Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 10 Nov 1987

Vol. 375 No. 1

Adjournment of Dáil under Standing Order 30: National Security.

Mr. Dukes

I move: "That the Dáil do now adjourn."

A Cheann Comhairle, in asking your leave earlier on this afternoon to move this motion I set out what I considered to be the recent events that merit examination by this House. They were, and I repeat them now, the shipment of arms, ammunition and explosives from Libya apparently destined for subversive organisations on this island; the similarity of the explosives used in the bomb outrage in Enniskillen last Sunday to those explosives which were found on the vessel Eksund; the apparent acquiescence of the Government in a move to pay a ransom in the O'Grady kidnap case; and the apparent willingness of citizens of this State to give aid, assistance and shelter to kidnappers and to the perpetrators of other violent and subversive crimes. I indicated that this House should call on all the elected public representatives of all parties and on all Irish people to repudiate violence, to reject and condemn all organisations committed to violence and to co-operate fully with the police forces in all parts of this island so that those who commit crimes of violence can be brought to justice.

On that last point I do not think any of us in this House can stress strongly enough the importance of making it clear to everybody on this island just what the consequences of any other course of action may be. We have seen some of the consequences. We have seen over a period of several weeks a man taken from his family and mutilated. We have seen last Sunday 11 people killed and many more injured and all of this can be directly attributed to the fact that there is ambivalence, double talk and double think about the processes and the organisations involved in violence on this island.

Last Thursday the Minister for Justice indicated to the House what the shipment of arms contained. He spoke of at least 20 SAM 7 surface to air missiles, 1,000 AK 47 Kalashnikov rifles, 600 F1 grenades, two different types of machine gun in substantial quantities, anti-tank rifles, rocket propelled grenades, mortar shells, ammunition and explosives with detonators and fuses. Last week, as I said in the House, there was an indication that one other vessel might have been involved in the same deadly business. there are two suggestions from French police sources that there may have been four other vessels all engaged in the same deadly business, all going before the Eksund, landing God knows where. If that is the case we are faced with the appalling prospect that the weapons, explosives and ammunition contained in any previous shipments are now in the hands of terrorists and the men of violence ready to be used.

The indications are that the Eksund was loaded in Tripoli. We are all familiar with statements made in the past both by Colonel Gadaffi and by senior colleagues of his in support of the IRA. They now appear to have taken that support even further because the quantity of arms, ammunition and explosives on the Eksund would equip some thousands of terrorists and would enable a campaign of violence on a huge scale to be mounted. In the light of what has emerged and in the light of what has been reported as a result of the French investigations into the activities of that vessel there can be absolutely no ambivalence. It is clear beyond any doubt that we must sever diplomatic links with Libya and there must be no expenditure of Irish taxpayers money on sending official groups of any kind to that country. The Libyan leader has in the past expressed his friendship for the Taoiseach and has personally met with the Taoiseach. There again, there can be no ambivalence. All of that must end and there must be no doubt whatever about it.

The outrage carried out in Enniskillen last Sunday appears to have been carried out with the same kind of explosives as were found on the Eksund. Those explosives as far as I can ascertain appear to be of a type not previously believed to be available either in Libya or to the IRA. That is a sinister new development. Perhaps, we should now suspect that the Eksund, after all, was not the first shipment of materials of that kind. As I have said, there may already be on this island arms, ammunition and explosives which have come from the same source and by a similar route.

Whatever the source of the explosives used in Enniskillen last Sunday, 11 more people have been killed and many more have been injured. I was personally appalled yesterday morning and I think every Member of this House would have been, to listen to the account given by a man who lay trapped in the rubble holding the hand of his daughter who was also trapped nearby and dying. Nobody with any human feelings who listened to that man's account could possibly believe that there was any valid reason or justification for such brutal killings. Nobody with any human feelings who heard that account could be in any doubt about the callousness or the inhumanity of those who planted the bomb. Our feelings of outrage, sorrow and sympathy for the bereaved and injured are sincere and deeply felt but even that sincerity is not enough because it is up to us to make it a positive force in supporting action in every possible way to bring and end to this violence.

The President of Sinn Féin, Mr. Gerry Adams, had the effrontery to extend sympathy and condolences to the families and friends of those killed and injured in Enniskillen. That is a hollow, meaningless and shameful statement from a man who has played and continues to play a major role in advocating and perpetuating violence. The IRA too issued a statement regretting what had occurred. It was published in the newspapers this morning and it makes some of the most sickening reading that we have seen for a long time. There is one paragraph in that statement with which I agree. It states:

... in the present climate, nothing we can say in explanation will be given the attention which the truth deserves, nor will compensate the feelings of the injured and bereaved.

That much is true. In no climate will anything that the IRA say be given the attention that truth deserves because the IRA have no truth to tell the Irish people. Nothing the IRA can say will compensate the feelings of the injured or the bereaved because we all know very well that unless they are stopped the IRA will have no compunction about doing the same thing again.

What we have seen is the disgusting spectacle of Sinn Féin and the IRA trying to distance themselves from murders which they encourage other people to commit. The rats are now scurrying for cover in the sewers of their own filthy violence.

I turn now to the question of ransom. In replying to questions in this House on Thursday last, the Minister for Justice said that there had not been any decision by the Government that ransom should be paid. He said it was Government policy that no ransom would be paid in any kidnapping case, that he was more than satisfied that no money was paid, that there was no question of any ransom being paid and that the Garda are in no doubt whatsoever as to the attitude of this Government and past Governments with regard to the payment of ransom. In the light of subsequent information, I wonder if there was any particular significance in the Minister's emphasis on the words "paid" and "payment". The Minister also said last Thursday in response to a question as to whether the Garda were aware that attempts were being made to pay a ransom, that he could not say what the Garda were or were not aware of. That remark was, at the very least, disingenuous.

It now appears that £1 million in sterling was brought from Belfast to Dublin by air and received under guard at Dublin Airport. A half million punts were added to this and the whole lot, weighing apparently about half a ton, was put into the back of a car and driven to Cork. As far as I can ascertain, this car was escorted by gardaí. At one stage, some reports had it that the car was stopped 20 minutes before arriving in Cork. Later information suggests that the car arrived in the car park of the rendezvous hotel.

I am being somewhat careful because I do not want to go into what I have been told about operational aspects of the matter. I am very conscious of the fact that although we speak under privilege in this House we should be careful not to put other people in danger. I will not give all the information I have in that regard but I can safely say that the gardaí in Cork were prepared for the arrival of that car. In the light of all that, I do not know how the Minister could claim in this House last Thursday that he could not say what the Garda were aware of or were not aware of. Surely the Garda would have found a means of telling the Minister by then or of letting it be known to him that £1 million in sterling had arrived at Dublin Airport, where it was met under guard, driven 160 miles to Cork under Garda escort and brought back again to Dublin under Garda escort. The car was brought to an underground car park in the Bank of Ireland. That much we know for certain because pictures appeared on television and in the newspapers of a car with the money arriving back to the underground car park escorted by gardaí. The car and its Garda escort were apparently followed from Cork to Dublin and into the underground car park by an ITN camera crew.

A number of questions arise in this connection. Did one man alone load a half ton of bank notes into the back of the car, or was he assisted by gardaí? If the gardaí assisted in this whole operation, under whose instructions were they operating? Gardaí do not suddenly appear out of the blue and help somebody to load £1 million sterling and half a million punts into the back of an ordinary car without operating on the basis of some very clear instructions. Whose instructions were they operating under? When were they given and why were they given? How was the cash assembled? Whatever one's resources it takes a lot of assembling to get together £1 million in sterling in Belfast and bring it to Dublin. It also takes a lot of assembling to put half a million punts together. How was the cash assembled and where did the half million punts come from in this jurisdiction to be put together with the £1 million sterling? Was that movement supervised by the gardaí? Did they know about it? If so, under whose instructions were they operating?

What exchange control regulations would apply to the movement of £1 million in sterling notes from Belfast to Dublin? What role, if any, did the Central Bank play in this affair? The Central Bank is the operator of our exchange control regulations. Was there an exchange control dimension in this? If so, was the Central Bank involved and what exactly was its involvement? What role did the Government play? What contacts, if any, took place between the Government and the Central Bank? Who gave instructions for those contacts, if any, to take place and who was guiding that operation?

It is clear beyond any doubt that this whole operation was extremely hazardous from many points of view. A large sum in cash was brought 160 miles from Dublin to Cork in an ordinary car and was brought back again. If an ITN camera crew could follow the convoy from Cork to Dublin, who else might have followed it? If an ITN crew could apparently latch on by accident to the rear of that convoy going from Cork to Dublin, how many other people and what kind of other people knew that £1.5 million had been sent down to Cork? Were there any other people in a position to know that the £1.5 million was being sent back from Cork in an ordinary car with a Garda escort? What risks were being run by the driver of that ordinary car during the whole operation? What risks were the gardaí running? Who else knew about it? Who gave the instructions for that escorted convoy to go from Dublin to Cork and to come back again?

One cannot find out all about these things but on Thursday I heard two news bulletins which stated that money had been delivered to Cork and there was a question that the money was going to be secured once Mr. O'Grady had been safely taken out of the arms of the kidnappers. In a later news bulletin it was stated that the money was now secured. I have some acquaintance with the kind of language used by the Garda in operational matters. Everyone in this House has some acquaintance with the kind of language used by journalists to describe these but the phrase "the money is now secured" is not a journalistic phrase. That is what many people in the Garda Síochána and elsewhere call "depot speech". What Garda information was given that money was going to be secured and then that it had been secured? Does the use of that phrase in briefing journalists indicate that there was ever a feeling that the money was not secured? If there was, from what did it arise?

The Government must surely have known that there was a huge risk involved in bringing this sum of money to a hotel in Cork, no matter what kind of precautions had been taken. Do the Government not know there is no case in which the hostage would be found at the place the money was to be delivered? Do the Government not know that even if the money were handed over and even if those who collected it were let move away and were traced and followed, that the hostage would never be handed over until those who had the money felt secure? Were the Government not aware of the risk, the very serious risk, of finding themselves in a situation where the kidnap gang, who had already shown beyond any doubt that they were quite prepared to use firearms and to mutilate their hostage, would have both the ransom and the hostage. Such a situation would be far more dangerous than anything that had arisen up to then during the course of the kidnap. It is very clear that the very act of moving all that money from Dublin to Cork created the most appalling dangers and created a potential for disaster that should have been foreseen, and that must have been foreseen, by people with experience of that kind of operation.

