Garda Síochána

– in the Northern Ireland Assembly at 3:30 pm on 30th January 2001.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Danny Kennedy Danny Kennedy UUP 3:30 pm, 30th January 2001

I beg to move

That this Assembly calls on the Secretary of State to make representations to the Government of the Republic of Ireland to conduct a public inquiry into suspected collusion between members of the Garda Síochána and the Irish Republican Army in the planning and execution of acts of terrorism.

I am grateful for and welcome the opportunity to raise this important topic. It is timely and important. May I say at the outset that I reject the amendment in the names of Mr Alban Maginness and Mr Attwood, who apparently are happy with internal inquiries. I do not believe that those inquiries would satisfy public confidence. An internal inquiry would be open to allegations of a political whitewash and, therefore, it is unacceptable.

(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)

It is important to look at the historical background to the motion. Over many years, serious allegations have been made that members of the Garda Síochána have actively colluded with Republicans, particularly Republicans in the Provisional IRA. Evidence of that is emerging from books by respected journalists, Northern Ireland authors and individuals living in areas in which incidents such as the murder of RUC officers — many high-ranking — and the attempted murder of RUC, RIR and UDR officers have occurred. There has also been the murder and attempted murder of officials of the Northern Ireland judiciary system and private individuals. Those collusion allegations will not go away until they are properly dealt with.

I do not want to individualise cases. That would be improper given the heartfelt cases involved, and it would rekindle the pain felt by many families. I am not interested in politicising items of this nature. Those events have taken place, and they must be investigated.

It is clear that incidents of this nature could not have taken place without the involvement of Garda Síochána officers at some time. There is very clear evidence that garda stations in the north County Louth area and their operational material were used to pinpoint the movements of RUC officers, security personnel, officials of the Northern Ireland judiciary system and individuals, which ultimately led to their murder.

It is important to state the necessity to hold an inquiry into the activities of rogue garda officers who have stained the reputation of that force. I am not making a call for the abolition of the Garda Síochána. I want to place on record that I recognise the attempts made by garda officers at local level to help and assist the RUC and the security forces with murder inquiries and other investigations and incidents. Had it not been for political interference by Government people in Dublin, there might have been more success over the years in getting information on many of these incidents. I know from personal experience about the willingness of garda officers and their dedicated attempts to eradicate IRA terrorism in the border area. Those attempts failed to get proper political support from the Governments of the day. Successive Dublin Governments and Irish politicians, at the very highest level, have much to answer for. With the recent release of cabinet papers in relation to the arms trial, we saw that very prominent senior politicians in the Republic had been involved in the establishment, arming and funding of the Provisional IRA. Arms were procured, and Republicans were made ready to wage war on the Unionist people of Northern Ireland.

We might usefully ask for an independent inquiry into that disgraceful chapter of Irish history. Of course, I, amongst others, remain completely astonished at the hypocrisy of the Irish Government and Irish Government Ministers in their unending demands for public inquiries into events that have taken place in Northern Ireland. I think they should clean their own barrel out in relation to events of this nature instead of insisting and ordering public inquiries into the affairs of another jurisdiction — this part of the United Kingdom.

It is clear that internal inquiries conducted by garda officers, who would, after all, be investigating their colleagues, will not satisfy public opinion, especially in Northern Ireland, particularly in the border areas. Therefore, I believe that this Assembly should call for a full-scale, independent and international commission to investigate these matters on an open, impartial and transparent basis. Let us have the truth — warts and all.

It appears that corruption is almost a way of life in the Irish Republic, certainly within the political class, with senior politicians constantly being investigated for unlawful and illegal actions. We have witnessed tribunals investigating irregularities in respect of land and property deals, beef and all manner of illegal behaviour by politicians there, yet they have the effrontery to lecture us on standards of policing here.

Allegations have been made — many of them by a very well-known and respected author, Mr Toby Harnden, in his recent book ‘Bandit Country’. They have not been dealt with, and I think they warrant a full and impartial investigation. In view of the importance of this matter, such an investigation should be undertaken by a panel of international law experts, either from Northern Ireland or from other parts of the United Kingdom — perhaps even someone from North America. If it can be proved that there was collusion, as I believe it undoubtedly will be, then prosecution must follow. Let the Republic of Ireland authorities prove that they will not stand for illegal behaviour on the part of their security forces. Let them prove that there is no hiding place for murderers, especially those motivated by sectarian hatred.

I believe that unless and until there is such an inquiry, it is not, and will not be, possible for the very open wounds suffered by Northern Ireland’s people — particularly those who live in the border areas who are pro-Union and who have felt most keenly the murder campaign directed against them from people in the north Louth area and other parts of the Irish Republic, helped in some way by rogue garda officers — to heal. They will never be able to have a proper relationship with the Irish Republic or to trust the Irish Republic and its authorities.

I look forward to a healthy and constructive debate. I will be interested to hear the reasoning behind the SDLP amendment, which essentially calls for an internal inquiry. I contrast that with their recent demands on aspects of policing in Northern Ireland. I will also be interested to see what, if any, response comes from the Members who represent active Republicans.

Photo of Alban Maginness Alban Maginness Social Democratic and Labour Party 3:45 pm, 30th January 2001

I beg to move the following amendment: Delete all after "Assembly" and add

"notes the current investigation into allegations made against certain Garda Síochána officers and that a report arising from the investigation is to be submitted to the Irish Government in the near future."

I was disappointed by Mr Kennedy’s opening speech. I had expected much more detail on the allegations forming the basis of the motion. In fact, the motion itself is vague. There are no details or dates given, and the nature of the allegation has not been specified beyond simple collusion. It is fair to say that, while he has made sweeping allegations, he has been very short on detail. That is disappointing, because one would have hoped that Mr Kennedy would provide details for some of the arguments he put forward. Furthermore, he called for an international public inquiry. That is absent from the substantive motion. He said that he finds the present garda investigation to be unsatisfactory and he is critical of internal investigations, as, indeed, the SDLP would be. I support his view that they fall short.

Nonetheless, let us look at the totality of the situation and attempt a reasoned debate based on that. The SDLP’s position is quite clear. In no way does it condone any cover-ups, nor would it be party to them. It wants to see the truth exposed and it wants to see those who are guilty of any crimes of collusion or co-operation with terrorist organisations brought before the courts, convicted and sentenced. The SDLP has nothing to hide, and it supports the most rigorous examination of collusion. It has always been committed to human rights and non-violence, and it views any collusion by any police force anywhere — including the Garda Síochána — with abhorrence. It regards any collusion as monstrous, deplorable and quite unacceptable.

