Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this particularly sad and emotive issue. Like other speakers, I wish to record my sympathies to those who survived the blast and the relatives of those who died. It was a truly horrific act perpetrated on a people going about their ordinary business in the middle of the summer, during the course of the summer holidays, many of whom were from all parts of the country, of all races, creeds and nationalities, who were unlucky enough to be in what somebody else deemed to be the wrong place at the wrong time. Nothing can ever excuse the dastardly deed done to them on that day.

I listened with interest to the Minister's speech and to the speeches of the leader of my party, Deputy Kenny, and the Labour Party leader, Deputy Rabbitte, both of whom have had sight of the report. Like other speakers, I believe the integrity of the Garda Síochána is recognised and must be recognised otherwise we have a serious problem. Likewise, I have no difficulty recognising the integrity of the Nally report. From what I can gather and from the distance from whence I am viewing it, the report has done the best it can do in the circumstances. However, there are a number of issues that still remain outstanding. The Minister, Members on this side of the House and I understand that these issues are of concern to the relatives. They are concerned about rumours which have played a great role in the history of this country and they will play an equally prominent role in the future of this country.

Ms Nuala O'Loan was obviously aware of some of the circumstances and a report was made to her by the person who made the complaint — the Garda who is now under suspension. She has produced a report. The Minister pointed out twice in his reply that she is not an officer of this jurisdiction. I do not believe that is relevant. If a person of integrity produces a report within or without the jurisdiction, it should be fully investigated. I hope the Minister will clarify that matter because that was not the impression given in his speech to the House.

The matter of the detective sergeant who is under investigation is of concern. I presume he was under investigation before these issues arose and that in the course of it, he countered by raising his own counter-statements. That does not necessarily mean that he is wrong and that is a cause for concern. He obviously wishes to defend himself and he will draw whatever evidence he can to support his case. The Minister is better informed than I am because he has the access. Much will depend on the degree of detail that the person had, the amount of information he supplied and whether or not there are a number of coincidences. They may be coincidences or they may be something more serious.

I am a little concerned about the person on the witness protection programme. The Minister stated in his speech that the person was legally advised not to co-operate and not to give information. It is obvious that is what he would do and that would be the normal thing to do in those circumstances. I am concerned that there might be wider implications and I question why that advice was given. The person concerned is on the witness protection programme and, as Deputy Kenny pointed out this morning, several other people who have been on that programme have come forward and given evidence which has been used to good effect. I hope the Minister will clarify the matter further in his reply or in the course of the report, abridged or otherwise, which he intends to make available to the relatives and, hopefully, to the House at some later stage.

From the information I have gleaned from the public arena, from the Minister's speech and from the speeches of the two Opposition parties' leaders who have had sight of the report, there would appear to be a number of unanswered questions that remain to be dealt with, apart from attempting to assuage the concerns of the relatives. It is necessary to ensure that not only is justice done and seen to be done. It must continue in the future and the Minister's commitment to that is sacrosanct. I am not critical of what has happened to date but what happens from here on needs to take on some kind of new hue.

The Minister is aware that the O'Loan report would appear to be significant and to have a major impact on the issue. The failure of the witness on the witness protection programme to make a statement, to co-operate or to be interviewed in connection with the Nally report, is more serious. I do not know how the Minister can achieve that without a further examination or report.

It cannot go on forever, it must reach closure at some stage. It would be wrong if we were to allow the opportunity to pass without clearly setting out that the House and the Minister mean business. There can be no refuge for people who get involved in the perpetration of such acts, now or in the future. It is fine to produce rhetoric, but our actions that result from what has happened will have a lasting effect.

We have all heard rumours about where and when the bomb was sourced etc. We have acquired most of our information through rumour. The Minister may have more information about it than we have — he should have more information at this stage. There can be no doubt about what the Minister's reaction will have to be at some stage — there will have to be some retribution and somebody will have to be charged. If no such action is taken on foot of all the information that is in the public arena, the system can be said to be beginning to waver.

See this speech in context