In at least one newspaper article which appeared over the weekend there was an implication that the leaders of the Opposition parties in this House were aware, in some fashion, that the money was removed. That is not the case. I do not know how that impression got about. What I am about to say is to make sure that if there was a misunderstanding or if people misunderstood what they were told in a briefing, that that misunderstanding is completely cleared up. The only indication given by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice to the leaders of the other parties in the matter of ransom was that the demand had been increased to £1.5 million. My knowledge is that there was no further discussion of that matter between the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice on the one hand and the leaders of the other parties on the other.

The Taoiseach

That is correct.

Mr. Dukes

I wish to make it clear — and I hope the Taoiseach will not feel I am breaking a confidence because I think it is important that I state it in this House — that I gave it later to the Taoiseach as my strong personal advice that there should be no departure from previous policy and that no ransom should be paid.

The Taoiseach

That also is correct.

Mr. Dukes

The Government clearly departed from previous practice and, in doing so, made a major error. That error could have been fatal in this case and could have major implications in any future case involving this Government — and I say that with a prayer, please God, there will not be another case. But this Government have clearly given the message that they can bend on this issue of a ransom. I want to make it very clear, without equivocation, that no Government under my direction would ever countenance payment of ransom in a kidnap case.

We must have clear answers to all the questions I have raised about the Government's role in the movement of £1 million sterling and £500,000 in punts from Dublin to Cork and back again. What decisions were made? Who made the decisions? Why was such a potentially fatal decision made?

Over the past few weeks the question of the Extradition Act, 1986, has been very much to the fore. Up to now I have not publicly stated my position on the matter of the implementation of this Act because I wanted to give the Government the maximum possible room to manoeuvre in discussions with UK authorities on the improvements to the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. I have made this abundantly clear on a number of occasions since last summer. I am far from being convinced that the Government used this leeway as constructively or as productively as they might.

Over the past few weeks we have seen emerging, whether by accident or design, a succession of Ministers, Ministers of State, Deputies and councillors from the party on the other side of the House, appearing to prepare the ground for a motion to defer implementation of the Act. As I said, I do not know if it is by accident or design but it is certainly a fact.

The events of the past four weeks have very brutally underlined the clear message that Irish people are in grave danger from international terrorism. Those events show very clearly that we must play our part to the best of our ability in the suppression of international terrorism. The Extradition Act, 1986, is a necessary part of that and it is my view that that Act should be brought into effect on 1 December next. I urge the Government, in the name of all Irish people and in the name of all potential victims of international terrorism whether in this country or elsewhere, to take the same view and to allow the Act to come into effect on 1 December next.

It has also been clear over the past four weeks that there are people in this country who are prepared to shelter, aid and assist terrorists and violent criminals. We have had a clear demonstration of that in the recent past in Cork, Dublin and elsewhere. It is very clear that in the recent kidnap case, for example, a number of people moved around in very unusual circumstances and were afforded shelter, assistance, and were probably fed in a number of places throughout the country, in houses, dug-outs and even apparently in a container.

It is clear also that there are people in this country who are prepared to store materials, explosives, firearms, ammunition and other items for the use of terrorists. There is abundant evidence of that from finds which have been made by the Garda by dint of good police work and in a number of cases, of vehicles equipped with mortars and so on. There are people in this country who are prepared to give shelter, assistance and aid to terrorists.

Lest the picture be incomplete, I must also say it is very clear that the same thing happens in Northern Ireland. There are people there who are prepared to store arms, ammunition and all the trappings of terrorism. Some may do so under threat or from fear, but they should know that as long as we give in to terrorists this practice will continue and those people who do such acts out of fear or under threat will suffer the same fear and will be under the same threat again. There are other people who help because they are apparently convinced that there is some right on the side of terrorists, that there is something right about killing people for allegedly political reasons, that there is something right about killing people, for no apparent reason, who have gathered to remember their dead.

We had a very eloquent plea in the past few days from the Garda officer who is in charge of investigating the kidnap for people to give information to the Garda, not to keep unusual developments to themselves but to notify anything unusual they see so that the Garda can do the job they are there to do and which they can fully only with the full co-operation of the whole community.

The kind of ambivalence that leads some misguided people to assist or to conceal terrorism must end. Otherwise people who are not just misguided but who are deliberately setting out to kill and to maim will have a freer run than our society can afford to let them have. In that connection I can only welcome wholeheartedly the statement issued today by the Standing Committee of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy, a very authoritative and clear statement which I hope people will take to heart. I welcome also similar statements made by the leaders of other Churches.

I have raised a series of issues and questions and my colleagues on this side of the House will be raising other issues and other questions in a more detailed way in the course of the debate. This is a debate which I would prefer did not have to take place but we have to deal with the consequences and the implications of these arms finds and of these terrorist activities for the future of our people. It is essential that the Government answer clearly, point by point, all the questions that have been raised. The Government must clearly say what decisions they took in relation to the payment of ransom in particular; why they embarked on this extremely dangerous enterprise of sending £1½ million from Dublin to Cork and back again in circumstances that could only further endanger the person who was being held hostage. The Government must say, because it is clear beyond a doubt that this happened, why they have departed from the previous policy of never paying ransom in kidnap cases.

Mr. D. O'Malley

The events we have all read and heard about and seen on television over the past week on this island, and close to it, are a combination of some of the most awful things that have ever happened here. This debate, which takes place in the immediate aftermath of those events, must inevitably cause us to look more deeply at some of the problems we face on this island than we might otherwise have been disposed to do. New depths of depravity have been reached in what has been happening recently. We tend to forget that Northern Ireland has suffered for almost 20 years with events some of which were in their time not less awful and not less serious than what happened in Enniskillen last Sunday. While we should not react in the short term to what has happened those events should serve to clear our minds on where we stand in relation to the type of people who carry out these acts. If they have the effect of clearing our minds perhaps some good can come from them.

I am of the opinion that the most important aspect of this whole series of events we are debating tonight is the extradition question. It was referred to by Deputy Dukes quite briefly, but it symbolises the attitude that this House, and the people of the country, are prepared to take or not to take in relation to terrorism in all the awful forms we have seen it exhibit itself over the past seven or ten days. It is crucial, therefore, to the approach that we must take in the House, and in the country, over the next number of years.

Tonight as we speak there is throughout the country a widespread feeling of fear, frustration and helplessness. People are terrified in their own homes. People abhor what has happened. They want that put down and they are not fussy about legal technicalities in how it is put down. I have increasingly begun to come to the conclusion that some of the arguments being put up in relation to the Extradition Act in particular, and the ratification of the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, are really smokescreens being put up by people who inherently dislike the whole idea of extradition anyway. It is time for us to blow away those smokescreens now and to ask ourselves as a nation whether we want to be part of the civilised family of nations in the world, or whether we want to have some truck with some of those in the Near East and in the Middle East we would be better to have nothing to do with.

When we agonise with our consciences about extradition and so on we should ask ourselves a number of questions. There is a certain gentleman from County Armagh who has led a gang in this country who have terrorised people for many months on end, who took an unfortunate hostage and mutiliated him with a hammer and chisel and then gave him a hot knife to stop himself bleeding to death. If that man gets back over the Border into Northern Ireland and happens to be arrested there by the security forces are we going to be arguing with our consciences about whether we should seek to extradite, whether we should ratify this Convention, whether the principle involved is right, or whether all the legal technicalities involved are right? Would it not be outrageous, and would the people of the country not regard it as such, if we did not immediately ask for that gentleman to be brought back?

Ten days ago the French authorities obtained about 150 tonnes of modern Russian weapons just off their coast. It seems to be widely accepted that those weapons emanated from Libya and were destined for somewhere on this island and for use on this island. Last week in the House we thanked the French authorities for what they had done and for arresting the people concerned. If it were the other way round, are we supposed to stay out of the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism and have nothing to do with it? Are we supposed to ask ourselves questions if a shipment of arms bound for terrorists in France, for example, is picked up off the Irish coast by our authorities? Would we refuse to extradite people in those circumstances and should we?

It seems to me that the obvious course of action for this country above all others, because this island is the greatest sufferer from terrorism is for us to make the greatest possible use of whatever international facilities there are for the suppression of terrorism. Within Europe today that convention is the most useful instrument and I cannot, in conscience, see how we can refuse, in these circumstances, to ratify it and bring it into effect. I have come to that view over a period of time and last week I decided that we should put this question on the agenda for the meeting of the parliamentary party of the Progressive Democrats today. We discussed it this morning and I am glad that the Progressive Democrats came to that decision before we knew this debate would take place here this evening.

I have appeared on television and radio programmes over the last number of weeks and I felt that there was a point beyond which I could not go because I was fearful of the position it might possibly create for the Government in terms of trying to obtain concessions in regard to Northern Ireland. I have the feeling now that that point has been passed and all that is now open to the Government in the very short term is to renew with vigour — with perhaps greater vigour than has been shown up to now — their efforts under Article 8 to negotiate certain matters which we were among the first to raise and which we are very keen to see. In particular, they should use the provisions of Article 2 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement which says that in the interest of promoting peace and stability, determined efforts shall be made through the conference to resolve any differences which arise. This is a difficulty and a difference which has arisen between the two Governments and that clause should be invoked to seek to overcome it before 1 December, if possible, but if that is not possible, to seek to overcome it afterwards.

I have sufficient confidence — some people may call it naivety — that a country and a Government which acted as they did in relation to the Unionist opposition of the last two years should not and will not abandon their commitment to the spirit of that agreement in the period after 1 December. One has to make an act of faith and the advice one often gets from politicians in this country is "do not make an act of faith in the British in this regard". However, we are at a crossroads; we either retain our anxiety to see the political process work, however painful, slow and difficult it may be and however many hiccups it runs into along the way, or we abandon the political process as set out in the Anglo-Irish Agreement and follow the only alternative. The only alternative to what has happened from Hillsborough onwards is to go back to the old way, for Nationalists and Unionists to start to abuse one another again, for British and Irish to start to abuse one another again, to have the old ping pong in which there are no facilities for making progress, where we just watch more and more people die and lose the opportunity to do something effective about it. In other words we revert to the position where the vacuum of giving up in effect the Anglo-Irish Agreement will be filled by extremists and extremism.

