asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the result of investigations into newspaper reports that Libya was supplying explosives to the IRA.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Explosives Supplies Reports.
12.
Newspaper reports alleging the supply of explosives by Libya to the IRA remain unconfirmed. The matter is being kept under close study but in accordance with long standing practice I do not propose to comment further in public on a security issue of this nature.
When I raised this matter on the Adjournment, with your permission, Sir, about three weeks ago the Minister said that he was, with other security forces, investigating the reports and that he would let the House know the outcome. I think I am quoting him correctly. Why the change of attitude now?
I appreciate the Deputy's anxiety in having raised that matter on the Adjournemnt. He will correct me if I am wrong, but on that occasion he raised the matter on foot of an article by David McKittrick which appeared in the London newspaper, The Independent.
That is correct.
The article was wrongly based. We investigated the facts alleged in his article and the basis of it and it did not measure up. That is in relation just to his article. At the same time I share the Deputy's concern about this matter. It is being looked at on an ongoing security basis with other countries who are concerned also, but the allegations made in the article were not sustained.
Do I understand the Minister to say that the allegation that the Libyan Government were supplying explosives, whether they be newfangled explosives or whatever their origin, to the IRA was without foundation?
We found on full investigation that the allegation of 14 May that a particular type of explosive, a Semtex explosive, manufactured in Eastern Europe was supplied to the IRA, was without foundation.
I am not questioning the type of explosive. I would not know one from another. I am asking about any explosive.
That is what we are examining on a broader basis in regard to other allegations such as allegations made here by the Deputy and more in other countries, too. All I am saying is that the allegation which formed the basis of the Deputy's question on the Adjournment was found to be without foundation.
Do I take it from the Minister's reply that the entire article was not without foundation? The Minister has admitted this when he said that investigations or other aspects are still going on. If that is so what does he propose to do about it? It is most serious when a government who profess to be friendly towards this country supply some kind of explosive to an organisation whose aims are to bring down the Government of this country.
I share the Deputy's concern in this area. The specific allegation——
I am not concerned about that.
——in The Independent was the basis on which the Deputy raised the matter in this House in a very authoritative way. Obviously, he based his remarks on the presumption that the report was accurate. That report was found to be inaccurate and without foundation.
I accept what the Minister says, but I gather from his original reply that the thrust of the article was correct because, he says, an investigation is still going on with other countries. If that is so the Minister has an obligation to do something about it.
Of course, every country has an obligation with regard to maintaining its own resources, but that does not run one into the trap of blaming particular countries for everything that happens or setting up particular countries as a whipping boy in given situations. I do not feel that is our business. We can have good relations with a wide spectrum of countries. Certainly we will not act unless there is proof that such countries are behaving in a way that is damaging to the security of this country. That is the aspect we will continue to monitor closely and keep examining.
The Minister used the phrase "whipping boy". Will he not agree the Leader of Libya on a number of occasions declared his intentions to support an illegal organisation in this country and that senior officials of his have done likewise? Will he not agree that there is, therefore, no question of us setting him up as a whipping boy, that he is a self-acknowledged supporter of the Provisional IRA?
I am not referring to any particular country.
I am.
As far as any country with whom we do business is concerned, I should say that we will do business with them until they are shown or proved to be acting in a manner that endangers Irish national security. That is our clear position. It is our duty, as a Government, to examine every allegation made. This specific allegation made in The Independent of London and repeated here by Deputy Barry, was proved to be without foundation. That is all I am saying.
The time has come to deal with questions nominated for priority. Question No. 41.