In the past, it has been alleged of two garda officers that they colluded in some way with the Provisional IRA in the murder of judicial figures, their families, at least two senior RUC officers and some other serving members of the RUC.

This forms the basis, the kernel and the very centre of the present motion. These allegations have been brought to the attention of the Irish Government and, in particular, to the attention of the present Minister for Justice, Mr O’Donoghue. It is a matter of public record, particularly inside Dáil Éireann, that he views these allegations with deep concern. His attitude has not been one of dismissal or of cover-up. There has been an intensive investigation by the Garda Sióchána.

I might add that that investigation involved not only the garda but the RUC. The RUC investigated allegations made in respect of incidents that took place in Northern Ireland, and the Garda Síochána investigated those which took place in the jurisdiction of the Republic. Those allegations related to incidents that occurred in the 1980s and the 1990s. The two police forces, therefore, co-operated closely on the investigations.

As a result of those investigations there was no — I use the term advisedly, and it was used by the Minister — tangible evidence uncovered to show that information was passed by a garda informant, or informants, to the Provisional IRA.

Subsequent to that internal investigation by the Garda Síochána, similar, or the same, allegations emerged. Once again, these were raised in Dáil Éireann and, once again, the Minister for Justice viewed them with deep concern and dealt with them very seriously indeed. As a result of representations made inside and outside the Irish Parliament, he ordered fresh investigations into the allegations. He regarded them as raising issues of the utmost seriousness. He said that their repetition in the media caused understandable concern, North and South, and he was committed to finding the truth in relation to them. He said — and repeated — that, even though there was no tangible evidence to substantiate the re-emergence of these allegations, every effort must be made to assure, and to reassure, the public, both North and South, that they had been thoroughly investigated. The Garda Commissioner was therefore asked to appoint a senior officer to examine the files and to further investigate the allegations. That appointment was made.

We should await the result of that investigation from the Garda Síochána before calling for what is central to this motion today — a public inquiry into those allegations.

My party and I hope that the investigation will be successful in establishing either that there is nothing to the allegations or that there is substance to them. If there has been collusion between members of the gardaí and the Provisional IRA, we hope that evidence sufficient to bring to prosecution those people who committed such offences — and offences they are — can be established and that those people will be brought to court and prosecuted for their crimes. That is my hope in relation to that investigation, and I hope that, ultimately, it will be successful.

If the investigation does not unearth sufficient evidence to establish the basis for a prosecution, yet does establish that there was an element of collusion that needs to be properly and further investigated, then at that stage we should consider taking the course of action contained in the motion. We should consider the establishment of a public inquiry to examine at those allegations.

That position will be reached when there is at least prima facie evidence to indicate that some collusion took place in the 1980s and 1990s. The SDLP’s present position is that, in the absence of tangible evidence of collusion between the gardaí and the Provisional IRA, it is premature to call for a public inquiry. We are therefore not in a position to recommend one.

Photo of Ms Jane Morrice Ms Jane Morrice NIWC

Will the Member bring his remarks to a close?

Photo of Alban Maginness Alban Maginness Social Democratic and Labour Party

We have brought forward this reasoned amendment, which does not rule out an inquiry in the future. It does say that we should wait for the gardaí’s report and the result of the reinvestigation before calling for a full public inquiry.

Photo of Ms Jane Morrice Ms Jane Morrice NIWC

Before we move on, I remind Members of Standing Order 68, which refers to matters that are sub judice, and in particular paragraph 68(6). I will rule out of order any reference to specific incidents or individuals. The category of incidents that Mr Maginness gave is acceptable. I will judge each point as it arises.

Having considered the number of Members wishing to speak, I ask Members to restrict their remarks to no more than five minutes each.

Photo of Ian Paisley Jnr Ian Paisley Jnr DUP

I congratulate Mr Kennedy for tabling this motion. It is right and proper that he call on the Secretary of State to insist that the Irish Government conduct an independent public inquiry into the murder of individuals and into the allegations of collusion between the Garda Síochána and the Provisional IRA.

If we want to have justice issues in the Province and across the world addressed, someone has to drive the matter forward. All that Mr Kennedy’s motion asks is that the Secretary of State take up the reins and press the Irish Government. That is perfectly right and proper.

What is appalling is the woeful statement from the SDLP to the effect that its amendment is reasoned. Reasoned amendment my foot, Madam Deputy Speaker. What we heard from the SDLP today was sanctimonious claptrap. Its amendment just about notes that the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening. It does nothing else. The amendment does not address the issue in any proper or scrupulous way. If that is what Mr Maginness calls an intensive investigation, I should hate to see what he would call a failed investigation. The SDLP has today washed its hands of the human rights of people who have been murdered and butchered on this island by the Provisional IRA. That is the action that the SDLP has taken.

Some time ago a journalist by the name of Kevin Myers wrote in ‘The Irish Times’, in the ‘Irishman’s Diary’ column, words that today come back to haunt the SDLP, because they are right and probing: while

"Nationalist Ireland is happy to point accusingly at complicitywith-terrorism in the RUC, it is strangely silent when it comes to confronting similar betrayal of duty in the ranks of the Garda Síochána."

I was astounded by the SDLP’s effectively moving a wrecking motion. It is sanctimonious claptrap for it to refuse to allow this motion to go forward and to attempt to wash its hands of it, taking inaction as opposed to action.

Toby Harnden has been mentioned, and I mentioned Kevin Myers, who wrote at length about well-placed moles within the Garda Síochána. He indicated that one individual betrayed sensitive security details to the IRA for 12 years so that it could murder members of the RUC, judges and families travelling to Northern Ireland.

I understand your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will try to stick scrupulously to it.

The details of the mole are well documented. Essentially, he has acted with impunity since 1985. In May 1985 four officers were killed, one of whom was a 21-year-old woman named Tracy Doak. The extraordinary thing about this murder was that the Garda Síochána alone could have known about the movements of the RUC vehicle that day. Subsequently, there was no investigation or internal inquiry — there was nothing but public procrastination by the Garda Síochána.