We have seen, in the past couple of weeks in particular, the effects of extremism on this island and close to it. It frightens me that that is the position and it also frightens many other people in this country. This House should show a resolve — and I hope it will be done unanimously — that whatever is in our power to do we will certainly do it, whether it is in international or domestic terms, in terms of legislation or of administrative actions that must be taken. In that respect I draw particular attention to the situation within the Garda Síochána where, unfortunately they have been pilloried in a way which is terribly unfair to them and to individuals—

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. D. O'Malley

Huge numbers of them have acted with great bravery, dedication and generosity and, as we know, at least one of them has suffered very grevious injury as a result of his bravery and dedication to duty.

There are organisational and management difficulties within the Garda Síochána but they can be overcome. There will have to be a determination to do that. Quite a number of years ago, a very elaborate report was produced by a firm of consultants for that purpose but it was never published or proceeded with. The time has come to rub the dust off that report, to update it and to take the necessary steps so that the Garda Síochána will not be open to the kind of unfortunate criticism to which they have been subjected in recent times when their own personal qualities and dedication could not be greater. However, there is a danger that they will become demoralised as a result of some of the difficulties that have arisen.

I should very much like to see a Garda appointments commission independent of the Government which would make recommendations which would have to be accepted for senior appointments and promotions within the Garda Síochána. That would restore an element of confidence that is lacking at the moment and it would improve the professionalism of the force very considerably.

I share the concern about the official attitude towards the payment of ransoms. I hope that there will not be any change of policy in that regard and the Minister for Justice should give a very clear answer as to what precisely happened in relation to that when he is replying tonight.

I reiterate the call made in this House last week by Deputy Harney for the breaking off of diplomatic relations with Libya in view of what has happened.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. D. O'Malley

It is a great pity that an official trade delegation to that country to be led by a member of the Government was not cancelled ten days ago, or whenever this information came to hand, but was only postponed last evening. We have no business having any official links of any kind with that country.

It is extremely disturbing that there have been reports, particularly in the British media, which proved accurate in relation to certain earlier aspects of this matter to the effect that the Eksund may not have been the first such ship. What happened at Enniskillen seems to bear that out. That is a matter of the most profound importance and it underlines the vital necessity for us making sure that we play our full part internationally in co-operating with all countries in Europe in the suppression of terrorism. It should be made abundantly clear here — it is disappointing that the only Government speaker in this tremendously important debate is coming in at the very end instead of giving the House information which could be debated — that no hiding place for terrorists or their accomplices, either before or after the act, will be tolerated by the authorities in this country and that all providers of safe houses, drivers of cars and trucks, lookouts and so on, will be rigorously dealt with.

It is very disturbing to realise that people who gave considerable assistance to this kidnap gang are walking free in Cork county tonight in the certainty that they will not be charged with any offence. They most certainly should be charged because it is an encouragement to others to give sanctuary to these kinds of people. If any further changes in the law are needed in relation to these matters, the Government should bring them forward. I do not think they are. Our law is adequate if it is pursued and enforced with vigour. It is the administrative actions taken in relation to it that are most important. We will all have to dedicate ourselves anew to ensuring that we will do that.

The event at Enniskillen is indescribable in its nature. To say, as the Provisional IRA say, that they did not mean to kill civilians but that they meant to kill servicemen is absolutely sick in its hypocrisy. If they are servicemen of any kind, policemen or otherwise, they are still human beings. They have the same right to life.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. D. O'Malley

The statement made by the IRA in regard to Enniskillen was not the only statement made over the week-end. On Sunday they issued another one apologising for the fact that their bomb at Pettigo failed to go off. If it had gone off, it would have murdered people who were also honouring the dead of two World Wars. I think of the Irish people and the people of other nationalities who died in order that this country and the whole of western Europe would be free of the scourge of Hitler. I cannot think of people who died in a more noble cause. To commemorate those people once a year, in a religious context at their own memorial is a perfectly valid thing to do. I cannot imagine anything more foul than to murder those who go to honour such dead.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. D. O'Malley

Because the wire for this other contraption in Pettigo apparently crossed the Border into the Republic there is a heavy onus on us to do everything in our power to ensure that those who tried to murder the people at Pettigo, and issued a statement apologising for the fact that they did not succeed, and that those who murdered so many innocent people in Enniskillen will be hunted the length and breadth of this island. No effort should be spared by the authorities here and the Government should make it abundantly clear to them that they will do everything they can, if any of them are on this side of the Border, to catch them and that we will immediately put in train the process of extradition in order to have them tried in Northern Ireland in the same way as we would like people who committed atrocities of that kind in this jurisdiction to be extradited back to us for trial, which is the way that it should be between all civilised nations.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. Spring

I am sure that many Members of this House and members of the public must have seen the interview on television last night with the father of Marian Wilson who was the youngest person killed at Enniskillen last Sunday. That interview which must have moved anyone who saw it almost to tears, was a far more eloquent expression of the grief the Provisional IRA have caused than anything any of us can say in this House. It was also a substantial testament to the courage and dignity of the people the IRA have turned into victims. It was proof of the futility of the IRA campaign of violence. A man who could forgive them and pray for them after what they did to his family and to his daughter is worth far more than them and their perverted cause. We cannot allow this occasion to pass without sending our deep sympathy to the families who were bereaved in Enniskillen last Sunday and to the family of young Adam Lambert who was shot dead in Belfast yesterday.

We must try, as far as we can, to send more than our sympathy. We should find the words to say that the enemies of the Protestant people of the North are, indeed, our enemies as well. The people who would willingly bomb nurses, teachers and children do not represent us or anything that we believe in. There can be no ambivalence about this. The Provisional IRA are engaged in a fascist war of genocide against a large section of the population of Northern Ireland. Anyone who supports them or provides a haven of refuge for them is taking sides in that war just as surely as Hitler's stormtroopers took part in the war of genocide against the Jews. Anyone who stays silent in the face of IRA atrocities is just as guilty as those who stayed silent about the Jews. No other analogy can be drawn. Romantic notions about the IRA, notions about them being freedom fighters, are as responsible for the killing and maiming of innocent people as anything else.

In the past week the Provisional IRA and their murderous offshoots have dragged the name of Ireland in the mud. We are discussing security but we might as well be discussing the image of our country abroad, our prospects for attracting investment, our potential to make people proud to live and work here. All of these things together with our pride in being Irish have taken a terrible beating in the past few days. Everywhere I go I meet people who feel ashamed to be Irish. I share their feelings. Whether we like it or not the murders and atrocities we are talking about here were committed in our name. If we do not utterly repudiate the people involved, we share the guilt. But, repudiation alone is not enough. All the efforts of every Member of this House must be bent towards securing the arrest of the people involved in this horrendous crime and in the other crimes we are discussing in this debate.

Important questions have been raised about the handling of some of these issues. The questions range from issues of policy to operational questions. Questions arise also in relation to the question of attitudes throughout the island. For this reason I express my very strong feelings that the Taoiseach in particular should participate in this debate. It was a serious mistake, to put it at its mildest, for the Taoiseach and the Government to treat this debate as if it were a series of Private Notice Questions to the Minister for Justice. It is not adequate in terms of the Government's response. A Government spokesperson should have got into this debate at an earlier stage.

I would like to deal with some of the issues of the past ten days or so in the order in which they arise but first I will make one general point about extradition. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the people who committed the atrocity in Enniskillen will be arrested, possibly in the Republic, and it is important to make the point that in the event of a warrant being presented for the extradition of people in connection with this atrocity, there is little doubt that extradition will take place. Ever since the Supreme Court judgment on the McGlinchey case, it is clear that this foul crime will not be regarded as a political offence, and the perpetrators could not claim the protection of the law or the courts.

This atrocity throws the whole issue of extradition into stark relief. We would be deluding ourselves if we thought otherwise. No matter what the facts are, there is a very strong perception abroad and at home that our extradition laws will protect this sort of criminal and will inhibit the efforts to bring them to justice. We have to deal with that perception and we have to face up to the reality that there may well be circumstances in which the issue is not as clear cut as at present.

If, for instance, the victims of last Sunday's massacre had not been civilian but had been young policemen, could we stand up in this House and give any kind of unequivocal assurance that the murderers would be extradited to stand trial? If my understanding of the position prior to the coming into operation of the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism is correct, we could not give any assurance of that kind if the victims were not civilian victims.

For that reason and arising from the horror which we must all feel at the awful massacre in Enniskillen, there is now a solemn obligation on the Government to come honestly before the people, and especially to come before the Members of this House, and spell out whatever compelling reasons there are for delaying the operation of the Convention, if any such compelling reasons exist. If there are no such compelling reasons the Government should say so as soon as possible.

For a variety of reasons it is vital that we avoid any element of brinkmanship or game playing over this question. The reputation of this country and the perception of friends and allies, not to mention our own self-esteem, are now bound up with this issue. Continued silence by the Government, especially at a time when the appearance is being created by Fianna Fáil backbenchers that they are being encouraged to speak out against extradition, is doing this country no service at present.

I would like to say a few words about the apparent attempt to import an enormous arsenal of guns, rockets and ammunation into this country. The first and most important question our authorities must answer is: was this the only shipment? Disturbing reports are beginning to surface, at present only in the form of rumours, that there may have been as many as four shipments. If this is true we face a crisis of possibly appalling dimensions. I hope the Minister for Justice, when he participates in this debate, will be in a position to give us the latest information and I hope very much that he will be in a position to scotch this rumour. At worst he should outline both his and the Government's plans for dealing with a situation which arms of this magnitude, already landed, can create.

Obviously there are underlying issues also. No Member of this House can seriously believe that Libyan hands are entirely clean in this affair. I feel sure all of us welcome the Government's decision not to proceed with the planned visit by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to Libya but many of us, I feel equally sure, regard that as a minimal decision. Who is to say that the bomb materials which killed 11 innocent people last Sunday did not come from the very same source?

