Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
1-19)
MR MICHAEL
GALLAGHER AND
MR GODFREY
WILSON
16 MARCH 2009
Q1 Chairman: Could I welcome you both.
We were expecting four of you, but you are most welcome, Mr Gallagher
and Mr Wilson. This is a public evidence session, as you know.
In other words, everything will be taken down and there will be
a published transcript. For that reason, if you feel at the end
that you want five minutes with the Committee in private we will
be very happy to grant that facility to you. Could I say at the
beginning in welcoming you that I do not think I need to tell
you how much the Committee is in sympathy with you and those you
represent. The purpose of this afternoon's session is for us to
ask you questions and for you to give whatever answers you wish.
I hope you will appreciate that we can make no comment this afternoon
on such issues as a public inquiry. The Committee will deliberate
after we have had your evidence. This must not be taken as being
a statement either for or against that particular subject. We
will question you on it, but because of what has appeared in the
papers I did not want you to think that we would be in a position
to make any comment on that this afternoon because when we go
back we shall want to deliberate in Committee on what you have
said. We have invited Mr John Ware to give evidence before us
and we may invite others also to give evidence before us. That
merely sets the scene for you and I hope is helpful. Before I
begin any questioning, is there anything that either or both of
you would like to say to the Committee?
Mr Gallagher: Could I just say,
first of all, that we welcome the opportunity to come here and
talk to you firsthand about something that is very important to
us in our lives. I do recognise that you are the people who are
asking the questions, but I have got an executive summary and
it may be useful if I read it. It gives an overview of many of
the problems that we have encountered over the past 10 years.
I have got a couple of copies of that statement so that the note
taker does not need to go on overtime to keep pace, if that is
agreeable with you, Sir Patrick?
Q2 Chairman: Is this a long statement,
Mr Gallagher?
Mr Gallagher: I do not think it
is long. It is nine pages.
Q3 Chairman: That is a bit too long
to give as a statement, if you do not mind my saying so, because
that is going to take you a good 12 minutes or so to read. If
you could just make a few comments and then we can go on to our
questions. Please leave that with us as additional evidence so
if any of the points are not covered in the questioning we have
that, but if we have a very, very long statement from you it cuts
down the amount of questioning we can have. What I suggest is
if you want to make some of your main points and then leave that
with our clerk and I promise you we will take every item in that
statement most carefully into account. Please feel free to refer
to it at any time during your evidence and in your opening comments.
If Mr Wilson has any opening comments he wishes to add, please
feel free.
Mr Gallagher: As you know, the
reason we are here is as a result of a tragic event that happened
on 15 August 1998. Our only son, Aiden, died in that atrocity
and Godfrey's daughter, Lorraine, who was 16 at the time, died
in the bomb. I can remember sitting on the 16th thinking, "Well,
everybody knows who is responsible for this and there is so much
goodwill right across the country, everybody is saying this is
such a small grouping, they are renegades and out of control".
I never would have imagined that I would be sitting here over
10 years after the event trying to persuade people that we need
closure. We came together as a group of bereaved families almost
immediately. Some of the families I knew personally and some of
them I had never known before. We did come together as a group
of people and very shortly formalised ourselves into the Omagh
Support and Self-Help Group. We were people from right across
the community. Certainly I had never been a member of a political
party, I had been a self-employed person and had cut my own rut
in life, as it were. I did not necessarily need to be thrust into
this, but it was my own choosing to be thrust into this because
on 3 June 1984 my youngest brother was assassinated by the Provisional
IRA so I felt that I could not sit back and let two wonderful
people's lives connected with my family count for nothing, there
had to be a stand taken. It was for that reason that I took on
the particular role that I did. The Group itself is made up of
people from right across the community, people of all religious
and political opinion. Indeed, one family is Mormon. We have a
meeting usually once a month. We have set up a management committee.
We are in a formal structure and are a registered charity. When
we have those meetings we do not ask anyone to leave their politics
or religion outside the door, but we tend to concentrate on the
things that unite us rather than the things that divide us, and
that is a quest for justice. Of course we supported the police,
we supported the Garda Síochána and all the apparatus
of state, the intelligence services, et cetera, but after
a couple of years it became clear there were serious problems
in the Omagh investigation and we went from one crisis to another.
The documents that I have handed over graphically illustrate a
lot of the problems we have had over the years on both sides of
the border.
Q4 Chairman: Could you just give
us one or two examples of that. I appreciate you have given a
number in the document which will be circulated, but if you could
just give us one or two examples that would be both helpful and
interesting.