Photo of Ms Jane Morrice Ms Jane Morrice NIWC 4:00 pm, 30th January 2001

I warn the Member that he must be take great care to avoid prejudicing the outcome of any proceedings that might take place. He is sailing very close to the wind on this issue.

Photo of Ian Paisley Jnr Ian Paisley Jnr DUP

The likelihood of any investigation taking place is a joke, but I understand your ruling.

The issue is this: for years this mole betrayed material to the IRA. There were 12 specific cases — the Doak case was one; the Justice Gibson case was another.

Photo of Ms Jane Morrice Ms Jane Morrice NIWC

Order. I have ruled that mention of specific cases will be out of order. You are out of order in mentioning these cases.

Photo of Ian Paisley Jnr Ian Paisley Jnr DUP

Twelve cases — involving judges, families, a seven-year-old boy and a number of others — have been brought to the attention of the Irish judiciary and the Irish authorities. Their inaction and their engagement in cover-up instead of correction is a national scandal that has not been addressed. Today the SDLP is backing that failure to address these matters.

Photo of Ms Jane Morrice Ms Jane Morrice NIWC

Please draw your remarks to a close.

Photo of Ian Paisley Jnr Ian Paisley Jnr DUP

It is a joke for the SDLP to come to the House today and speak about its commitment to human rights. The SDLP’s commitment to human rights has been found desperately wanting in the House this afternoon.

Photo of Alex Maskey Alex Maskey Sinn Féin

Go raibh maith agat. I will make a few brief points. I do not want to detract from Mr Kennedy’s reasons for moving the motion, but I will not be supporting it because it is a very narrow one. Mr Kennedy has presented absolutely no evidence to back up his arguments, other than the kind of dubious speculation to be found in certain cheap books and magazines. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that Mr Kennedy and other representatives have very serious concerns about what has happened in and around their constituencies. They have every right to raise these concerns.

My concern is that the proposed amendment is of no substance, for it does nothing but affirm that we note that an investigation is taking place. Over the years, quite a number of members of the Garda Síochána have not only been charged and convicted but served time in prison for passing on information. That is a matter of public record. My main concern about today’s motion is that it does not go nearly far enough.

There has been clear and compelling evidence over the years — and in more recent times — in relation, for example, to the Dublin/Monaghan bombings, which obviously rank as one of the greatest tragedies on this island. Compelling evidence has been produced, and it suggests that, at the very minimum, there was at that time, and subsequently, collusion between senior members of the Garda Síochána, the RUC and Loyalist paramilitaries. We raised this matter with the new Secretary of State yesterday morning.

My only real point is that I would prefer it if we were dealing with a motion which called for a full, independent, international inquiry into all these allegations of collusion on this entire island which have involved Governments from both the Irish and the British sides of the border.

This cannot and must not be allowed to escape the public’s attention. Therefore, I will not be supporting Mr Kennedy’s motion. I respect his right to move the motion, but it is far too narrow. I would be more in favour of an opportunity to debate the whole range of allegations of collusion, which has caused untold damage and has taken the lives of untold numbers of people across this island. I would like to see an inquiry into these allegations.

Photo of Séan Neeson Séan Neeson Alliance

I am sure every Member welcomes the interception by the Garda Síochána in County Cork of four suspected dissident Republicans with guns in their car. This incident highlights the continuing threat from dissident Republicans.

The motion illustrates Members’ genuine concern about incidents in the past. Collusion on the parts of the security services with terrorists, and even suspected cases of such activity, north or south of the border, is a very serious matter.

There have been many calls over the years, and in recent times, for independent and international inquiries into the events of the troubles as a whole. But it must be remembered that there have been over 3,500 fatalities during the troubles, and many more thousands have been maimed for life, including civilians, police and Army personnel and even the Garda Síochána. We must ask ourselves where we draw the line.

It is vital that every victim of the troubles be remembered. It is important that truth and justice prevail, but we must also look to the future of Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland. Over the years the Government of the Republic of Ireland have lectured us in Northern Ireland on the subject of police accountability. I look forward to the day when the Assembly can debate the issue of police accountability in the Republic of Ireland. For many years Northern Ireland has had the Police Authority, which has provided substantial accountability when dealing with difficult issues in very difficult circumstances. While some groups have refused to take their seats on the board of the authority, the gardaí are simply accountable to the Republic of Ireland’s Minister for Justice.

The Good Friday Agreement and the Patten Report have provided structures that will make the new police service even more accountable, particularly through the new police board. A new police ombudsman has also been appointed. The thrust of my argument is that there should be similar accountability in the Republic of Ireland. That is very pertinent to this debate. The bottom line is that if meaningful structures of accountability are in place, public inquiries, such as demanded today, would be superfluous.

Photo of Mr Patrick Roche Mr Patrick Roche NIUP

I congratulate Mr Kennedy and those who have already supported the motion on how they have put forward the case for a public inquiry. I find Mr Maginness’s comments absolutely reprehensible. He argued that Mr Kennedy had not been specific, when you, Madam Deputy Speaker, quite rightly ruled that the nature of the subject matter that we are discussing precludes specificity.

He also put forward — [Interruption]

Photo of Mr Patrick Roche Mr Patrick Roche NIUP

I will not give way.

In opposing the motion, Mr Maginess proposed such conditional requirements for investigations which, if applied to the RUC, would never result in an inquiry. At the same time, the SDLP proposed an amendment in the House of Commons to what is now the Police Act 1997. If that amendment had been incorporated into the Act, it would have given a police board, containing members of Sinn Féin/IRA, virtually unlimited scope for indefinite investigations and, therefore, an indefinite witch-hunt of the RUC that stood between decent citizens in Northern Ireland and the terrorists who would be on that police board for 30 years.

Without being able to be specific on these matters, I want to go on to consider the background relationship between the political, judicial and security establishments in the Republic. That relationship, as it developed over 30 years, renders the sort of collusion Mr Kennedy wants investigated not merely probable or likely but virtually inevitable.

There are three main aspects to the relationship that developed between the Southern state and the Provisional IRA. The first is that the Provisional IRA was financed and established by the Fianna Fáil Government under Jack Lynch. There are two things of significance about the Government’s role in establishing the Provisional IRA.