For many years we have adopted a policy in this House, and enshrined it in our law, that those who support terrorism on this island will not be given access to the airwaves and will be regarded as outcasts. Yet we are prepared to maintain friendly relations with a national leader who is unequivocal in his support for terrorists. We have all seen and heard on the airwaves and otherwise in the past few years Colonel Gadaffi's support for the Provisional IRA and their aims. This attitude by us is hypocrisy and we should, for as long as Libya is prepared to encourage and foster international terrorism, under any relations we have with that country.

A Deputy

And Russia.

Mr. Spring

It is obscene to think that those relations are maintained in order that a small number of people can make fast fortunes from trade with Libya. I believe that on this occasion the common good is far more important and I call on the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice in his reply to deal with this question and to tell us whether the Government have considered the breaking off of diplomatic relations with Libya which has actively, publicly and consistently supported the aims of the Provisional IRA.

The other thing which is clear about this operation is that there must have been some sort of reception in readiness here. Many people will be familiar with the type of operation surrounding the last attempt to import arms and the necessary operations to prevent that. The unloading of the quantities involved could not be done without reasonably sophisticated equipment and facilities somewhere along the Irish coastline. I hope the Minister will tell us the progress of his investigations into the tracking down of the people who were awaiting the landing of this material.

There is no doubt that the Garda have for the past three weeks been involved in a very demanding and difficult task in their search for a gang of criminals, led by perhaps one of the most dangerous criminals ever at large on this island. There is no doubt too that individual gardaí in large numbers took on this task with grit and determination to ensure that it would be brought to a quick ending. But there must be question marks as to the resources provided by the Government during the past number of weeks.

One must question the wisdom of unarmed Garda checkpoints. I see no point in having unarmed roadblocks in this kind of dangerous operation. Strong views have been expressed by individual gardaí that adequate resources were not provided to allow maximum pursuit of the kidnappers during the past few weeks. The Minister for Justice has already assured this House that no such constraints existed and the senior Garda involved have reiterated the denial.

At the same time reports have emanated of a meeting in Garda headquarters, a meeting which was pervaded by what one of the participants described as an "unreal atmosphere". At that meeting all attempts to discuss the progress of the investigation were rebutted and the purpose of the meeting, the astonished participants were told, was to outline a further series of cutbacks shortly to come into force. Even by the standards of this cutting Government, surely that is absolutely crazy? The Government must bear a considerable responsibility for the atmosphere that now pervades the Garda Síochána. I have called for an independent inquiry into all the circumstances surrounding this investigation and there is no aspect of the investigation that warrants inquiry more than the one of the actual resources provided to the Garda during the past number of weeks.

The other obvious important issue arising in relation to the kidnap is the question of ransom. I will not go into the detail that has already been gone into about the issue of a ransom and neither will I attempt to second guess the decision-making process involved. If I was sitting at the Cabinet table and perhaps looking at gruesome photographs and listening to very persuasive evidence that a man's life was in imminent danger it is entirely possible that I could reach a decision that any action which would bring this tragedy to a quick end would be the right course. It is easier for those of us who have hindsight to be critical of the decision that was in fact made. However, what we must be critical of is the fact that this House has not at this point in time been told the full story. It seems abundantly clear that the Government took a conscious decision to co-operate with the payment of a ransom and then took another decision to conceal the fact that a ransom was to be paid. If this was done, and it certainly looks as if it was, it was an unworthy and dishonourable decision and one that must be condemned by everyone in this House.

There is a responsibility on the Minister for Justice to inform this House of the exact situation surrounding the question of the ransom, the advice that was given to the security committee of the Cabinet or to the full Cabinet, if the Cabinet made the decision and the advice that was made available by the senior Garda officers involved in relation to the payment of a ransom. That advice should be made available to the Members of this House because it is a very important matter in terms of policy-making in relation to the conduct of a kidnap hunt. It is also very important in relation to the future ideas or notions that people may have in relation to the conducting of this type of activity.

As I said, it is regrettable that the Government did not lead at an earlier stage in this debate and I am sure that before the end of this debate many questions will have been raised. I sincerely hope, in the context of all the questions that are raised, that the Minister for Justice will be in a position to respond in a positive manner and to clarify many questions which I am sure I share with most Members of the House outside of the members of the Cabinet who are obviously privy to the information available during the past number of weeks.

We can only hope that arising from these tragedies which shook this island no harbour will be provided to the remainder of the kidnap gang who are still on the run, a kidnap gang whose brutality is beyond description. I trust that the Garda will be successful in the remainder of their task and in bringing these people to justice. These people do not represent the body of opinion on this island and I hasten to add that they do not represent any decent person on this island, north or south. They are doing a great disservice to this country and their actions are indeed regrettable. No matter what cause they represent or what ambitions they are seeking to achieve they should get no quarter either north or south when they are brought to justice.

I trust that the Minister for Justice will ensure that cross-Border security co-operation will be stepped up to root out any terrorist activity which still operates in the region of the Border and that these mindless, insane terrorists who are causing a great disservice to this island are prevented in the mindless task of destruction which can only result from their activities.

One thing which I hope goes from this House arising from this debate — and perhaps it was better said by political representatives north of the Border — is that politicians in London and Dublin will talk about it for some hours but they are still left with the problem on a daily basis. Let all of us, once and for all, attempt to root out the ambivalence which is at the back and at the heart of the problem that is pervading this island. Let every Member of this House speak out against that ambivalence. Let us give no succour or encouragement to those who think they are fighting some historical cause or otherwise because that is not the situation.

We have attempted, through political dialogue, during the past few years to bring about progress in relation to the difficulties that exist and which have existed for many years in Northern Ireland. Let us not be deterred from that course by these mindless acts. Let us, Opposition Members, assure the Government that every assistance will be forthcoming in bringing to fruition the ideals and aspirations which were discussed at length by the political parties in the south in the course of the New Ireland Forum. So far as we in the Labour Party are concerned we carry the only hope, the only ray of light, for a peaceful coexistence in Northern Ireland between the divided communities.

I hope the Minister for Justice will clarify the many issues which have been troubling many people in their homes around this country during the past few weeks. Let us ensure that no harbour is given to criminals or terrorists, as they are branded. Many people must have been offering comfort during the last few weeks, otherwise this gang would not have been able to survive and to evade Garda detection. Anyone who has offered them comfort has not been doing a service to anyone. The Garda deserve our support and respect in relation to their difficult task. Let us ensure that nobody in the south is in any doubt about the difficulties facing them. We must ensure that they get the fullest co-operation to bring the remainder of this gang to justice.

Tomás Mac Giolla

During the past two weeks we have experienced some of the worst atrocities this country has seen in the last 17 years of violence. We have had the kidnapping and torture of Mr. O'Grady and the massacre and appalling carnage created by the bomb at the Remembrance Day ceremony in Enniskillen. In last week's statement on the Eksund arms find I said I thought that the arms and explosives on that boat were likely to be used for the Provisionals' primary aim in Northern Ireland. Since they were established 17 years ago their aim has been to have a full scale sectarian civil war in the north. Sunday's appalling carnage bore this out. There should be no doubt whatever now as to the objectives of the Provisionals. The bomb attack in Enniskillen was designed not just to inflict the greatest possible number of casualties among innocent civilians but to promote the greatest possible outrage among the Protestant population. It was designed to kill Protestants and to enrage the general Protestant population.

It would be hard to think of a more provocative outrage than an attack on people who were engaged in what was primarily a religious service to commemorate their dead, in this case the dead of two world wars. Those who planted the bomb must have been aware that it would not just cause devastation and death but would create pressure among the Loyalists paramilitaries for retaliation. That is the hope of those who perpetrated that deed.

As I said last week, the Provisionals have always relied for their influence among Catholics on creating an atmosphere where they can masquerade as the defenders of the Catholic community. They are hoping, therefore, for attacks and retaliation by Protestant paramilitaries so that they can be seen to defend the Catholic community. Time after time they have gone out and engaged in vile sectarian murders knowing that they would provoke a reaction from the paramilitaries leading to more fear and more terror in Catholic areas and leading people to believe that they needed the Provos to protect them.

Nowhere has this tactic been more obvious than in County Fermanagh where a great number of Protestants have been murdered by the Provisionals. Some might have had connections with the security forces as many of the Loyalists in the area would. The Provos have constantly extended their targets to members and former members of the UDR. In that regard Ken Maginnis, a Unionist politician, who has worked night and day to promote open liberal policies at reconciliation in his own community would be a legitimate target because he was a former member of the UDR. Former members of the RUC or the RUC Reserve who have left the force for over 12 years are still legitimate targets. However, that was not sufficient, they were not getting enough Protestants killed so they extended their campaign to any company that took contracts from the security forces and followed that up by including any person who worked for a company who had a contract with the security forces. They extended their target to cover all Protestants in Northern Ireland as "legitimate targets". In many cases in County Fermanagh those singled out for murder have been the only sons of Protestant farmers living in isolated farms along the Border. There can be little doubt that their strategy was to force whole sections of the Protestant community out of the area.

The Loyalists of County Fermanagh have shown great tolerance and forbearance in the face of appalling provocation. There have been little or no attacks on Catholics by Loyalist paramilitaries in the area since the early seventies. I appeal to them, and I am sure they will adhere to this, not to play into the hands of the Provos by way of retaliation for Sunday's attack.

If anyone is in any doubt that the Provos' aim is civil war, and that their attack on Sunday was quite consistent with that objective, I would refer them to an interview with a representative of the Provisional IRA in Hot Press magazine in December 1986. The interview, for some reason, received little notice in the general press or media at the time nor has it been quoted since. I believe it is one of the most revealing ever given about the aims and objectives of the Provisionals. During that interview the representative of the Provisional IRA said he considered all people who collaborate with the British forces to be legitimate targets. In response to the interviewer asking: “Are you saying that it would be better to have an all-out civil war?”, the spokesman said, “yes”. It was quite clear from these sentiments that the warped Provisional mind would see those who had turned out to commemorate the dead of two world wars as collaborators, and therefore legitimate targets.

From the very beginning we identified Provisionalism as a sectarian and racist philosophy which incited murder and violence against fellow Irish people and which had nothing in common with the Irish radical revolutionary political tradition. No matter what people such as Mr. Tim Pat Coogan might have said last night, they are not in any sense the continuation of the war of independence, the men of 1916 or previous generations. Indeed it is fair to say that on many occasions The Workers' Party stood virtually alone on this point, particularly at the height of the H-Block hysteria.