Mr Gallagher: In 2002 we saw Colm
Murphy convicted for his part in the Omagh bombing. Ironically,
it was the result of a television programme that John Ware made
entitled Who Bombed Omagh? that was the catalyst for that.
He identified a number of individuals who were alleged to have
been involved in the Omagh bombing and Colm Murphy was one of
those people that John Ware actually confronted in Dundalk. As
a result of the light being shone on him, if you like, the Garda
looked more closely and he was convicted in 2002. In 2005 he appealed
the conviction. Two of the Garda officers lied consistently in
the witness box—those were the words of the presiding judge—and
as a result of that his conviction was quashed and he is awaiting
a retrial. That is a very long time to await a retrial. Omagh
is riddled with things that it is very hard to understand. We
were confused and really did not know where to look. There were
no convictions on the horizon in Northern Ireland. We decided
to take a civil action, and both Godfrey and I are involved in
that civil lawsuit. It will not put people behind bars but it
will apportion blame. The court can apportion blame. There are
five people involved in that, five people who are alleged to have
participated in the Omagh bombing, and also the organisation,
the Real IRA. Our legal team, Lord Brennan, is making the closing
speeches this Friday. That was one direction where we went as
families. Some of the other families chose not to take that direction.
Q5 Chairman: How many families are
in your group?
Mr Gallagher: It is always a difficult
thing to quantify. I would say that probably more than half of
the bereaved families. Our membership stands at around 200. It
is difficult to quantify how many people are involved in the Group
because people drift in and out. Some people who were initially
involved in the Group have left and that tends to be what happens,
maybe their needs were met and they have moved on in a different
direction. What I can say is we are very representative of the
people affected by the bomb, both in the bereaved and injured.
Q6 Chairman: Could you tell us what
you are currently doing to support individual families, bereaved
families, 10 years after the event?
Mr Gallagher: Of course. In the
Group we have a registered office. We moved to a new office which
is quite close to the bomb scene and I feel that was a very positive
move because people have moved closer to the bomb scene. The charity
shop involves people and brings people from the community into
the shop and it also gives the people in the Group an opportunity.
If I could just say what our objectives are. They are the relief
of poverty, sickness, disability of victims, the advancement of
education and protection. These are things from the charitable
side. If I could go to the activities: "The above objects
are reflected in the work of the Omagh Support and Self-Help Group:
advice, advocacy and support". We have a welfare advisor,
somebody who advises on welfare issues, because when you get an
horrific incident such as that you get many people who are dependent
on benefits for a long time and, indeed, some people for the rest
of their lives. From that point of view, we have someone who comes
in and assists with form-filling and advises people on what benefits
they are entitled to, a benefit check if you like. We do IT training
courses because many of the people had their education disrupted
as a result of being affected by the bomb and, indeed, some people
would have had no IT training whatsoever, including myself. We
run computer training courses at two different levels, for beginners
and advanced. We run a programme of complementary therapies where
people get various types of complementary therapy. One of the
big projects that we are running, and have run for the past three
years, is an archive of historical material. We felt it was important
to collate all of the information possible, both in the written
media and the transmitted media, the broadcast media, and to that
end we have the archive project, which is a very big project.
We have a website and we have an archive on that website that
is updated constantly. There are people working all the time on
the archive. We are doing exactly what we are doing here now,
lobbying for change for victims. We do youth work and we have
a youth section to the committee where young people take part,
they run their own sub-committee. We have advice and information
for carers on how to support people who are looking after people
who are injured. The work can vary. For the last three months
we have had an art class that runs every Wednesday night and people
come in and do a whole programme of different types of art: water
painting, glass painting, interior design. It is quite varied,
it depends at any one time. All of the services that we provide
to our members we try to gain funding for so it allows people
who have a limited budget to take part. There are some very enjoyable
things that the Group does. We have social outings where we arrange
to go to the theatre or go and visit National Trust properties
or just have a day at the seaside. The programme is quite varied.
Q7 Chairman: That sounds very impressive.
You are obviously devoting an enormous amount of your personal
time to this.
Mr Gallagher: Almost 10 years,
without pay.
Q8 Chairman: Without pay.
Mr Gallagher: Without pay. We
only have one and a half people working in the Group who receive
pay. One is a young woman called Donna McCauley who is our Project
Co-ordinator who works from nine o'clock to 5.30 who runs and
organises many of these programmes. We have another lady who comes
in and does the admin.