First, how far did responsibility penetrate into the Cabinet? How high did it go? That was discussed in the most recent book by Justin O’Brien, ‘The Arms Trial’. The point that I think O’Brien is making in the book, though I have not had time to read it exhaustively, is that contrary to many perceptions that this activity within the Cabinet was confined to Mr Haughey, Mr Boland and Mr Blaney in conjunction with an elected Member of this Assembly who represents Sinn Féin/IRA, it was actually done with the knowledge if not the sanction of Jack Lynch, who was the Taoiseach or Prime Minister.

Secondly, why was it done? It has been well established for some considerable time — and this was very clearly stated by Conor Cruise O’Brien in his introduction to Martin Dillon’s book ‘The Dirty War’ — that there were two basic considerations in the mind of those who manoeuvred this organisation and split the IRA at that time. One of them was the concern in the Republic about agitational politics, which were a characteristic feature of the IRA of the late 1960s under the leadership of Cathal Goulding. The idea was that if they could split the IRA and finance the armament of a section of the IRA, they could return it to the old physical force tradition that it had effectively abandoned or put into abeyance in the 60s.

This was one of the most cruel and cynical operations you could think of. The plan was to finance the physical force tradition and to focus that tradition on Northern Ireland in order to lift the weight of agitational politics and the possibility of instability — a real concern to the security forces in the Republic in the late 1960s — regardless of the consequences. That was the point.

The other point is that within the judicial establishment in the Republic there was a total aversion to the extradition of terrorists for 30 years. For example, one warrant was regarded as invalid because a full stop was omitted at the end of a sentence. Margaret Thatcher is on record in her memoirs as saying that one of her reasons for signing the Anglo-Irish Agreement was to get further support on security from FitzGerald. However, she then realised that she would never get it.

I have to draw my speech to a close. Finally, I note that an enormous amount of arms was brought in and shifted around Ireland, which the security forces in the South never seem to get.

Photo of David Ervine David Ervine PUP

This is quite a shock to me; I agree with much of what Mr Roche has just said. I think that he has focused his mind on what the motion should have been focused on: the political attitudes of the Republic of Ireland.

And it should have been focused not only on the political attitudes of the Republic of Ireland but also on the ambivalence of the Republic of Ireland. Anecdotally, it is very powerful to listen to IRA men talk about phone calls from Dublin asking "Did you get the sewing machines?" These phone calls were from Dublin to Derry.

There have been two instances of serious collusion involving the Government of the Republic of Ireland. And remember that every institution in the Republic of Ireland is under Government control. How could it be otherwise? The Republic’s relationship with the Catholic Church must also be considered. Mr Roche alluded to one of the reasons for collusion but did not expand on it quite as starkly as I am about to.

IRA members were socialists, and because they were socialists they were dangerous, and they wanted to do away with them. So they armed the ones who bit the altar rails, appealing on the basis of the "pogroms" in Belfast and elsewhere in Northern Ireland. The Irish Government and the Catholic Church thought it legitimate to involve themselves, but the underlying reason was the destruction of a socialist movement.

Mr Alban Maginness says that there is not enough evidence to examine what might have happened in the Republic of Ireland. He probably has the same view about the United States — another good friend of his — which would never ever have abandoned a legally constituted and democratic Government to install the Shah of Iran. The United States would never have abandoned the perfectly legitimate Government of Salvador Allende in Chile to replace it with their own people and all the subsequent trauma and tragedy. Perhaps he is unaware that Governments are inclined to do these things. When he looks at an ordinary RUC man he immediately thinks collusion — much the same as members of Sinn Féin do. I was disappointed that Alex Maskey did not come clean, own up and tell us truth about these circumstances. Sooner or later, the truth will out.

Back to Mr Maginness. When he looks at an RUC man he sees collusion, but he cannot imagine seeing that in the nice little Republic — the decent, nice little Republic. The Republic has more faith in itself than he has. In the Republic, a Government fell because of a paedophile priest. The Government have had their nightmares with a litany of public commissions and inquiries — and we laugh at them. Unionism says "Look at them, they’re very bad people. Look what they’re up to." The people in the Republic get a bit fed up with it, but in effect what we are seeing is a nation coming of age, a nation where it is no longer sensible, rational or reasonable to sweep things under the carpet. It is an attempt to convince the world that they are the nice little people that undoubtedly Mr Maginness considers them to be. They tell some modicum of the truth, and then they build that modicum of truth into the whole truth. We have seen it played out with the brown envelope culture and land development issues. It was also to be seen in governmental and institutional attitudes in the Republic throughout the troubles. It can happen.

Mr Maginness and others need to come to terms with the fact that Unionism is perhaps saying "You know what it feels like", because kindred spirits, whether we like it or not, often help each other. Since there is one encompassing entity called "Irish Nationalism", how is it irrational for a Unionist policeman or soldier to think that it is in the best interests of his people to pass on a piece of information, whether it is legal or not? They have done it, and they have been found guilty. But the Nationalist Benches tell us that that would and could not happen in the Republic of Ireland, that there is no evidence of it. Are they not human beings, human beings unwillingly trapped in a conflagration? If it is fair and reasonable to presume that many Governments have behaved badly, why does Mr Maginness defend a Government that presumably has behaved as badly as any other?

Photo of Paul Berry Paul Berry DUP 4:15 pm, 30th January 2001

As an MLA who also represents the constituency of Newry and Armagh, particularly the south Armagh area, I support the motion. We can say that our constituents have suffered a great deal at the hands of the IRA. Our constituents have often come to us saying that they felt that there was collusion between the Garda Síochána, the Irish Government and the IRA. As the Unionist representative for that area, I thought that I would take it upon myself to bring the issue to the attention of the security Minister, Mr Adam Ingram. When I raised the issue with him he replied:

"You will no doubt have seen that Mr John O’Donoghue, the Irish Minister for Justice, announced on 13 April 2000 that a senior Garda officer would be appointed to re-examine the files on terrorist incidents in the border area in the 1980s and 1990s and to specifically investigate allegations of collusion between the Gardai and the IRA."

That is an insult to the people of this country.

The SDLP has called for investigations and inquiries into the murders of some of its constituents. Would Mr Alban Maginness appreciate an RUC investigation into the Hamill case? I am not saying that that is wrong or right, but I would like Mr Maginness to answer that question. I do not believe that a senior garda officer should be investigating these allegations. These are serious allegations of collusion between the gardaí and the IRA, and I think that means that the investigator should be independent. Collusion is not neutral, and the Irish Government should appoint someone neutral and independent. I would like Mr Alban Maginness to say whether he agrees with me on that.