There is a need for society to take a stronger stand against the Provisionals. It is not simply enough to stand aside and ignore them in the hope they will eventually go away. Provisionalism must be challenged at every opportunity, in the work place, in the pubs, on the streets, on local authorities and in any other forum that people may have. If the communities in which the Provisionals operate disagree with these murderous anti-worker actions then they have a duty to make their disagreement known by refusing to support and co-operate with them in any way. I think the leaders and moulders of public opinion, such as newspaper editors, for instance, have a particular responsibility in this regard. In the long term only the unity of the Irish working class and the strengthening of democratic institutions in both the Republic and in Northern Ireland can free us from the scourge of the Provisionals. In the meantime it must be made crystal clear to them that their despicable sectarian philosophy and murderous tactics will never be acceptable to the majority of the Irish people.

There has been massive public anger in the Republic at the Enniskillen outrage. I believe that all the political parties in the Dáil should try to channel this in a positive direction to ensure the total isolation of terrorism from Irish society. I believe the Government should consider some way to allow the public to demonstrate their sympathy for the victims of the Enniskillen bombing and their revulsion at this and other similar attacks. When ETA set off a bomb in a Barcelona supermarket carpark some months ago the regional government of the area organised a silent demonstration at which more than 100,000 people marched in silent protest against the outrage. Why can we not give the Irish people a similar opportunity to demonstrate their abhorrence for what happened at Enniskillen? If something were to be organised it should be done quickly. I think all parties in this House should endeavour to ensure that a similar type demonstration is organised as quickly as possible. Such a public manifestation of anger against those who conducted this outrage would demonstrate to the people of Northern Ireland that the overwhelming majority of people in this State have nothing but contempt for organisations who have carried out this and similar outrages.

Dublin City Council have already taken steps to allow the people of Dublin to express their sympathy with the people of Enniskillen. Following the adoption of a Workers' Party motion at last night's meeting books of condolence will be open for signing at City Hall and at the Mansion House from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of this week. I hope that the Taoiseach, the Ministers, the leaders of all the parties and the Deputies will give a public lead by signing the book. I hope the Government will consider as a matter of urgency — as I outlined — the manner in which some national gesture of condemnation and sympathy might be made.

With regard to the Garda investigation into the kidnapping of Mr. John O'Grady, I believe it is essential that a full independent inquiry into all aspects of the Garda handling of the case should be made. I think the Garda should be congratulated, and particularly the gardaí on the ground, who were successful in releasing Mr. John O'Grady. I believe the public have nothing but admiration for the gardaí who have been out facing dangerous armed criminals in the most difficult of circumstances. The actual police work has been proved to be excellent. However, it would be a mistake to ignore public alarm on a number of aspects of the handling of the affair, including the escape on a number of occasions of suspects and the chapter of mishaps and errors that seem to have been a feature of the investigation.

The aim of the investigation should not be to look for scapegoats but to examine Garda management systems, tactical and operation procedures to ensure that similar mistakes will not be made in the future. It should also examine to what extent Garda cutbacks and overtime restrictions contributed to the difficulties in the force. Many members of the Garda Síochána are prepared to admit privately that many aspects of the investigation were not satisfactory from their point of view. In any event responsibility for any shortcomings rests not with the individual garda manning a road block on a lonely road but with the senior gardaí and with those who have political responsibility for the operation of the force. Failure to answer legitimate questions which have been raised on the entire kidnap operation could undermine Garda morale and diminish public confidence in the force.

We reject the general attacks made on the force. We particularly reject the attacks and smears by the British newspapers on the Garda. I must emphasise that no civilians were killed or injured in the whole case, unlike similar incidents in Britain where civilians have been killed or injured by the police force. We believe there are serious problems in the leadership of the Garda Síochána. The gardaí on the ground who had done very good police work were let down time after time.

We believe the Garda must be given the resources to do their job and this is particularly important in relation to the activities of the Provisionals, who are attempting in different communities in this city and other places to undermine the Garda under the guise of opposing drug peddlers. They are attempting to take charge in the community of opposition to drugs on the basis that the Garda are not doing the job. In my constituency they went so far as to attempt to murder a small time drug peddler, merely an addict I would say. They had him pushed out of his house and a week later they pumped bullets into his body in an attempt to murder him. This was to make murder of the type that is going on in Northern Ireland acceptable down here. A similar act was carried out in Finglas. A young man from Finglas was murdered at the Border on the basis that he was an informer, that he gave information to the Garda. I emphasise the importance of increasing the resources to the Garda to enable them to do the job we have given them.

On the issue of extradition, during the course of the Bill which was introduced last year we consistently made it clear that we are in favour of the extradition of terrorists. We still have an objection to the Act as passed, and we are maintaining that objection, that is, we believe a prima facie case should be proved before an Irish court. If that clause is inserted we should then implement the whole Extradition Act. We hope we will get support for the insertion of that clause in the Act for which we have put down a Private Members' Bill. That could be done in one day and the Bill could be through the House by 1 December.

In relation to some remarks that have been made already, we do not want to see the barbarism of the Provos counteracted by any legal barbarism down here. We must not ignore legal or democratic procedures in our opposition to Provoism or any other criminal activity. A time of emotion such as this is a time when changes in the legal system could be introduced which could affect all our people. We oppose any attempt to counter barbarism with a similar type of legal barbarism.

Mr. Barry

This is supposed to be a debate on the events of the past few weeks in this country, north and south. Deputy Dukes, the Leader of the Opposition, asked a number of very pertinent questions when he opened this debate. It is not a debate because the Government are not participating and yet individual members of the Government have questions to answer which were raised by Deputy Dukes. The Taoiseach must account for the events of last Wednesday and Thursday and his role in them. The Minister for Justice who is going to reply to the debate has serious questions to answer. The Minister for Foreign Affairs should be answerable to this House as to what has been done since the discovery of the arms find on the Eksund off the French coast last week. The Minister for Finance should also answer the questions raised by Deputy Dukes about how money was made available and imported into this country and the exchange control regulation that may or may not have been breached.

Yet, none of the three people I have mentioned, the Taoiseach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Minister for Finance, is going to contribute to this debate. It will be left to the Minister for Justice in his closing speech to answer whatever questions have been raised. Particular attention will be paid to the points that are not answered. I advise the Minister to listen carefully to all the speeches and to all the points that are raised and to answer every one of them because the ones which are not answered will certainly be the subject of as much attention as those that are answered.

The past week has been an exceedingly bad week for Ireland, nearly the worst week in my time in public life, culminating in the appalling event in Enniskillen on Sunday last. I would like on my own behalf and on behalf of every person in this House to extend our sympathy to the relatives of those people who lost their lives in that act of violence last Sunday. I do not believe the IRA could have been in any doubt about who would lose their lives when that bomb went off last Sunday. They must have known that the major number of deaths would be civilians and no amount of apologies from them or no amount of regrets sent by the President of Sinn Féin or the leaders of the IRA can obliterate the fact that the IRA set out to kill civilians and that action was condoned by the leader of Provisional Sinn Féin.

As John Hume said on Sunday, this act was carried out with the sole intention of provoking a Unionist backlash against the Nationalist people in the North of Ireland. I hope, and I believe it to be the case, that the Unionist people have suffered too much and know the Provisional IRA too well and their leaders, and Ken Maginnis in particular, have to their credit implored them not to retaliate and I believe they will not do so.

I wish to say one thing to those people who advocate the repeal of section 31. How many Provisional IRA men were available to the media last Sunday to explain what had happened? We saw on television last night the leader of the Fermanagh District Council refusing to even give a ‘no comment'. Mr. Adams, Mr. Morrison and the other so vocal spokesmen on matters such as housing, drugs and other matters which they say they are concerned with, issued one statement and were not seen any more. We should bear that in mind.

We should ask ourselves where did those people get the explosives which they detonated in Enniskillen last Sunday? Is it not becoming very clear that they are getting them from outside this island and probably, on the evidence available to us, from Libya? Is it not becoming equally clear that we in this House, and particularly the Government, should make up our minds as to our attitude to countries and leaders of those countries that supply weapons and explosives which take lives as they did in Enniskillen and which, if those people are given the opportunity, will take lives down here. Deputy Mac Giolla is quite right in saying that. If the Provisional IRA get the opportunity they will not stop at the Border and nobody should delude themselves about that. We should not take the "softly softly" approach or "they are only the lads" approach. If the Provisional IRA get their opportunity, they will not stop at the Border.

Nobody should delude themselves about that. They are bent on civil war as witnessed by the cargo of the Eksund. We should thank the French Government for commandeering that before lives were lost here. They would have had enough to start a civil war had it reached our shores. Last June, I questioned the Minister for Foreign Affairs here about an explosive called Semtex which a report in the papers said had been supplied by Libya to the IRA. His answer to me on 16 June as reported at column 1869 of the Official Report was:

We found on full investigation that the allegation on 14 May that a particular type of explosive, a Semtex explosive, manufactured in Eastern Europe was supplied to the IRA, was without foundation.

He warned me about making particular countries the whipping boy for terrorism throughout the world and undertook to investigate further to make sure that there was nothing in what I was alleging about Libya's involvement with the IRA and supplying arms and explosives to them. I do not know whether he did or not, but I suspect that the investigations were not pursued any further, or at least pursued in very shallow depth.

The extraordinary thing is that, in spite of the mounting evidence over the past few years of Libyan involvement in international terrorism, particularly in relation to this country and particularly in regard to the statements of the leader of the Libyan people about his admiration and support for the IRA and about his friendship with the leader of this Government, the Government agreed to a delegation, led by a Minister of this Government, going to Libya this week when all the evidence is that Libya, and Colonel Gadaffi in particular, were supplying arms and explosives to the Provisional IRA with the appalling consequences seen last Sunday. It was only at the eleventh hour that that visit was called off; the Minister backed out and I am not sure whether or not the delegation are going.