Q9 Chairman: This is all greatly
to your credit and it is helpful to have that background. Since
we met informally in Omagh in the late October of last year we
have had the publication of the Sir Peter Gibson Report. Could
you give the Committee your reaction to that?
Mr Gallagher: We had grave concerns
about Sir Peter Gibson dealing with this matter. The Group has
been here before because in the Republic in 2002 there was a similar
accusation made that the Garda mishandled intelligence and as
a result of that the Government set up a team called the Nally
team and they interviewed witnesses and carried out an investigation
into these allegations. The problem that we had was they were
three key former top civil servants in the Irish Republic and
we felt they did not have the independence from the Government
that was needed, they had no investigative skills to carry out
this work and when their work was completed, like Sir Peter's,
it was a document that it was feared if it went into public circulation
could assist terrorists. We felt we were going to be back here,
as it were, people talking about things. We had one hand tied
behind our back. We had very limited knowledge. We got a document
that was released by Sir Peter, and I cannot remember the exact
number of pages but it was not much more than the statement I
was going to read here at the beginning of this meeting, and we
do not know how many pages were in the report that the Prime Minister
or others received. In fact, I wrote a letter to Sir Peter asking
for the terms of reference of his inquiry and I never even got
an acknowledgement or a reply. We do not even know that. If I
could put it very succinctly: he used a particular line of language
to indicate that to track the movement of people in cars in 1998
was not possible and yet we have seen the government experts and
private companies, telephone companies, give similar evidence
in our civil action in front of the court with diagrams and described
how you can track the movement of a phone. They are not saying
they can—the word has been used in this report—"pinpoint".
Of course they could not pinpoint a mobile phone, but what happens
is when a mobile phone moves between transmitting stations it
logs off one and logs on to another, so if you can calculate the
time it logged off one and logged on to the other you can give
a fairly precise location of where that vehicle has been, the
direction and speed that it is travelling. I am very reluctant
to speak in detail about this subject because I am aware that
John Ware is talking about it on Wednesday and he has a greater
knowledge of the subject than I do. The concern that I have is
the Prime Minister, the Taioseach and even the President of the
United States got involved in some way in this investigation at
the earlier stage, they indicated there should be a resolution
to it and that the perpetrators should be brought before the courts.
For that information to have been available, and do not forget
in Sir Peter's report it does not say that the movement of the
vehicles and telephone numbers were not known, that should have
been passed at the earliest possible stage to the senior investigating
officers. That is the concern I have got, that it took the RUC
almost nine months trawling through millions of telephone billing
records in order to achieve the telephone numbers that literally
if the intelligence services had co-operated, policemen, let it
be RUC or Garda, could have put their hand on the shoulder of
the people on that very evening.
Q10 Chairman: Mr Gallagher, I want
to bring in Mr Simpson, but before I do so, just so that we are
absolutely clear on this, you are saying that in spite of Sir
Peter's report and your subsequent meeting with the Prime Minister
you still remain very unhappy on this subject? That would be a
correct interpretation, would it?
Mr Gallagher: I think there are
a number of key issues that have not been answered stemming from
Sir Peter's report.
Chairman: Thank you very much. If, by
chance, those issues do not come up in questioning this afternoon
then you and Mr Wilson can of course supplement your evidence
by writing to our clerk and we will be able to have that as well.
Q11 David Simpson: Can I start off
by thanking the two gentlemen for their presentation. Right across
the board in Northern Ireland they will have a lot of sympathy.
They have to be congratulated on their persistence as an organisation
in the past 10 years. I was going to comment that we know exactly
how they feel but I think that would be a wrong comment because
we do not know what the families went through in Omagh and for
any families caught up in victim-hood in any shape or form it
is a tragedy and our hearts go out to them. I do not know if you
are in a position to answer this, but I will put it to you anyway.
If you were to put the blame at the door of someone for the failure
of conviction, and we have, of course, the Garda, the police,
the judiciary and politicians, who would you blame for the failure
of not achieving your goals to this present day?
