. Furthermore, I regret the fact that the DUP amendment appears to be prescriptive. For example, it suggests that two parallel inquiries could follow up on problems that we witnessed previously.

At the beginning of the debate, I said that my family roots are in Omagh district. Ironically, my mother's home was a couple of hundred yards from Tom Buchanan's mother's home. Therefore, I feel that I know as much as anyone who was not directly involved about how things were and how people feel about the matter. I trust that Mr Buchanan can therefore accept the bona fides with which the Alliance Party proposed the motion and that he will recognise that, although there are good points in his amendment, it does not meet the current requirements. The best message that could come from this House would be a united and unanimous call in support of the motion

Related Link:

[Hansard]