Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister to the House. History is littered with examples of man's inhumanity to man, prime examples of which can be seen in different parts of the world. During the Troubles there were examples of that in Ireland, North and South, and in the neighbouring island. Where paramilitary involvement gives rise to these atrocities it is abominable but there is something extremely insidious if organs of the State become involved in any way in either orchestrating or assisting those. It was my duty to serve on the Sub-Committee on the Barron Report and to hear the harrowing tales from families and victims who suffered not only at the time but during the past 30 years. Part of the suffering has come about not only because of the atrocity but because of the manifest failure of the State to deal adequately with such an atrocity. At the latter stage of the sub-committee's hearings, I remember saying that the State has failed the families and the victims. I still hold that view, a view which would be shared by many of those of participated in and followed the hearings.

In late December when Mr. Justice Barron came before the sub-committee he stated, as part of his submission and report, that the investigation had wound down sometime in August 1974. At the time that seemed incomprehensible. I remember making the analogy with the 11 September World Trade Centre atrocity and considering that it would have been akin to the United States administration winding down its investigation of that atrocity in November or December 2001. It would have been untenable and unacceptable. I shall return to that point later.

We acknowledge, as the Minister has done, the many people who came before the sub-committee and made submissions and oral presentations. Those who did not attend and did not accept the invitation to co-operate are identifiable. There were people from whom we had a right to expect better. I shall return to that point later.

It is extraordinary that the first Taoiseach to recognise and acknowledge the pain and suffering of the families by meeting with them in 1999 was the current Taoiseach. The failure of the State to deal with this issue up to then has aggravated and exacerbated the pain and suffering of all involved. I say that because there is now an opportunity for the Government to attempt to bring some closure, so far as it can, for those involved.

The report deals with many issues, one of which is the adequacy of the Garda investigation. In what may be an understatement, the sub-committee said that certain specific criticisms relating to the Garda investigation were included in the Barron report, and that nothing the sub-committee had heard detracted from these conclusions. The Minister has rightly pointed out that in general the Garda has done the State proud in the past and many have paid the supreme sacrifice in protecting society and individuals within the State. Certainly this was not its finest hour and would probably be marked as one of its lowest performance levels in the history of the State.

It would have been welcome if somebody on behalf of the Garda Síochána had given an unreserved apology for the failure to adequately pursue some of the issues that arose. The report states that the Garda investigation failed to make full use of the information it obtained, notably regarding lines of inquiry and seeking to interview suspects. The State was not equipped to conduct an adequate forensic analysis of the explosions and vital clues were lost by the failure to act promptly in the collection and preservation of evidence. It would be fair to say the Barron report addressed many of those issues. The report has included and collated areas where greater diligence was required. Certain issues were not followed up. For example, where photographs were obtained and suspects identified the photographs were subsequently lost and are not available. One or two of these are itemised in the report of the sub-committee. On the day, a white van was reported to the Garda as acting suspiciously before the explosions took place. It was subsequently found on Dublin docks with, if I remember correctly, a gun inside. It transpired that it was hired from a company where it was unregistered and was driven by a member of the British security forces. That person was interviewed by the Garda. There is no record of the interview having taken place and no subsequent follow-up. One of the cars was stolen in Belfast where, allegedly, the owner was held hostage in his home while the car was removed. He was held there all day from 10 a.m. until late evening. Subsequent evidence was given that a person who visited that house, on business during the day, disclaimed the notion that the person was being held hostage and that there were a number of people in the House. That was not pursued. There is a list of issues that should have been but were not adequately pursued and brought to a conclusion.

We had a debate on the missing documents. Obviously the Minister had to defend the Department. There is no documentation in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform which deals with what was the single biggest atrocity in the history of the State. I understand there were files on other similar events, but not on this one. It is unsure, from the evidence given, whether there were ever any such files. It is incomprehensible that an event such as that was not documented within a Department which would have had some responsibility for it. Also, documents were missing from the Garda Síochána files. One of the security files highlighted by Mr. Justice Barron could have been of help to him in his investigations.

Senator Hayes has alluded to the role and response of the Government of the day. I would be critical of that Government and subsequent Governments for their failure until recently to try to address this issue in any shape or form. I was disappointed that some of the senior people in that Government failed to attend the hearings of the Sub-Committee on the Barron Report. That did not help us when members of the British establishment also declined an invitation to attend.