Mr Gallagher: I think you are
quite right in your opening comments. I feel it would be wrong
of me to place the blame on anyone and that is why we do need
the inquiry. There is one thing I want to make clear at the beginning
of this conversation. We will not remove the blame from those
who are responsible, and that is the Real IRA. They took responsibility
for it. They are the people who created an extremely lethal and
dangerous situation in Omagh and expected others to deal with
it. Our call for an inquiry is not to shift blame from those who
rightly should receive that blame, but to see what went wrong
and what should be done to put it right. The problem is that we
live in an environment in Northern Ireland, and I know I can say
it in this room, where whenever any of these questions are asked
people will always say in relation to Omagh, "Well, that
is a security issue". As far as we are concerned, the security
failed at the point when the bombers closed the car door and it
then became a public safety issue. I have a substantial file,
I do not know if it is appropriate to leave it with you or not,
but it covers a vast amount, a vast area, including town centre
evacuation and emergency planning. One of the reasons that it
is important to have an inquiry into these types of things is
I have three summarised versions of reports that were carried
out. The first one is into the Oklahoma City bombing and that
occurred on 19 April 1995. It was a bombing without a warning.
It was home-grown terrorism. There was no warning call. As a result
of that, seven different inquiries were carried out into a whole
range of organisations and how they performed. It is a fascinating
piece of work. You can get this on the internet. As a result of
this work the Federal Emergency Management System was set up,
which is a system where, whether it be a national disaster or
a terrorist act is committed, there are resources from a whole
range of states that come and assist those in trouble. As a result
of the Oklahoma City bombing that system was set up and people
benefited on 9/11. People got on a plane, a train or whatever
and went to where it was. The other report that I have got is
a report on a terrorist attack that happened in Saudi Arabia at
a place called Khobar Towers, and it is entitled A Personal
Accountability for Force Protection. This was a US military
base that a truck bomb was planted outside and 19 US Marines died.
As a result of that, the US Government wanted to know why 19 of
their young men, along with a number of Saudi Nationals died,
"Could we have done more to prevent that?" As a result
of that, they carried out a very extensive inquiry. It is a fascinating
read. When you start to read this, some of the things are exactly
the same as Omagh. As a result of what happened the base commander
was returned to the United States, it was recommended that he
would never be in a position where he would be accountable for
people's personal safety and it was recommended he would receive
no further promotion, along with a number of recommendations for
US bases at home and abroad. These are the positive things that
come from an inquiry. Going back to the most basic one that I
can always remember, the Titanic, as a result of the Titanic
every ship that sails today has enough lifeboats for the people
on that ship. We get a bit screwed up when we talk about inquiries.
The other one is the bombing of the US Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya
and Dar es Salaam in Tanzania. This was a bomb that occurred on
7 August 1998, just a week before the Omagh bombing. They carried
out an inquiry to see what weaknesses and strengths there were
in the protection against terrorism at their bases, their embassies,
their establishments both at home and around the world. That is
the reason why it is important to carry out an inquiry.
Q12 Chairman: May I just stop you
there because you have made a very important series of points.
You will know that when this Committee reported on the cost of
policing the past we said that we did not feel there should be
more public inquiries unless there was really broad consensus
amongst all the political parties in Northern Ireland because
of the time that they take and their vast cost. Both of those
are very significant factors. The Bloody Sunday Inquiry has been
going on and on and on and we have recently had a further delay.
By the time Lord Saville reports we will have had an expenditure
in excess of £200 million. Largely because of this the recent
consultative group, Eames-Bradley, has come down rather against
further public inquiries in its very important and thoughtful
report. What sort of inquiry is it that you want and how do we
get over—please do not read anything into what I am saying—these
very real points of cost and duration?
Mr Gallagher: Sir Patrick, this
is something that we face daily. You are absolutely right, I am
appalled at the cost of inquiries and the fact that QCs and law
firms end up millions to the better from our pain. At the inquest
in 2000 I was one of the few people who did not instruct my solicitor
to take part in that because the question at the coroner's inquest
was how somebody died. I did not need an inquest to tell me how
Aiden died, I knew how he died. The law firms had some of the
highest paid QCs in this country at the inquest. It sat for three
weeks and deliberated and at the end of that process I do not
think we gained an awful lot. I am not in favour of dragging this
out and costing hundreds of millions of pounds. Whilst you have
quoted me the worst example of a public inquiry, let me tell you
that Dublin is probably the European capital of public inquiries.
They call them tribunals. Some of them have equally been a disaster
and very expensive, but some have worked very well. In fact, people
have even gone to jail as a result of some of those inquiries.
Could I just point to an inquiry that took place in London and
I did not hear anyone talk about the cost or the length of it,
and that was the Hutton Inquiry into the death of the Government
scientist, Dr Kelly. The issues that had to be dealt with in that
inquiry were as sensitive as the issues to be dealt with in this
inquiry. The witnesses were from the Prime Minister down, intelligence
services and committees that I had never heard of were involved
in that. This is a unique inquiry because it is cross-border.
