Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)

I wish to share time with Deputy Kathleen Lynch.

I am glad to have this opportunity to speak on this issue, particularly as I had requested a debate several times from the Government on this issue. I am not happy that the format is a series of statements rather than a debate on a motion.

Many terrible, unforgivable atrocities were committed in the name of Ireland and Ulster over 30 years of violence in Northern Ireland. The violence occasionally spilled over into this jurisdiction. In many cases, nobody was brought to justice for those atrocities and many relatives still grieve for the loss of loved ones and the absence of answers. Various paramilitary organisations, loyalist and nationalist, waged a vile sectarian war and were responsible for the majority of the incidents where 3,500 people lost their lives. We should recognise that the overwhelming majority of the security forces in both jurisdictions were honourable men and women, many of whom lost their lives in efforts to protect the civilian population from the violence of paramilitaries. The atrocities that are the subject of this debate are of particular significance to us because they are among the worst of the Troubles, they occurred in this jurisdiction and there is strong evidence of collusion between those who carried them out and members of the security forces in Northern Ireland.

It is important that we express our gratitude to Mr. Justice Barron for undertaking his four inquiries, making his reports and his co-operation with the justice sub-committee. The work was arduous and demanding and was undertaken in a painstaking, methodical and impartial way. The sub-committee, the public and members of the families affected understand that, notwithstanding the serious limitations that surrounded the process, the results added to our understanding of the events he examined. He particularly highlighted the outstanding issues that still face us. In the words of the final report from the sub-committee: "It should be remembered that all of the Barron reports have been frustrated by the absence of any real co-operation from the British security forces."

We are talking about a period during which there was systematic collusion between state security forces and unlawful paramilitary organisations. In its last report, the sub-committee summarised the position as follows:

The sub-committee is left in no doubt that collusion between the British security forces and terrorists was behind many if not all of the atrocities that are considered in this report. We are horrified that persons who were employed by the British administration to preserve peace and to protect people were engaged in the creation of violence and the butchering of innocent victims.

The sub-committee believes that unless the full truth about collusion is established and those involved either admit or are fixed with responsibility then there cannot be closure for the families.

The sub-committee further believes that unless the full truth about collusion is established and those involved either admit or are fixed with responsibility then there is always the risk of what occurred in the 1970s occurring again some day...

The sub-committee is of the view that given that we are dealing with acts of international terrorism that were colluded in by the British security forces, the British Government cannot legitimately refuse to co-operate with investigations and attempts to get to the truth.

It is against this background that the Labour Party protested so strongly yesterday at the Taoiseach's decision that the Dáil should confine itself to a series of statements on this issue, rather than debating and approving any concrete steps to move the matter forward.

I agree with Deputy Finian McGrath that we should debate a motion. It is a pity that Deputies who today say we should debate a motion did not take the opportunity yesterday of voting with the Labour Party's proposal that we should have a motion. Instead, the Taoiseach said he considers this a debate where we can express our views and that whether it is structured as statements, a debate or a motion is a technical point. There are more than enough people in a position to make statements such as statements of sympathy with families or concern on State actions. More is expected from Dáil Éireann and the Government that is answerable to this House than statements. The people concerned are entitled to expect action. The series of sub-committee reports on which we are making statements contain specific recommendations for action by the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Government, yet we are refused the opportunity to endorse those reports or approve their recommendations.

The first report stated:

3. The sub-committee considers that a public inquiry under the Tribunal of Inquiries Act 1921 in this jurisdiction would have represented the preferred form of inquiry. However, because the perpetrators, information and witnesses are outside of this jurisdiction, there are legal and procedural difficulties arising from an inquiry initiated in this jurisdiction as set out previously.

4. The sub-committee considers that a public tribunal of inquiry in Northern Ireland and-or Great Britain is required and represents the best opportunity to be successful.

5. Before any inquiry would proceed the sub-committee is of the view that what is required in the first instance, is an investigation based upon the Weston Park proposals. The terms of reference should be agreed between the two Governments and should be based upon the terms agreed at Weston Park, in particular paragraph No. 19. The letter of instruction to Mr. Justice Peter Cory and the relevant portion of the Weston Park protocol is at Appendix 11. The sub-committee recommends that such an investigation be conducted on the following basis:

(i) That the judge conducting the investigation be of international stature.

(ii) That the investigation would have the power to direct witnesses for interview, the power to compel the delivery of documentation and to inspect premises.

(iii) That there should be time limits agreed for the commencement, duration and conclusion of the investigation.

(iv) That the judge conducting the investigation could recommend further action including whether a public inquiry in either jurisdiction should be held or not.

(v) The relevant government would be obliged to implement any recommendation within a defined time limit.

It went on to recommend that, if that process failed, the Irish Government should consider instituting proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. It recommended specifically that a resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas be passed, endorsing the report and its recommendations and inviting the UK Parliament at Westminster to pass a similar resolution. We are not being given that opportunity. Therefore, at the very least, if we are to live up to the expectations of those who wrote and read the reports, the House should pass a resolution receiving, endorsing and approving the reports.

Second, as recommended, our presiding officer, the Ceann Comhairle, should be instructed to inform the Speaker of the House of Commons of these facts and to send copies of the relevant reports, and other documents, with a request that the matter be considered by the Members of that House. Third, we should formally call on the Taoiseach to renew his efforts to secure the agreement of the British Government to the course of action recommended by the sub-committee and to report to the Dáil on a regular, comprehensive and timely basis. Finally, we should resolve that if there is no progress of substance on these issues, the Government should report to this House on the steps it will take to institute proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights.

Anything less than such a basic course of action is just lip-service to the survivors and relatives of what the late Mr. John Wilson described as "some of the bloodiest and most chilling days" of the whole period of the Troubles. Those survivors and relatives have been relentless in their commitment to finding the truth. The Government should help them and this House should have been given the opportunity to instruct it accordingly.

See this speech in context