When I was Minister for Foreign Affairs on a number of occasions I had to take action against the Libyan Government on the basis of statements made by officials of that Government and by the leader of the Libyan people asking them to withdraw their support for the IRA and for terrorism, but to no avail. We increased that pressure on them last year by introducing a prohibition on Libyan students coming here to study, not because we wanted in any way to damage the educational prospects of Libyan students, but because we wanted to bring home to the leader of the Libyan Government how seriously we took the rhetoric — that is all it was at the time — of their leader and of their prime minister.

I regret to say it appears that that pressure was not kept up on the Libyan Government. Certainly, one ship has been found. The evidence to my mind is conclusive that that ship picked up those arms and those explosives in Tripoli in the last month for shipment to here, and maybe there are others as well. We should now see what the end result of this is, the loss of lives in Enniskillen last Sunday and — but I hope not — the possibility that we have not seen the end of the quantity of explosives the IRA are willing to use, and there is no doubt that if they had them they would use them.

At this stage, the Taoiseach should renounce his friendship with the leader of the Libyan people and he should break off diplomatic relations with Libya. We should combine in any forum or with anybody we can in Europe or across the world to root out terrorists and the suppliers of arms, funds and explosives, because we cannot deal alone with that level of terrorism. We must combine with other countries in doing that.

It has been said earlier that Enniskillen is just the latest of the appalling atrocities committed by the IRA and the spin-offs of the IRA including the man who is now on the run who has the same mentality and is allegedly fighting for the same cause. I was disappointed to hear one of the earlier speakers here today saying he was ashamed to be Irish. People have said to me as well that, because of the events of the last week, they are ashamed to be Irish. I am not ashamed to be Irish and I make no apologies for being Irish. But I am ashamed that people who commit acts such as those in Enniskillen last Sunday call themselves Irish as well.

Ninety-nine per cent of the people in this country do not approve of that and we should not allow ourselves to be trapped into allowing these people to identify themselves with us or pretend that we are all fighting the same battle. We are not, and we should never be ashamed to say we are Irish and proud to be Irish but that these people are not Irish in our eyes. They must be isolated, not us, and there must be no ambiguity about this. There must be no sympathy for them. There must be no support for them. There must be no safe houses for them. There must be no verbal republicianism. There must be no motions passed at county council meetings that offer the slightest hope to them. I am sorry that yesterday in Mayo County Council one member of the Government party said he was a frequent and proud reader of An Phoblacht. One cannot face in both directions on this.

One is either for this Government in the sense that they are the Government of the people in their role of seeking peace on this island and seeking reconciliation between the traditions, or one is for violence. There is no middle road. Neither by word nor deed nor verbal republicanism must these people be given any succour or any support. Not just the perpetrators of crime but their supporters in this jurisdiction must be given no hope. The supporters are here, like that "old fool" in Cork — that is how the Justice described him — who said he could not approve of the appalling crime of taking off the fingers of Dr. O'Grady the dentist who was kidnapped, but that he can approve of the planting of the bomb in Enniskillen because they are Unionists, Protestants, not our people.

They are our people. That is what unifying this country is about. The island is one; it is the people we must unite. They are our people and a crime committed against them is a crime committed against us. We must all step back from such people. The supporters of terrorism, whether verbal, active or financial, and see them exposed as the supporters of violence in their misguided attempts to bring an end to the division of this island by violent means.

There is no doubt that the best chance of doing that in the last 65 years has been the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The hope for the Nationalists in the North of Ireland, their chance of peace, their chance of taking their place in the sun, of being treated as equals and having a chance for stability lie in this agreement. I believe there may have been times when these people were coming around to seeing this themselves. I hope the atrocity of Sunday has not given encouragement to their men of violence to put a stop to that movement towards dialogue.

Article 8 of the agreement set out the recognition by both Governments that confidence in the administration of justice and in the security forces is a necessary ingredient for bringing about this peace and stability. Because both Governments recognised the urgency of this, it was listed as one of the first things that should be discussed at meetings of the Conference and, indeed, it was at every meeting that I co-chaired all during 1986. These two matters were discussed frequently. We very readily agreed that we would sign the European Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism because we wanted to do it. We wanted to see that there was no safe haven in this country for people who committed crimes of violence in the North. When we introduced that legislation this time last year, I want to remind the House, all the members of the Fine Gael Party voted for it, without exception. Deputy Mac Giolla is mistaken if he now intends to bring in a Bill asking for the production of prima facie evidence, because he could be swimming against the tide of opinion in Europe. We would be the only country in Europe to ask for that.

In the past eight or nine months we have deliberately helped the Government in their negotiating stance with the British Government under Article 8 by reserving our position on its implementation and by pointing to the fact that we want to see more done under Article 8. The Government abused that support. Their lazy approach to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, in spite of pressure from us, meant that from March until October virtually nothing was done. We made speeches, we implored them, we asked them to go to special meetings to ensure that the growing confidence of the Nationalists in the North of Ireland in the increasing support they felt from the Anglo-Irish Agreement would not be wasted. Yet this Government did not work that agreement with the enthusiasm, with the dedication, with the degree of commitment that has to be applied to it at all times, not just at a press conference after a too irregular meeting of the Conference.

This, of course, reflects Fianna Fáil's ambivalence towards this agreement. It was quite clear from the time the agreement was signed in November of 1985 that virtually all the Nationalist people, except those who supported violence, saw in this agreement the best opportunity to get a fair deal for Nationalists in Northern Ireland. Yet Fianna Fáil hung back on it, for purely party-political reasons. They hung back to the extent of sending their deputy leader to New York when it was signed, to try to persuade the Irish-American politicians there not to support it. I wonder has there been a greater act of treachery than that in the history of the State? The Government have an obligation to the Nationalist people on this island, particularly those in the North of Ireland, to work this agreement. If they have any doubts about that, they should look at what the alternative is and they will see it all round them, unfortunately, on this island today.

Deputy Dukes told them that while we wish to see this go through on 1 December, that is doubtful because of the Government's lack of response to what we have been saying to them in the past six months and particularly because of the way in which their supporters have behaved in county councils and urban councils and their backbenchers — not their frontbenchers who are too cagey, except for the slip by the Minister for Transport and Tourism on Radio na Gaeltachta about three weeks ago — trying to condition public opinion to the bringing in of a motion to postpone the implementation of this agreement. Even within hours of the atrocity in Enniskillen on last Sunday, on a programme about Fianna Fáil a motion was passed according to the newspapers, suggesting that extradition should be postponed. Could they not even then have stopped that, in the name of decency? What kind of an impression would that give?

I share with Deputy Mac Giolla and other speakers their sense of outrage when they see the way in which the British media speak about us in this country and about the Garda Síochána, in particular, who have been very badly done by in that respect. The Lord Mayor of my own city referred to this fact last night, as well. The Garda Síochána are also outraged when their political head does not support them, when the Government criticise them at a most sensitive time before the conclusion of all matters relating to this kidnapping. I am also outraged by that. Surely that is the time they need support.

I want to quote from the leading article in this morning's Guardian. The article talks about the implementation of the Extradition Act on 1 December. They say:

In effect, it (the agreement) will make very little difference but the symbolism is important. But that will be about the time a judgment is made in the Birmingham bombing appeal. Whichever way the judgment goes, London-Dublin relations are crisscrossed by such inheritances. They have to be recognised; that done, the two Governments have to grit their teeth and get on with the job of implementing their agreement.

It is our agreement as much as the British Government's.

If Unionists would reach their own compact with Dublin, that would supersede the agreement. In the meantime it is only on the agreement that the North's hopes can rest.

Please, please take that message that the hopes of particularly the Nationalist people in the North of Ireland rest on this agreement. Do not weaken it and do not neglect it, because if we are to eliminate the atrocities of Enniskillen and whatever else is to come, this agreement will do it as nothing else will.

Miss Harney

I think it is fair to say that all those who have spoken so far in this debate have found it extremely difficult to express in words their sense of outrage at what happened in this country during the past week. In a civilised, democratic Parliament would one not imagine that the people leading this debate would be the Government of the day? Would anybody believe that the Taoiseach would choose simply to sit down, keep his mouth shut and hope that the problem might go away? Would not the leader of any civilised Government, in any Parliament probably throughout Europe, use the opportunity presented by this debate to lead the debate and to tell us what the Government think about what has happened and what the Government are going to do about the issues that have arisen in this country in the past week?

The Taoiseach's behaviour here this evening is a disgrace. The cowardice he has shown on this issue is similar to the kind of cowardice that led him to dump his Government Press Secretary last week for simply delivering the Taoiseach's message, which I know that Press Secretary is very good at doing. Is it not also a disgrace that the Tánaiste, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, has not seen fit to intervene in this debate and that the Minister for Justice will wait until the end? He only wanted ten minutes, we are told this afternoon, no doubt to put forward the usual kind of Civil Service script used for these occasions.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Collins)

That remark is totally untrue.

Miss Harney

The attitude of the Government to this debate is a disgrace and will be seen as such. The Taoiseach, the Minister and the other members of the Government should have sought to intervene earlier in this debate and not simply to sit back in the hope that at the end of this debate the Minister would not have time to say very much.

I would like to comment on the Fianna Fáil youth conference which was held in Galway last Sunday. The members attending that youth conference stood in silence for the bereaved and those who had lost family members in the Enniskillen massacre but despite that fact a few hours later a Roscommon councillor got a standing ovation for saying and I quote, "Des O'Malley, Peter Barry and Geraldine Kennedy are more British than the British themselves." That kind of attitude and that kind of Anglophobia have led us to a situation where so many outrageous events have been carried out in the name of this country. It is outrageous for the young members of the Government party to behave in that fashion. All I can say is that they are very much out of touch with the views of right-minded and decent people of all ages throughout this country.

I do not know whether it was Dr. Austin Darragh, Gordon Wilson or the wife and brother of Detective Sergeant Martin O'Connor who made the greatest impact when they spoke to the people of this nation, both North and South. Each of them in their own way in recalling what had happened to a member of their family struck a cord with the vast majority of decent and right-thinking people up and down this country. They brought to our attention in a very clear and family kind of way the kind of dangers we are living under on this island. All of us as elected representatives, as I said last week, have an obligation not to be ambivalent when it comes to matters of whether we favour extradition or whether we want to co-operate with the forces of law and order to make sure that all those people who in any way helped the kidnappers of John O'Grady are brought before the courts and that the full rigours of the law will be applied to them.