There must be somewhere in Europe where there has been a cross-border
inquiry. There must be a template for this somewhere. The families
are not interested in bankrupting the British Treasury, that is
not part of our mission here. What we need is closure. We will
co-operate with the Government to look at ways of minimising the
cost of an inquiry and reducing the time.
Q13 Chairman: What particular things
would you expect the inquiry to look into? You have been very
clear and unequivocal in saying you know who to blame, the Real
IRA, for this despicable, appalling crime, for which none of us
can find adequate words of condemnation, but what would you hope
the inquiry would deliver up?
Mr Gallagher: Obviously we would
look at the intelligence that was there prior to the bomb. You
asked me earlier on to highlight some of the deficiencies that
we have had to face over the 10 years. There was an American agent
called David Rupert who worked for the FBI initially and then
was jointly controlled by the FBI and MI5. In April 1998 David
Rupert communicated with his handlers via email. He was a very
prolific emailer and sent almost 4,000 emails in his period of
operation in Ireland. I have seen every one of those emails. In
April 1998 he did say in the circle that he had access to that
Omagh was considered to be a serious target because of its police
and military installations. That message never got through to
the RUC. In fact, Sam Kincaid, the Assistant Chief Constable,
told us in February 2006 in Omagh that they had just learned of
this information, it had never been shared with the RUC. I am
sure people who served in the RUC would want to know why that
information was never shared. We would like to know because it
put Omagh, as it were, in the firing line. In Sir Peter's statement
he says there was no indication that Omagh was a target in August
1998, but I would suggest there were quite a number of indicators
that suggested that Omagh was a target. There was a phone call
on 4 August 1998 to the police station in Omagh saying that there
was going to be a terrorist attack on 15 August 1998. The police
themselves investigated this and later the Police Ombudsman investigated
it. He has not yet made his formal report on it but I am aware
that the report is inconclusive. A Special Branch officer was
the key person who was alleged to have made the phone call and
it is my understanding that officer has now been cleared. The
families cannot understand how somebody 11 days before the Omagh
attack made a 15-minute phone call to the police station in Omagh,
said there was going to be a terrorist attack on 15 August and
that was what did happen on 15 August. When the McVicar Review,
which reviewed the Omagh bomb, learned about this and asked for
the serious threat book, which is the book in every police station
which records serious threats, the book for the period of August
1998 was missing. The documents were there prior to and after
August. It was in the station commander's desk. There has been
little or no explanation and it has never been found. There are
so many anomalies that need to be addressed. In this file I have
given you, I find it very difficult off the top of my head to
quote all of the incidents.
Q14 Chairman: One would not expect
you to be able to do that. I understand that. You have got something
there Mr Wilson wanted to draw your attention to.
Mr Gallagher: Godfrey is also
stating, and quite rightly so, that Omagh was not an isolated
incident. Up to that point there were 29 terrorist attacks right
across Northern Ireland from Belfast to the most north-westerly
point administered from Belfast, which is Belleek. On 1 August
1998 a bomb exploded at Bambridge. The recognised codeword of
the Real IRA, which was Marda Pope, was used in that incident.
There was a serious terrorist attack at Lisburn city centre but
the device failed to investigate and, again, the codeword was
Marda Pope. I am not blaming the police on duty in Omagh that
day, but when all of these factors are put together you ask the
question why when that word was used on 15 August 1998 in the
Omagh incident room did the red lights not go off? There were
two Land Rovers with DSMU officers inside ready to deploy to Kilkeel
in County Down on public order duties. I think there was an Orange
demonstration and they were there to make sure there was no trouble.
They were sitting in the Land Rovers, they heard the radio traffic,
the police on the ground trying to clear the street and at that
initial point there were something like four officers. They made
themselves known to the people in the incident room and they told
them to stay where they were, but on their own initiative they
did go into the town and help to evacuate, but sadly it was too
late to make a difference. There are so many anomalies that a
public inquiry needs to address.
Mr Wilson: This is a statement
by Sir Peter. He states: "In August 1998, security forces
across Northern Ireland were alerted to the risk of terrorist
attacks, but not to the fact of any particular town at immediate
risk. It is to be noted that the attacks referred to in the previous
programme were all in towns to the south-west of Belfast, well
distanced from Omagh. There was no obvious reason why Omagh should
be attacked."
