Examination of Witness (Question Numbers
230-239)
DAME NUALA
O'LOAN, DBE
8 JULY 2009
Q230 Chairman: Dame Nuala, may I welcome
you warmly on behalf of the Committee. Most of us of course have
met you before when you were doing the job as Ombudsman and thank
you for what you did during that not always easy period and for
establishing the office as one which has met with a great deal
of respect throughout the United Kingdom. We appreciate that.
As you know, we are looking into the circumstances surrounding
Omagh, in particular reference to the issues raised as a result
of the Panorama programme. I think I saw you in the public
gallery for the evidence we have just heard. Did you hear all
of that evidence?
Dame Nuala O'Loan: Practically
every word of it.
Q231 Chairman: Is there anything
that you would like to say by way of opening submission?
Dame Nuala O'Loan: No, thank you.
Q232 Chairman: May I begin where
we ended in a sense. Has the Gibson review of intelligence intercepts
thrown any new light on the matters that you investigated as long
ago as 2001?
Dame Nuala O'Loan: No, it has
not.
Q233 Chairman: Have you been privileged
to see the Gibson report in its entirety?
Dame Nuala O'Loan: No. I have
read the report that has been published; I have read it several
times.
Q234 Chairman: Did you ask to see
the full report or not?
Dame Nuala O'Loan: No, I did not
think that was appropriate as I no longer hold office.
Q235 Chairman: That is fair comment.
You do not think that it added materially?
Dame Nuala O'Loan: It did not
add anything. In fact, it confused me.
Q236 Chairman: Do you continue to
stand by the conclusions of your 2001 report?
Dame Nuala O'Loan: Absolutely.
I do not think that those conclusions have been in any way harmed
over the past eight years.
Q237 Lady Hermon: Dame Nuala, I am
delighted to see you here this afternoon. May I ask why it was
that Sir Peter Gibson's report confused you. I think that is the
word you used a moment ago, "confused". In what regard?
Dame Nuala O'Loan: I could not
quite understand how he reached the conclusions which he reached.
Q238 Lady Hermon: Why was that?
Dame Nuala O'Loan: Because I started
from a perception that he might have seen material which I had
seen—I cannot say whether or not it is intercept material.
The Security Intelligence Services have a variety of methods for
gathering material and it is therefore appropriate for me to say
that I have seen material from the Service. There were elements
of his conclusions which I found acceptable and other parts of
his conclusions I found odd. I started then to re-read the report
and I re-read it in terms of in what capacity has Sir Peter written
this report? He tells us at the beginning of the report because
he said that the Prime Minister on 17 September invited him as
Intelligence Services Commissioner to carry out the review. So,
it was in that role that he perceived himself as carrying out
the review. Then he describes his terms of reference which were
to review intercepted intelligence material and to see to what
extent it was shared, and he says that he was satisfied that it
was shared fully and promptly—and I think that we will probably
talk about that—but he goes on to say at paragraph 33 that
it was not part of the terms of his review that he should investigate
nor has he investigated the reasons why Special Branch itself
acted in the cautious way it did nor had he investigated the soundness
of those reasons, but he says in paragraph 8 that he did investigate
to what extent the intercepted evidence was shared by SB with
the police investigating the bombing, but then he does not go
on to state whether or not it was shared and that is why I find
it slightly confusing.
Q239 Chairman: I think that we would
share your conclusion.
Dame Nuala O'Loan: Thank you for
that.
| 