I do not care whether they are young or old. For once and for all, we have to make an example of such people and we cannot allow their age to allow them to eacape from prosecution if that is what should happen. I understand that is not going to happen in relation to some people. I appreciate that the DPP is an independent Office of State but as an independent officer his decisions must be open for scrutiny and we are entitled to give our views on this matter. As I said last week in relation to another matter, for far too long we have seen double standards and double-think. This is the third such debate we have held in this House during the last few months. Following Loughgall there was a debate and statements in this House and statements were also made following the capture of the Eksund off the French coast last week. Perhaps there will be many more. We will keep on having similar debates because we do not seem capable of doing what is necessary to bring to justice the people who are such a danger on this island.

I remember some months ago when I tabled a question to the Minister for Justice in regard to those who commit serious crimes, such as the one committed by Mr. O'Hare, I asked whether the average life sentence of eight years was too short but people just laughed and heckled me and though I was very cruel. How does anybody in their right mind think that somebody of that kind should be allowed to roam around this country in the way he has done during the past few days? We read about this man in The Sunday Tribune of last Sunday, of how poor unfortunate John O'Grady had his fingers hacked off. Does anybody think that that sick and insane person should be allowed to roam free in this country? It is about time we became decisive on these matters and stopped apologising for being tough when it comes to dealing with terrorists. If we want to bring terrorism to an end in this country and in all other countries in the world there is just no other way.

The same also applies in our attitude to Libya. As I said last week, it was not good enough that we could use the 46,000 cattle or the 3,500 tonnes of beef we export to Libya and our trade worth £10 million with that country as an excuse to go on official delegations there. I am delighted the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Reynolds, will not now be going but the delegation, in their private capacity, is going ahead. No doubt we will have the best of both worlds but that is not good enough. Is the Fianna Fáil organiser, Mr. Sherwin, who is involved in the Ireland-Libya Friendship Society, going to resign his position? Are we going to keep our heads down about this matter this week for reasons of PR simply because in a months time it will be some other issue? That is not good enough. It is time we broke off diplomatic relations with Libya once and for all and ensured that our Ambassador in Rome no longer accredited to Libya. If we are serious, let us take a stand once and for all and stop hoping that in a while these problems might go away.

Up until last weekend there were officials still making arrangements for the trip of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Reynolds, to Libya. Would one not think that from day one the Minister would have seen fit to call off his intended trip? He did not see fit to do that and it was only because of pressure in this House and elsewhere that that trip was called off. Possibly, it may only have been postponed because no doubt at some date down the road some other member of the Government will go. What were the Libyans told? Were they told why the Minister is not going or were they told the Minister is not going but that the delegation is going ahead anyway? Apparently, they are. That kind of double-think and double standards is not acceptable. The public want decisive action from the Government on these matters once and for all.

It took the Taoiseach a week to send a letter to the French authorities to congratulate and compliment them on the capture of the Eksund. Is that good enough? During the past ten days I have watched the Government stumble from one crisis to another. There were long delays before they expressed their outrage and, in the case of the French authorities, to express our thanks and appreciation. One would have thought that within hours of the Taoiseach finding out about this matter he would have sent a letter of congratulations to the French authorities. Indeed, on the day of Stephen Roche's great win, and we were all delighted that he did so well, the Taoiseach was there ahead of him. This may seem funny but we have been very slow. It is because of our slowness and our apologetic attitude in matters of this kind that following this futile debate in which we will all make our points that nothing will happen.

As I have said twice during the course of the unfortunate kidnapping, the members of the Garda Síochána by their bravery and courage were endangering their lives, and what happened to Detective Sergeant Martin O'Connor demonstrates that only too well. Those poor unfortunate gardaí are being made the scapegoats. Last Thursday afternoon when one would have thought that every available Garda and soldier would have been out looking for Mr. O'Hare I am told that at 3 p.m. that afternoon members of the Special Task Force were told they could go home because there was no overtime. They were both shocked and surprised at that. Can the Minister tell us if that is true? A couple of hours after the Cabra incident a number of the kidnappers were still free in Dublin due to the lack of road blocks. I am told that these people with the two unfortunate women got petrol in Saggart at about 3 p.m., almost three hours later, and that there were no adequate roadblocks in that area.

In relation to the ransom, I do not want to make cheap points. I can appreciate the position the O'Grady family were in during that kidnapping and how they felt when they heard about how John O'Grady had been mutilated. I do not want to use this or any other occasion to minimise the awful position they were placed in. Indeed, I am delighted that they saw fit to co-operate with the Garda, but there is a difference between their very reasonable attitude as a family, and the official attitude of the authorities. I want the Minister to tell me whether it is true that the Garda authorities brought to his attention the fact that a ransom might be paid and tried to dissuade him from allowing this to go ahead and whether his attitude was, "let it happen anyway but we will never officially recognise it". I would like the Minister to tell us clearly what happened because I am led to believe that senior Garda officers were very worried about what was going to happen. Were the Garda going to allow the ransom to be paid in order to flush out those involved?

The Central Bank may seem irrelevant in this debate and most people do not really care whether the Central Bank was involved, but because of the amount of money involved they were obviously aware of what was happening. I am sure they informed the Garda, that the Garda in turn informed the Minister and that the Minister discussed it with the Taoiseach. I would like the House to be told the truth about this matter and let us not sweep it under the carpet in the hope that it may go away. There is a definite difference between the opinion of a family in the O'Gradys' situation and the official policy of this State in such case. If the Government have changed the official policy that has always been in operation at times like this, they have made a grave mistake because the next time some unfortunate person is kidnapped — we hope it will not happen — a hand or an arm may be taken off in order to get the ransom paid. The Minister has an obligation to explain fully the Government's thinking on this matter and the Government's policy regarding the payment of ransom.

This party, prior to the last election, in our policy document Justice for All, outlined the need to change the managerial and operational systems in place in the Garda Síochána. Since the twenties these systems have not been changed. Most gardaí recognise the fact that the systems in place are inefficient, outmoded and not capable of dealing with the serious crime of our time, but nothing has happened about that. We have had the Ryan Commission, the Conroy Commission and the report from Stokes Kennedy Crowley which has never been published. Like so many reports commissioned by Departments, when there is a problem we have a commission and then their report is left aside and ignored. I am told that in that management consultancy report there were recommendations relating to new procedures and a new managerial system that should be put in place in the Garda Síochána.

As Deputy O'Malley said in relation to the appointment of senior Garda officers, it is time to bring into place an independent appointments commission. I raised that matter in this House in June last year during the Estimates debate and I raise it again because it is terribly important, particularly for the gardaí themselves. Many of them believe that an independent appointments board would be the fairest way of promoting gardaí and the best way of ensuring that the best people come to the top. I could say many other things about the operation of the force but I will not do so. We must distinguish between the structures and the people. We have wonderful people in the force and we are lucky to have them, but they are working under such an outdated and outmoded system that they are not capable of achieving the best.

We should have some kind of emergency plan so that when situations such as arose last week in Dublin or in Midleton or Tipperary arise we will be able to put in place, in a matter of minutes if necessary, some emergency plan to ensure that all roads within a certain radius can be sealed off. That did not happen in any of those incidents. Many of those routes that people such as we are talking about obviously would take were left with no Garda checkpoint whatever. Even the unfortunate gardaí who were on checkpoint duty could not do much when they came across armed criminals.

Last Sunday I listened to the brother of Detective Sergeant Martin O'Connor on radio and he said he did not know how such people have come through our education system. He asked what it is in our system of education or our society that allows these people to come through that system and be capable of committing such atrocities. We would do well in this House to reflect for a moment on this question. Whether it is by the way we teach history or wave the flag or behave on so many occasions — politicians are very good at that, too — in some way we lend support to the kind of people who believe in behaving in this criminal fashion. We must realise that the IRA, the INLA, Sinn Féin, all of them are the same. As I said last week, Sinn Féin are simply the political elite of the IRA, and the comments they can make now simply because it might be popular to do so are outrageous to hear. They place a certain value on a police officer's life and a different value on somebody else's life. Their double standards and double think must once and for all be exposed. I said last week that it is wrong that the house of the Lord Mayor of this city, maintained and funded by the taxpayers and ratepayers of Dublin, should be given year in year out to this organisation to hold their Árd Fheis as if they were simply some other group or organisation. That is part of the double think. That is part of the cowardice that allows us to tolerate these people in a civilized way. These people are criminals, savages. The manner in which they behaved last week is outrageous and they will do it again unless we clear our minds in this House on these matters.

Some Government backbench Deputies do not even support the idea of extradition but are trying to escape their view being exposed under this kind of myth that the time is wrong. That, too, is outrageous. The time is always wrong. I have heard for years since I came into this House, whether on this matter or something else, that the time was wrong. The time was never more right to fight terrorists and to show once and for all to the people of this and other countries that the Irish nation is committed to fighting terrorism, that they are not going to use excuses to delay implementation of the Extradition Act on 1 December.

The implementation of that Act on 1 December may be symbolic to a great degree because of the Supreme Court interpretation of our present extradition law, but that symbol will be important to many thousands of people, particularly to the unfortunate people in Northern Ireland who say to me and to everybody else that they live daily with the kind of horrors that, fortunately, we have to experience only now and again. We will show them by our actions on 1 December whether we are serious about fighting terrorism and co-operating with the security forces North and South in that fight. All the resources of this State must be put into effect to make sure that whether it is the people responsible for John O'Grady's kidnapping or for the event in Enniskillen they are brought to justice and that the full rigours of the law are invoked. I want to hear no county councillor — though I am sure we will hear them in the next few days again — trying to give us excuses as happened after the incident at Loughgall, and trying to tell us that if it had been 11 members of the security forces who were assassinated last Sunday it would have been all right but because those people were ordinary, average citizens then it might have been wrong. We cannot have double standards. We cannot have this double think when it comes to human life. We will bring about a change in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland much more quickly by implementing the extradition laws on 1 December than by dragging our feet and making excuses. Unfortunately, the symbols will mean a great deal in the next couple of weeks and there is no point in passing motions condemning what was done unless we follow them through.