Mr Kennedy and others have raised many issues today, and there should be an inquiry into the allegations that have been made. The Assembly should support a call for a public inquiry into these allegations of collusion between the Garda Síochána and the IRA.

Photo of Ian Paisley Jnr Ian Paisley Jnr DUP

Would the Member go further and agree that any inquiry into the Garda Síochána should be international? Does he agree that it should include people from Northern Ireland of the highest standing and professionalism, for example, senior RUC officers, so that they can cast their eye over these issues and allow people here to draw their own conclusions once the reports have been completed? Does he agree that there should be an international inquiry?

Photo of Paul Berry Paul Berry DUP

I agree wholeheartedly with my Colleague that there should be a full international inquiry into these allegations. There have been few real calls for an investigation into the collaboration between the gardaí and the IRA during the troubles. We hear much of the investigations that Republican so-called politicians continually pursue. The unjust goings-on between the Southern Government and the security forces should be cause for an inquiry into these allegations. I support the motion.

Photo of Mr Mick Murphy Mr Mick Murphy Sinn Féin

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support my Colleague Mr Maskey in saying that Mr Danny Kennedy’s motion does not go far enough. There should be an all-Ireland inquiry into the involvement of both the British and Irish Governments. It is ironic that Unionists should, at this time, make allegations of gardaí and IRA collusion when no shred of evidence has been produced to substantiate them. Ordinary gardaí have been charged and sentenced, but it has never been proven that the Garda Síochána hierarchy has ever been involved in collusion with the IRA.

However, an array of newspaper articles published in the course of recent months clearly points to collusion between the British Army, the RUC and Loyalist murder gangs. Unionists would do well to focus on these, rather than running off on flights of fancy.

From the information gathered by the Stevens inquiry, and the leaks to the media which can be sourced to former British intelligence operations, it is clear that the undercover British Army unit — the Force Research Unit, better known as FRU — infiltrated, restructured and rearmed Loyalist gangs. Working in conjunction with the RUC, it made information relating to personal details of Nationalists available to Loyalists. It directed Loyalist murder gangs to specified targets in the Nationalist community and regularly ventured into the Twenty-six Counties on surveillance operations.

We then have the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. Nobody has ever been made accountable for those. These matters deserve our undivided attention and need to be properly investigated. Given the inability of Stevens’s team to protect witnesses and their lack of authority in instructing former FRU operatives to give evidence, it is clear that important inquiries cannot be left to them.

Photo of David Ervine David Ervine PUP

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Where is the matter of the jurisdiction of the Irish Republic referred to in my Colleague’s commentary? There has been a lot about FRU and the RUC, but none of it, or very little of it, has been about the jurisdiction of the Irish Republic, in which, of course, the Garda Síochána function. Any inquiry could only take place in that jurisdiction.

Photo of Ms Jane Morrice Ms Jane Morrice NIWC

I thank the Member for his remarks. I ask Mr Murphy to return to the substance of the motion.

Photo of Mr Mick Murphy Mr Mick Murphy Sinn Féin

I am sticking to the substance of the motion. It is a well-known fact, and recent newspaper articles say that FRU was part and parcel of the Monaghan and Dublin bombs.

I will bring my remarks to a close. We in Sinn Féin demand that this matter be brought to a public inquiry.

Photo of Ms Jane Morrice Ms Jane Morrice NIWC

Order. My earlier ruling suggested that I was cautioning against mention of specific incidents and individuals, and I rule that out of order. I ask you not to refer to specific incidents.

Photo of Mr Mick Murphy Mr Mick Murphy Sinn Féin

Thank you, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

As my Colleague Mr Maskey said, we demand that a public inquiry should emphasise the parts played by both the British and Irish Governments in operations during the conflict in the Six Counties. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not proper that Members declare an interest when taking part in discussion if they have, or have had, association with an organisation under debate?

Photo of Alban Maginness Alban Maginness Social Democratic and Labour Party

Does the Member mean the Garda Síochána?

Photo of Ms Jane Morrice Ms Jane Morrice NIWC

I am not aware of any such association. Members will, of course, declare interest.

Photo of Mr John Kelly Mr John Kelly Sinn Féin

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I will declare an interest. I was sentenced for membership of the Irish Republican Army, and I make no apologies for it. That is my declaration of interest.

I have listened with interest, and I welcome the fact that Mr Kennedy has given us the opportunity to discuss this, but the motion could have been deepened and made more widespread in its context.

I listened with interest to Paddy Roche and to David Ervine, who were trying to give us a revisionist view of history and of what happened in 1969 and subsequently. I hold no brief for any Irish Government which, I believe, behaved in the most disreputable fashion in relation to the Nationalist community in the Six Counties over that time.

People talk about government, but let us go back to the 1960s, to the collusion there was then in the old Stormont Government, when Loyalist paramilitaries tried to depose and bring down Terence O’Neill, ChichesterClarke and the late Brian Faulkner. Let us remember that the bombs that were exploded throughout the Six County area at that time were blamed on the IRA, when the IRA was non-existent.

However, now we know, by word of mouth, or to use the words of Mr Kennedy’s motion, that there was "suspected collusion" between Members of the then Government and Loyalist paramilitaries. There is nothing new about collusion in the history of this part of Ireland or in any other part of Ireland. It was called co-operation at one time.

A Member:

Get to the motion.

Photo of Mr John Kelly Mr John Kelly Sinn Féin

I am coming to the motion.

For years, the Stormont Government and Unionist politicians asked for — pleaded for — co-operation between the security forces on both sides of the border, much to the disgust of Irish Republicans, and they got that co-operation. We were scathing of it; we condemned it; we asked that it should not happen, but it continued throughout the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s. However, no Member on the Unionist side is talking about the level of co-operation — or collusion, as we might call it — between the security forces and the various branches of Government throughout that period.

They are isolating one or two incidents and turning those into — in the words of the motion —

"suspected collusion between members of the Garda Síochána and the Irish Republican Army".

The only members of the Garda Síochána whom I know about in this regard are the ones who were brought before the courts, charged and put in prison. They were not suspected but arrested and put in jail.