According to the interviews we had and a number of others conducted by Mr. Justice Barron, Mr. Cooney, Minister for Justice at the time, defended strongly the then Government's role as he was entitled to do. Mr. Justin Keating, the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, provided a somewhat different version of events. In considering why the investigation closed down so quickly, which is a critical question for the families and the State, I found Mr. Keating's evidence quite plausible. His argument was that there was a serious threat to the State given the burning of the British Embassy in 1972 and the general level of paramilitary organisation. He put forward the view from his recollections that if the authorities had been successful in bringing people to court to hold them accountable for this crime, some of their evidence might suggest serious collusion from the British forces. The consequences of such evidence could give rise to a serious destabilising of the State. Mr. Keating's evidence to the committee was recorded and can be examined.

While it is up to people to come to their own conclusions as to whether they agree or disagree, my personal view is that the dilution in the sub-committee's report of the emphases and criticisms of Mr. Justice Barron was wrong. Equally, the sub-committee's report is more sceptical of the probability of collusion than was Mr. Justice Barron. The evidence Mr. Justice Barron received might have enabled him to take a stronger approach in that area. These are the key issues for those involved in pursuing the truth.

The matter of the composition of the bombs was extraordinary. Some of the evidence given to the sub-committee contradicted evidence provided to Mr. Justice Barron and recorded in his report. Some evidence was confused. An army witness gave evidence to the sub-committee to the effect that loyalist paramilitaries had the capacity to undertake the bombing without any assistance. He supported his reasoning with reference to a bomb at Clones shortly after the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. It transpired subsequently that the Garda was aware that the bomb at Clones was a republican paramilitary device. This made me uneasy about the manner in which people were prepared to give categorical views which were quickly blown away when analysed. It is indicative of a need for the State apparatus to be more diligent and focused in the way it handles these issues.

The sub-committee considered the Government's role in the Garda investigation as it felt the central tenet of the argument of some former Ministers, particularly former Taoiseach, Dr. FitzGerald, and Mr. Cooney, was that the State should not interfere in them. The former Ministers felt the Garda should be independent, which must be accepted. However, in the context of a major atrocity like the Dublin and Monaghan bombings it is essential to ensure that where the State apparatus with responsibility to pursue the issue to a satisfactory conclusion is failing, there is a parallel responsibility of the State body to which it is reporting to take some action. That argument was not accepted by the former Ministers or by senior civil servants who also attended to give evidence. We found that this was not a tenable scenario and we are addressing it. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has addressed this point in recent legislation, which is to be welcomed.

The sub-committee was informed that the State is still not equipped to carry out forensic science examinations independently in circumstances such as the Dublin and Monaghan bombing. This state of affairs should be examined and we have made a recommendation in that regard.

The issue of collusion had an extreme impact on the sub-committee. Members felt the evidence we heard reconfirmed and emphasised rather than dispelled any doubts they may have held. The issue must be tackled. If we are to have good relations with the neighbouring island, it is important that people come clean. It is essential that old sores are lanced. I was not happy with the response of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or anybody else on the British side. Mr. Justice Barron and the sub-committee found in their inquiries that information was forthcoming from the RUC until the Northern Ireland Office became involved, at which stage the flow of information dried up. It looked like an orchestrated attempt to avoid a full investigation. As there is a clear onus on the British Government to co-operate, the sub-committee recommended that an investigation and public inquiry should be held in Northern Ireland preceded by a Weston Park type inquiry. There is a need to accumulate facts and documentation to make any inquiry effective.

While the sub-committee considered that the preferred option would be an inquiry here, such an inquiry would involve a number of difficulties. Justice for the Forgotten and the families were disappointed that we did not make this recommendation. Any inquiry would require access to documentation in British possession which would have to be applied for through British courts while witnesses in their jurisdiction would have to be compelled to attend to give evidence. It would therefore be more satisfactory to conduct an inquiry in Northern Ireland. A major reservation I had with the sub-committee exercise and its report is that nothing to date gives us confidence to believe the British authorities would even remotely co-operate. We have therefore recommended that in the absence of co-operation we should pursue the matter through the European Court of Human Rights. I note in correspondence from Justice for the Forgotten that the group intends to lodge two complaints with the court. The Government will be remiss if the families are forced to pursue matters the State should be pursuing. We owe it to the families and, as Seán Donlon said, we owe it to the duty to exercise our sovereignty to ensure nothing like this is attempted in the future. We must take a strong line and pursue these matters to whatever degree is necessary.

If the above process fails, a proposal was made, which did not receive the support of the sub-committee, to hold a public inquiry in Ireland. Support was not forthcoming only because it was felt that such an inquiry would dilute the emphasis on co-operation from the British authorities. I hope the Government, which has taken up the issue, will fulfil the needs of the families and victims who have not seen appropriate action from the State up to now. Matters should be brought to a conclusion to ensure, in the words of Edward Roice who lost a daughter and is now in his 80s, that before they close their eyes, he and his wife are privy to the truth of what happened and an acknowledgement of what went wrong.