Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister to the House and welcome this debate. It is important that the debate should take place in both House, particularly in light of the agreement on the recommendations from the sub-committee. I ask the Government to consider why it is that, some months after the publication of the sub-committee's report, one of its most specific and straightforward recommendations, concerning a joint resolution, has not been dealt with. I do not see a particular difficulty with this matter. The Minister says that the Government is still considering all the matters in the report, and I appreciate that. However, I do not see why the Government could not, at the very least, have put a joint resolution before both Houses in recognition of the fact that the sub-committee has reported and that the Government is still concerned with and examining the contents of that report. It could still be done even at this late stage and it would give recognition to the work of the sub-committee, of which Senator Jim Walsh was a member.

It is very important that we never forget the large numbers of people in this and the other jurisdiction who were murdered as a result of terrorist atrocities in the past 35 years. If some small comfort can be given to the victims of the Dublin and Monaghan bombing it is that, at long last, the State is beginning to recognise their plight, the fact that they are all victims and that it is putting in train a process which will give them some measure of comfort. It is also important that we will have an inquest. I acknowledge that the coroner in the case apologised to the victims, which was important.

The Barron report has also been published and the sub-committee has held hearings and made recommendations on an all-party basis all of which, while not giving closure to the families, helps them in some small way to get to the truth. Their situation is unlike other victims. Many people who witnessed, for example, their mothers or fathers being bombed in Northern Ireland or in this jurisdiction have also seen perpetrators charged, placed in custody, brought before the courts and sent to prison. Even if such people were released under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement prisoner release programme, at least there was some public acknowledgement of what happened.

However, no prosecution has ever been brought against any named individual or group in respect of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. The great difficulty the families have is that there is a distinction between those who have gone through a legal process which has an ultimate result and those who have never seen a prosecution entered against any group of people.

There is some talk of a re-negotiation of the Good Friday Agreement by various parties concerned with how to get it back up on track. If the Agreement is to be renegotiated in some small measure, will the Minister reconsider the role and place of victims at the centre of it? When we negotiated the Agreement, which was passed with such jubilation, we did not give due recognition to the victims of the conflict over the past 35 years who still have to bear the brunt and pain of that suffering.

The victims commissioner, Mr. Wilson, and his counterpart in Northern Ireland have done a great deal of good work. However, we need to give greater recognition to the role of victims. Having studied the report, I have come to the conclusion that the only way we will deal with these outstanding matters in the long term is to have some form of public truth and reconciliation commission on these islands, in which all of the paramilitary organisations and governments will confront each other with our horrible past. That can only happen with the full support of the paramilitary organisations. However, it is invidious that governments are rightly held up to account for their actions over the past 35 years, whereas the paramilitary organisations seem to have no responsibility whatever.

In that context, it is clear the UVF was responsible for the bombings in Dublin and Monaghan. The UVF has a political representative called the PUP. The party's leader, Mr. David Ervine, is a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the party also has councillors. However, we have not heard a word from the PUP since the report was published. Paramilitaries must face up to their grisly past and the atrocities they put the people of Ireland and the UK through for 35 years. It is incredible that they can walk away from their responsibilities while governments are held to account on a daily basis for actions for which they may have been responsible.

We need a truth and reconciliation commission and in that regard I understand the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has sought consultation with all the parties. We also need the paramilitary organisations to own up and take responsibilities for their atrocities, one of which led to the death of 33 citizens in the Republic of Ireland. Since it is the political arm of that organisation, it falls to the PUP to play its role.

While we want an inquiry in the other jurisdiction concerning the role of the British Government and certain individuals in terms of the atrocity, ultimately, it is for the British Government to decide to hold one. We must be honest about that. It is too easy for us to simply wash our hands of the matter, hand it over to the British Government and expect to do nothing in turn. Therefore, as part of a wider process, we need to develop some mechanism for dealing with all these outstanding issues on both sides of the Border over the next five to ten years in order to achieve some closure.

I was happy to read the sub-committee's report, in particular because some of Mr. Justice Barron's rather naive comments concerning the Government's reaction in the early 1970s were put to bed once and for all. I do not state that to be critical of Mr. Justice Barron. Nevertheless, fanciful comments were made immediately following the publication of the Barron report last December which were most unfair to former colleagues from Fine Gael and people who had ministerial responsibilities in the 1970s. I am glad to state that, in the course of the sub-committee's work, an opportunity was afforded to people to clear up the matter and have their say in respect of the Barron report. I was also glad to note it emerged that, while at the time the Government was fighting a very difficult situation on two fronts between loyalist and republican paramilitaries, it did its best to overcome those difficulties.

Earlier today the House passed the Commissions of Investigation Bill. It would be wise to establish a commission of investigation to examine the role of the Garda Síochána in the handling of this case, the decision to wind down the operation some years ago and why files on the atrocity went missing. A narrowly confined commission of investigation into that issue could be useful in terms of giving some comfort to the relatives. Time has moved on and the expertise in respect of forensics have changed by comparison to the early 1970s. Nonetheless, a commission of investigation is probably the way to advance these issues. I am sure the Minister will now have a raft of requests for commissions of investigation as a result of the passage of this Bill through the Houses. This might be one and I would support it.

I welcome this debate and congratulate the sub-committee on its work. We are dealing with part of our history, for which we all have to take some responsibility in terms of how we handled matters and helped the victims. There are many other victims in the State who have never seen prosecutions taken. In a funny way there can never be a prosecution in this case because we have all managed to do a deal with the various organisations. The UVF which was responsible for this atrocity is still on ceasefire and there is, in effect, a tacit agreement that no further prosecutions will be taken against this organisation as long as it remains on ceasefire. That is the dilemma. There is a need for some additional mechanism or institution where all these matters concerning victims can be fairly addressed. I ask the Government to address that matter if and when a re-negotiation of the Agreement occurs because the voice of victims has not been adequately addressed to date.