There is a bit of a flight of fancy in all of this. People want to revise history. However, Mr Ervine cannot just write off what happened in 1969 as being the responsibility of the Catholic Church. It would be a travesty of history to write off the Catholic Church as placating those in the Republican movement who were eating the altar rails.

Photo of David Ervine David Ervine PUP

The second great conflagration was a division between the IRA and the Provisional IRA. At that point the decision was made to be anti-socialist, and the Irish Government and the Catholic Church had an involvement in the creation of the Provisional IRA.

Photo of Mr John Kelly Mr John Kelly Sinn Féin

I was a member of the Provisional IRA, and I am still a socialist, so I do not see the relevance of that comment.

Photo of Ian Paisley Jnr Ian Paisley Jnr DUP

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have had a confession in the House today that this man has been a member of the Provisional IRA. He should be arrested and put behind bars. That carries a sentence of seven years. If he still is a member of the Provisional IRA he should be put back behind bars this afternoon.

Photo of Ms Jane Morrice Ms Jane Morrice NIWC

The Member declared an interest at the start of his presentation.

Photo of Mr John Kelly Mr John Kelly Sinn Féin

As I said, I am talking about the past and not about the present, and I declared my interest at the outset.

This is a serious matter, however, and the debate and the remit ought to be more widespread. It should cover all aspects of what has happened in this part and the other part of the island, perhaps not in the last 30 years, but certainly since partition.

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

It is interesting to speak after the previous Member. The Member often speaks for Sinn Féin/IRA. They appear to have difficulty getting Members to speak. The Member from Mid Ulster seems to be the spokesman on everything and the expert on nothing.

I support this motion. It is important that the public’s attention be directed towards this matter. Many people, particularly in the Nationalist community, are living in a world where they like to believe that nothing wrong has ever been done in the Irish Republic — everything is good and above board. However, north of the border everything suddenly turns bad — for example, the police force and the Civil Service. Everything is under the terrible, corrupting influence of Protestants.

I went to a meeting once involving companies that were in competition with businesses in the Irish Republic. The businessmen said "They are better at telling lies than we are at telling the truth." With regard to this issue, the Republic of Ireland’s Government and police force are better at telling lies than the Government and the police force in Northern Ireland are at telling the truth.

Along the border, there has been case after case of Protestants being murdered. Where did the perpetrators of those murders go? They went to the Irish Republic. How did they get to the Irish Republic? They went over a free border. Apparently, the Irish Government did not have the resources to man that border. However, when the BSE crisis broke out in 1996 the Republican movement in south Armagh was really upset because it cut down on their smuggling activities. They found it more difficult to smuggle oil, livestock and whatever else it was that they smuggled. The Republic can stop truckloads of cattle, but it could not stop the truckloads of gunmen who used to murder people and then cross the border to their safe haven in the Irish Republic.

We must also re-examine the Irish Government’s position on extradition. The British Government signed the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement on the basis that there would be greater co-operation from the Irish Government on extradition. That co-operation was not forthcoming. It was farcical, and it did not act in the best interests of the community in Northern Ireland.

There was also an incident when the gardaí discovered arms in Donegal. However, instead of announcing that they had uncovered the arms, they placed them in smaller arms dumps so that they could announce a series of arms finds. They wanted the general public to think that they were more proactive in hunting down IRA terrorists than they really were.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you said at the start of the debate that Members could not name individuals. However, there are a number of cases that must be looked at. The murder of Lord Justice Gibson has to be looked at seriously, as do those of Ch Supt Harry Breen and Supt Bob Buchanan.

Photo of Ms Jane Morrice Ms Jane Morrice NIWC

I made the ruling that, in the interests of caution, there should be no reference to specific cases. I rule the Member out of order.

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

I was referring to specific cases, as opposed to individual gardaí who were allegedly involved. Although I have names, I was not going to go down the route of naming those people.

A senior gardaí officer has been appointed to examine some of these cases. I find that strange because when a senior member of the RUC is appointed to investigate a case, that is not good enough. In the case of Rosemary Nelson, for example, others from outside the RUC were brought in. However, that still is not good enough for the SDLP. It wants a public independent inquiry. Yet when we raise a case in the Irish Republic that concerns us, it is all right for a gardaí officer to conduct the investigation. It is not necessary to bring in outsiders, because it is satisfied with what the gardaí will report. The SDLP is being hypocritical and it has double standards on this issue, though, of course, this is not the first time.

Photo of Alban Maginness Alban Maginness Social Democratic and Labour Party

This has not been the Assembly’s finest hour, in terms of debate. In many ways Members have not addressed the substance of Mr Kennedy’s motion. I do not think that he intended the motion to be as wide-ranging as Members have made it, despite my initial criticism of his vagueness in framing it.

There has also been an element of tit for tat, particularly on the Unionist Benches, in addressing the motion and addressing the sort of arguments that I have presented, and I regret that. We have had, of course, the usual rant from Ian Paisley Jnr — we are used to that. He mistakes abuse for substantial argument in many of his contributions. However, I am not deterred by his abuse of me or of my party, for we are used to that.

I regret that we have not received the support of Sinn Féin on the amendment. Mr Maskey has told us that the amendment is of no substance. I believe that it is, because it points out to the House that an investigation is ongoing and that a report is awaited. On the basis of that report, I believe, and my party believes, that we can make a decision sometime in the future. That report should not be long in coming to fruition.

As I have said before, I hope that the report is successful in identifying people who can be prosecuted. If they can be prosecuted, that is the right way in which to deal with the matter — as it is in the Hamill, Nelson and Finucane cases. Prosecutions are more important than anything else.

With regard to Paul Berry’s point, the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland is investigating the Hamill case, which we welcome. It is important for that case to be investigated. There is evidence in the Hamill case that — and I do not want to put it any stronger than this, activities — were going on within —

Photo of Ms Jane Morrice Ms Jane Morrice NIWC

Order. I have stated that Members should not mention specific cases.

Photo of Alban Maginness Alban Maginness Social Democratic and Labour Party

All I will say is this: in relation to Hamill, there are matters that require investigation, and those matters are more than mere allegations. In this instance, the Garda Síochána is investigating allegations which to date have not produced tangible evidence. And one requires tangible evidence in order to form a prima facie case for setting up a public inquiry.