Q15 Chairman: Yes, this is Sir Peter.
Mr Wilson: Surely when the threat
was across Northern Ireland all stations should have been on alert.
Chairman: Point noted.
Q16 Lady Hermon: Sorry I was a few
minutes late coming into the room. Mr Gallagher, we have met on
a number of occasions where you have spoken with great dignity
and great patience about what has been a very personal loss to
you and to other families. I have heard a view expressed saying
that the Panorama programme was probably very upsetting
to the Omagh families. Was that actually how you found it or did
you find the Panorama programme helpful?
Mr Gallagher: Lady Hermon, what
I would say is after what happened on 15 August, sadly it takes
a lot to shock the families. We are always saddened to hear that
there are deficiencies which could have made a difference either
to prevent what happened or to catch the culprits. I and some
of the other families have worked with John Ware over the years
and have found him somebody who always put the best interests
of the families to the forefront. As I said earlier, it was his
programme, Who Bombed Omagh?, which put Colm Murphy in
the dock. He is always working from the point of view of good
intent. You are always shocked and obviously the thought is what
could have been, and that is a very difficult thought. This is
why I feel a public inquiry is important. Ten years ago there
were certain people in the Garda, RUC or intelligence at that
time who had certain loyalties but, as time has moved on, those
loyalties with new people coming in are not as strong. For example,
new people coming in and seeing something on a file say, "I
am not taking responsibility for this. I should talk about it".
For that reason we feel there will be revelations to come. Have
everything put on the table, let us know all of it and let us
deal with all of that and then we can get on with our lives. I
have got a life at the moment, and I know for many other families
it is the same, which is suspended. It was suspended on the afternoon
of 15 August 1998. I know what I have done over the past 10 years
has been my own choosing to some extent but I feel I had to do
what I have done. I would not like to go through the rest of the
life that I have left being known as the father of Aiden Gallagher
who died in the Omagh bomb. I want to have some life of my own.
I want to go and do things. I do not take any comfort from doing
these things, I just feel I have no choice, although in some senses
I do have a choice. It is important to get everything out. Let
us get all of that dealt with and, as I said earlier, not drag
it out for years, not cost millions of pounds. We are in a trap
here. What I asked the Prime Minister to do was to help bring
closure to the Omagh families, that is what we are asking, help
us bring closure.
Q17 Lady Hermon: Did the Prime Minister
give you an indication, Mr Gallagher, that in fact there would
be closure while he was Prime Minister?
Mr Gallagher: He did not, but
I did not expect him to do that in all honesty. I did feel that
he was a very genuine and sympathetic person, but I felt there
were certain constraints on the Prime Minister.
Q18 Lady Hermon: Such as?
Mr Gallagher: There are people
who will be saying, "You have got to think of national security
here. You have got to think if we go down the road of exposing
all of our techniques the terrorists will gain from our knowledge".
The tragedy of this is we support the intelligence services, we
understand the reasons why they do things, we understand more
than most, but we feel that we need closure. I cannot walk away
and say, "Well, it was just one of those things", it
was not just one of those things. What brought it home to me was
last week or the weekend before last when we had two young soldiers
who were gunned down for no reason whatsoever and a policeman
who gave 20 years' service to the community who had everything
to live for, his family and to enjoy his retirement, just for
somebody to make a political point. This is why I do what I do.
It is not to weaken the system, it is to strengthen the system.
If we are seen in some sense to be bashing the police, we are
only bashing the police and intelligence services so that they
will bash the people who do these things, that is where we want
to make a difference.
Q19 Chairman: There is this conflict,
is there not, between needing the closure, wanting to feel that
everything that can be done has been done, and, on the other hand,
the necessary protection of the police and security services.
That, in a way, was why the Prime Minister asked Sir Peter to
conduct the inquiry that he did. Have you sat down with Sir Peter
and been through his report with him?
Mr Gallagher: You are absolutely
right, that was what Nula O'Lone did but she made a very damning
report on the police investigation into Omagh. She came to Omagh,
gave her report to the families, gave us an opportunity to question
her on that, and, to his credit, Sir Ronnie Flanagan also did
that. This man has not even sent an acknowledgement of our letter.
I may have a copy of the letter here that we sent to him saying
that we would welcome the opportunity to talk about these things
and asking him about his terms of reference, but we never even
got an acknowledgement. It is obvious this man felt that he had
a particular task to do and we were incidental to that task. That
is the message, rightly or wrongly, that we are receiving as families.
|