The SDLP has never asked for public inquiries in cases where there has not been some prima facie evidence of something wrong that requires to be investigated further, over and above a simple police investigation.

In the South we currently have a number of inquiries that are open, transparent and thorough. It is to the credit of the Southern political system that matters that have caused great public concern should be openly and transparently investigated in the most thorough manner possible. We should be crediting, and not ridiculing, those in the South who have brought that about. That is the type of political culture that we should have here.

If there is any substance to the allegations that have been made, and if it is merited, there will be a public inquiry in the South. However, the first point that I make is that the matter should be thoroughly investigated, and if there is evidence, there should be prosecution. If the evidence is insufficient to allow a proper prosecution, a public inquiry should be conducted.

The ebb and flow of this debate has not been an edifying experience. Allegations have been cast from one side to the other. Mr John Kelly seems to be stuck in an historical time warp.

Photo of David Ervine David Ervine PUP 4:45 pm, 30th January 2001

One presumes that if a Member castigates other Members for making a bad speech, he must believe that his own contribution was wonderful.

Photo of Alban Maginness Alban Maginness Social Democratic and Labour Party

I do not believe so. This has not been my finest hour either.

Photo of Mr John Kelly Mr John Kelly Sinn Féin

A LeasCheann Comhairle, will the Member give way?

Photo of Alban Maginness Alban Maginness Social Democratic and Labour Party

No. At least I addressed the issue and brought forth arguments. Unlike Mr Ervine, I did not indulge in some sort of attack on things that were not said. I do not mind being criticised for things that I say, but I do object to being criticised for things that I do not say.

Mr Ervine has a vivid political imagination, and he exhibited that today. He came up with some of the most fantastical suggestions that even a revisionist historian would refuse to support.

Photo of Mr John Kelly Mr John Kelly Sinn Féin

Does the Member agree that if I am in a time warp, Mr Ervine is in an ivory tower?

Photo of Alban Maginness Alban Maginness Social Democratic and Labour Party

I think that the two Members have similar problems. They did not address the problem that was raised, quite properly, by Mr Kennedy. Rather, they indulged in historical debate, which was so threadbare that it was of no value to and destructive of good argument in the House.

Photo of David Ervine David Ervine PUP

That is unbelievable.

Photo of Alban Maginness Alban Maginness Social Democratic and Labour Party

The Member is entitled to his opinion, but he emphasised to the House insubstantial points that could not be justified by any proper historical analysis. Therefore, I rightly criticise the Member.

The amendment is a reasoned one, and the House should find it acceptable to hold its judgement until the result of the gardaí investigation is available. It will provide the basis for a prosecution or a public inquiry.

Photo of David Ervine David Ervine PUP

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, such a naming entitles a Member to a right of reply.

Photo of David Ervine David Ervine PUP

My opinions are held not only by me, and the historical — or what Mr Maginness might have described as hysterical — assertions that I am supposed to have made were also made by other Members, some of whom are members of the Republican movement. If references to the Shah of Iran and Salvador Allende constitute historical nonsense, I do not know what is not historical nonsense. The suggestion that they were committed by Governments that are perceived to be decent allows me to believe that another such Government might also behave in a similar way.

Nothing that I said was directed personally towards Mr Maginness or was historical nonsense, as he has unfortunately described it. I will check Hansard — and get it rewritten before it comes out in the morning.

Photo of Danny Kennedy Danny Kennedy UUP

In spite of what Mr Maginness said, Members have had a reasonably informed debate. I am grateful to those Members who made contributions endorsing the motion. I wish to make a number of points about them.

Mr Maginness criticised the motion because there was no specific detail. I was conscious that, given the confines of this important debate, it would be unwise, and not permissible, to engage in naming individuals and referring to specific cases, so it was written in general terms. I do not share Alban Maginness’s faith in John O’Donoghue, or in any Minister for Justice in the Irish Republic, who is clearly quite unwilling to authorise a fully impartial and independent review of these matters. The Irish Government clearly stand in the dock. Those who endorse their position stand in the dock with them, and it would appear that the SDLP wants to be there.

An internal inquiry is not an acceptable way to deal with these matters. Mr Maginness said he did not rule out an inquiry and he left it open that at some stage, perhaps the SDLP may press for an inquiry. That is at odds with his party’s mandate as the defenders of human rights in Northern Ireland.

This party of defenders of liberty and of saints and scholars — and all manner of things — is clearly exposed today in that it does not, and cannot, accept that there was wrongdoing by members of the Garda Síochána or by senior members of the Irish Government over many years. I am grateful to Ian Paisley Jnr for giving the motion his active support. He brought — [Interruption]

Photo of Mr John Kelly Mr John Kelly Sinn Féin

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This day has been disrupted continuously by mobile phones going off. I ask for a ruling that mobile phones be left outside in a pigeonhole — with the guns.

Photo of Danny Kennedy Danny Kennedy UUP

Mobile phones ought not to be in the Chamber. They ought to be taken out of service — "decommissioned" is another word for that — and we look forward to that and other matters too.

Ian Paisley Jnr did bear out the point — and the representations made by Nationalists here also bear it out — that they are in denial. Nationalism and the Nationalist political viewpoint are in denial of much of what took place over the last 25 to 30 years. Republicans remain silent, or at least grudgingly acknowledge their role. If there is criticism of the SDLP — and I must say this very firmly — it is that it appears to be in serious denial of the events that took place in border constituencies. It was mass murder, assisted by rogue members of the Garda Síochána, yet the SDLP will not acknowledge it.

Mr Maskey tried, in some way, to introduce other elements and appeal that there had been wrongdoing for everybody, and so that would have to be investigated. It is a curious irony that any member of Sinn Féin should want an investigation, given their active participation in the murder campaign. I welcome and acknowledge Mr Neeson’s acceptance of the concerns raised by the motion, and Mr Roche made a very good case that collusion was ultimately inevitable because of the actions of senior politicians. I can remember the words of Jack Lynch when he said that the Irish Government would not stand idly by. Those words clearly gave a mandate to individuals and members of organisations to put into effect a campaign that resulted in murder, particularly in the border area.

I must warmly commend Mr Ervine’s speech. It was a very compelling and valuable contribution, and I suggest that Nationalists and Republicans read and inwardly digest it. I am also grateful for the contribution of Mr Berry; he is aware of the issues in his Newry and Armagh constituency.

Mick Murphy’s speech was astonishing. He contradicted not just me but Alex Maskey, his party Colleague, and Hans Christian Andersen would have had difficulty with some of the arguments he brought forward.

John Kelly’s confession was even more astonishing. They say that confession is good for the soul. I was not gratified by the confession of his membership of the IRA; that was very regrettable indeed. It is a new departure in boasting, and it is unacceptable that a Member of the House should proclaim — with some pride, it appears — that he was a member of the Provisional IRA, given its contribution to society over the past 30 years. I just wonder whether the register of interests that all Members are required to complete will include that, because it was a very clear admission and was acknowledged by the Chair.

Photo of Mr John Kelly Mr John Kelly Sinn Féin

I said, in a jocose way, that I had to declare an interest — that I had been convicted of membership of the IRA. That is a matter of public record, not of any other type of record.

Photo of Ian Paisley Jnr Ian Paisley Jnr DUP

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Hansard will show that his words indicated that he was, and is, a member of the Provisional IRA. If that is the case, the Member should reflect upon what he said to the House, and if his words are recorded inaccurately, he should withdraw them.

Photo of Ms Jane Morrice Ms Jane Morrice NIWC

We will look at Hansard to see exactly what was said.

Photo of Mr Pat McNamee Mr Pat McNamee Sinn Féin

I was sitting quite close to the Member in question, and his words were that he was — was — a member of the Provisional IRA. I understand that Members are required to register their current interests, but that there is no requirement to register interests they had in the past.

Photo of Danny Kennedy Danny Kennedy UUP

I am inclined to say that the Member for Newry and Armagh has compounded the earlier boast made by Mr John Kelly by confirming what Mr Kelly said, but no doubt Hansard will bear that out.

I share Mr Poots’s criticism of the gardaí. While they have found arms and ammunition on many occasions, they have apprehended few terrorists, and that has been a concern for many years. They were happy enough to find the stuff, but they did not want to find anybody who might have been in charge of it.

Mr Maginness, in his winding-up speech, said that it was not the Assembly’s finest hour. I share his view. It was not his finest hour. Given the confines of the debate, we could not deal with specific cases. I look forward to observing the SDLP’s continuing interest in the findings of John O’Donoghue and to seeing how active it will be in the vanguard of public appeals for an independent tribunal or review.

I want to say one thing regarding Mr Alban Maginness’s reference to the Hamill case. It was an unfortunate contribution given the legal position of that case. Alban Maginness wanted prima facie evidence. I can produce no greater evidence than the blatant murder, with the collusion of rogue garda officers, of RUC men, UDR men, RIR men, senior members of the Northern Ireland judiciary and private citizens from both the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland. That seems to be enough prima facie evidence to warrant a full independent inquiry. I believe that a compelling case has been made.

Clearly the evidence is available, and it must be seen to be dealt with in an open and impartial way. We should endorse the call for a full public inquiry, an international inquiry, headed by acknowledged experts. That should be established quickly, and it should be a priority for the new Secretary of State. In framing this motion, I am glad that I did not name the Secretary of State. That would have been unfortunate, given the run of events this week. It is incumbent on the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to address this issue seriously. Until this matter is fully exposed, it will never be possible to trust completely the security authorities in the Irish Republic.

Photo of Danny Kennedy Danny Kennedy UUP

Wrongdoing by rogue garda officers should not, and must not, be covered up.

Photo of Ian Paisley Jnr Ian Paisley Jnr DUP

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At the beginning of this debate you made a ruling about sub judice matters, which set out the parameters for this debate. Are you interpreting the words "all courts" in the Standing Order as referring to courts beyond this jurisdiction, or are you saying that the sub judice rule applies to courts in the United Kingdom only? From what appears to be your interpretation of the sub judice rule, Members were not allowed to cite cases that are under discussion in another jurisdiction. By your interpretation of that Standing Order, Members were deliberately prevented from raising certain matters. Perhaps you would comment on that.

Photo of Ms Jane Morrice Ms Jane Morrice NIWC

I was referring to all courts in this jurisdiction.

Photo of Ian Paisley Jnr Ian Paisley Jnr DUP

Perhaps you could then tell us why Members were prevented from raising cases that are not before any court in this jurisdiction. The motion does not ask for them to be brought before a court in this jurisdiction; it simply seeks to have an inquiry into issues in another jurisdiction.

Photo of Ms Jane Morrice Ms Jane Morrice NIWC

That ruling was made in the interests of caution. At some stage those issues may be brought before a court in this jurisdiction.

Photo of Ian Paisley Ian Paisley Leader of the Democratic Unionist Party

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely the ruling you have just given about what might happen in a court has nothing to do with any debate in this House or with any other debate in any other Parliament. This Parliament — or this Assembly, or whatever you want to call it — has only to take care with the sub judice rule when a matter might come to court in this jurisdiction, not anywhere else. For anybody to say that this House cannot discuss what happens in a court of law in France is absolute nonsense.

Photo of Ms Jane Morrice Ms Jane Morrice NIWC

The rule refers to this jurisdiction. However, there are certain offences — for example, in border areas — which could be brought before this jurisdiction. I will make enquiries and make a ruling later today, or tomorrow if necessary.

Question put,

The Assembly divided: Ayes 36; Noes 46.

Ayes

Alex Attwood, Eileen Bell, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Seamus Close, Annie Courtney, John Dallat, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, David Ford, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Sean Neeson, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, John Tierney.

Noes

Ian Adamson, Fraser Agnew, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Joan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, David Ervine, John Gorman, Tom Hamilton, William Hay, Derek Hussey, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Maurice Morrow, Dermot Nesbitt, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, George Savage, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Jim Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main question put.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 46; Noes 32.

Ayes

Ian Adamson, Fraser Agnew, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Joan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, David Ervine, John Gorman, Tom Hamilton, William Hay, Derek Hussey, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Maurice Morrow, Dermot Nesbitt, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, George Savage, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Jim Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

Noes

Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Annie Courtney, John Dallat, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, John Tierney.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly calls on the Secretary of State to make representations to the Government of the Republic of Ireland to conduct a public inquiry into suspected collusion between members of the Garda Síochána and the Irish Republican Army in the planning and execution of acts of terrorism.