The vast majority of our people would like us to find some way in the South to express our sense of outrage at what happened last Sunday. I do not very much favour commemorations or such matters, but this Government should consider some initiative, some national way that we can show to the people of Northern Ireland that the atrocity committed in Enniskillen on Sunday is deplored by all right thinking people in this part of the country. The Government should consider doing something appropriate — I do not know what — to show the nation's sense of outrage at that awful atrocity.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): We have a habit in this country of extolling the virtues of the biggest, the best, the brightest and the fastest. We have had three events in the past month which are worthy of the record books. First there was the biggest cargo of arms ever attempted to be brought to this country. Secondly, for the first time in living memory, probably since the beginning of the State, a kidnap victim was mutilated by his captors. Thirdly, we have had a bombing incident in Enniskillen which in its savagery and pathos and its blatant attack on the civilian population of that town, regardless of age or sex, has surpassed in savagery anything that has happened in this country previously.

Nothing lies between us as ordinary citizens and the savagery of the terrorists except the security forces. In this State, that means the Garda Síochána in the front line supported by the Army. We all know the debt we owe to the Garda since the foundation of the State. A conscious decision was taken to have an unarmed police force and they have paid the price for it innumerable times by giving their lives willingly in the course of their duty to protect our citizens. Last week Sergeant O'Connor and Garda Spring were wounded and I extend my sympathy to them and their families. We owe a tremendous debt to the Garda Síochána and we should remember when people criticise the Force that every time there has been a crisis the Garda Síochána have got on top of it. Sometimes perhaps it was slower than we expected, but eventually they put it down. That is why we should be careful in our criticism of the Garda Síochána. There is nothing between us and the dark night of terrorism but that Force. While people in this House and people in the media may have freedom to criticise, the Government of the day should not criticise the Garda Síochána. We all know there were mistakes made in the operation but it is obscene that the Government and the Minister responsible should be the first to lead the charge in criticism of the Garda Síochána.

When Harry Truman was President of the United States he had a notice on his desk stating that the buck stopped there. When in Opposition the present Minister for Justice lectured us frequently from these benches on the responsibility of Ministers and where the buck stopped. The process is now in reverse. The buck stops nowhere, but is being pushed in the other direction. We are told that the Taoiseach is oscillating between fury and bewilderment about the events of the past three weeks, passing the buck back to his Minister for Justice.

The Minister for Justice said in his first statement to the House on this matter that there would be another day for recriminations, implying that he would lead the recriminations as, indeed, he did subsequently. While the events were still continuing he was talking about Garda blunders and security fiascos. Nobody from Garda Headquarters was willing to go on television or radio to answer any questions or explain anything. The buck moved back to the misfortunate chief superintendent who was unfortunate enough to be in the division where the initial kidnap took place. Is this responsible Government? Will responsibility be passed right along the line until the most recent recruit from Templemore is made the scapegoat? That is not the way to build up confidence in the security forces or to sustain morale in the only line of defence between us and the bombers and terrorists, the men who take off other men's fingers with a chisel and a hammer.

I have confidence in the Force. I know it is customary for Ministers for Justice to come into this House and say in response to a question about a crime in some constituency that it is an operational matter. In the normal course of events crime large and small is an operational matter for the Garda and the Minister confines his activities to policy. I was Minister for Justice when the Don Tidey kidnapping took place. Deputy Cooney was Minister for Justice when Doctor Herrema was Kidnapped. Deputy Jim Mitchell was Minister for Justice when Mr. Dunne was kidnapped. Deputy Dukes was Minister for Justice when Mrs. Guinness was kidnapped. We share a common experience. When an event of that magnitude takes place, with all the policy implications, the Minister in effect becomes the chief executive for the weeks that it continues. He is briefed daily and nightly on several occasions. He is asked for decisions and if he cannot decide himself he goes to the security committee of the Cabinet or ultimately to the Cabinet itself.

I wonder about the chain of command on this occasion. Was there any? Is there still a security sub-committee operating in the Cabinet? I saw newspaper reports today which suggest that there is and that the Minister for Finance attended, presumably to sanction a reward of £100,000. He would not normally be there. But there are also reports in the newspapers today that the Minister for Justice was opening a school in the country at the same time. It is reported too that he cancelled an engagement later in the evening, which might suggest that he came to a security meeting, but he was substituted for by the Minister for Defence who, in the normal course of events, should be on the security committee. Do we have a security committee which is operating now, making security decisions and recommendations to Cabinet? Are the Cabinet making decisions on foot of those recommendations, or do we have one man rule whereby decisions are passed down from the top with no chain of command?

It was deplorable that the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice, regardless of what operational mistakes were made, sought to remove the heat from themselves by passing the buck to the Garda Síochána and refusing to take the responsibility which is rightly theirs, especially in times of major crisis such as a kidnapping.

The charge has been made on this side of the House that the Government have changed their policy on ransom. What is that policy? The policy of previous Governments was never that one simply refused to pay a ransom. That is too simplistic. The policy was that a Government would not even condone the suggestion that a ransom might be paid, lest the impression be created that the Government were a soft mark who would give in if enough pressure was applied. That is the position. On two previous occasions, when I was Minister for Justice and when Deputy Mitchell was Minister for Justice, the Garda actively intervened and took money from intermediaries to prevent the payment of ransom. That did not happen on this occasion.

We can come to one of two conclusions: first, that the Garda did not know that a ransom was being paid — I think nobody would credit that, with good reason — secondly, that they did not inform the Minister, which nobody credits either. There has been a shift in the policy which has been followed by successive Governments. It is being openly said that it was not the Minister for Justice who made the shift. It is being openly said by security sources that the Taoiseach overrode the Minister for Justice and made the decision.

It is very difficult to be Minister for Justice when there is a kidnapping. Everybody is very rigid about no concessions early on, but as the days pass and concern for the victim increases the Minister has to meet the family of the victim. The concerns of the family are private and different from the concerns of a Government who have to act in the national interest. I can understand the emotional pressure that can arise — because we experienced it in our time — when one has close contacts with the family of the kidnapped victim.

I say this in all humanity: I fully appreciate the concerns of a family but a Minister for Justice, and especially the Head of a State, has to be cold, unemotional and objective in the national interest lest any concession he makes for the individual works to devastate the community and put everybody at risk. A change has occurred in the policy of paying ransom in this country and it has to be corrected immediately by a firm statement by the Taoiseach. It is not enough to get assurances from the Minister for Justice on this.

There is another policy related to ransom and I would like to put my comments on the record. In other countries ransom demands are not confined to money. Frequently in other jurisdictions terrorists kidnapped people — civilians, politicians, the former leader of a government — and the concession demanded was the release of terrorists from prison. Whether a group is kidnapped or an individual, the policy in this country is the same — no concession, no suggestion that a concession be made, not even the slightest hint or move which would suggest any ambivalence because the day we go down the road of concessions to terrorists is a day we end up with an Aldo Moro.

The Garda Síochána, publicly and privately, have said they did not have sufficient resources to deal with the kidnapping on this occasion. The Minister for Justice bluntly denied that and said all resources — equipment, personnel and money — were available at all times. All I can say from experience is that I doubt it. I remember in previous kidnaps it was very noticeable on the ground that a search of every house in the State was going on. Anyone travelling from one end of the country to another came across gardaí actively involved all day and all night. Anybody travelling the country on this occasion knows things were different. Maybe the Minister told the Garda that resources were available if they were needed, but they were not called on. In previous kidnapping cases a decision was taken in Cabinet through the security committee and implemented by the Minister and everything available in the Garda or the Army was used, but that did not happen on this occasion. I challenge the Minister to deny that the lack of resources inhibited the Garda on this occasion.

Other speakers have mentioned the ambivalence of people in this country, the provision of safe houses, people fighting old battles and old wars. Deputy Harney spoke about old people being no more exempt than young people. Is it any wonder there is ambivalence when the ambivalence starts in this House, on the benches over there?

Let us look at extradition. All the Opposition groups maintained consensus with the Government so that the maximum leverage could be exercised in their negotiations with the British. Did the Government accept our bona fides? They did not. When the intellectual argument for extradition was not being presented from this side of the House, they took the opportunity to try to change public opinion. We had the Minister, Deputy Wilson, on Raidio na Gaeltachta, the Ministers of State, Deputy Kirk and Deputy Walsh, on television. We read what numerous backbenchers had to say in the Sunday Tribune. We had the Government Press Secretary implying that we were in cahoots with the British Ambassador and we had county councillors all over the country putting down motions. What was going on? What was going on is very clear. Instead of using the Anglo-Irish Agreement to improve the implementation of justice in Northern Ireland, the Government took the opportunity to deliberately try to get a massive majority to agree not to go ahead with the Extradition Act by presenting only one side of the argument. We have to stop this ambivalence.

If there was never an Anglo-Irish Agreement we should subscribe to the European Convention on Terrorism and legislate by reforming the Extradition Act to enable us to do so. If there was never an arrangement between the two sovereign Governments, this should be done on its merits. I request the Government to do this and not to inhibit the implementation of the Extradition Act on 1 December.

There is ambivlance in the area of foreign affairs. What is our relationship with Libya now? There have been many questions hanging over our relationship with Libya for a number of years, but now we have proof positive that the threats or promises of Colonel Gadaffi are being backed by action with the largest quantity of arms, enough to equip a small army, being shipped into this country. There have been suggestions that this is the fifth ship to carry such a cargo.

Until Deputy Harney got up here and embarrassed the Government the Minister for Industry and Commerce was heading a trade delegation to Libya. Is that trade delegation still proceeding? If so, is it being subsidised by the Irish taxpayer? What funds are being provided by Córas Tráchtála Teoranta? Is the delegation being led by senior officials of Córas Tráchtála Teoranta? Is it being led by the Irish Ambassador to Italy, who is also assigned to Libya? What is the position? Will Irish money still be expended this week in making contact with the representatives of a State which has murderous designs on our people.

There is ambivalence about extradition, there is ambivalence about our attitudes to the IRA, there is ambivalence about our foreign policy in connection with Libya. The Taoiseach's position is ambivalent. I am glad he is in the Chamber to hear these comments. In my view he should have come in today — and he still has the opportunity — to intervene in this debate and to clarify these issues which are of serious concern to everybody. An impression is being created that the Taoiseach is hiding from these issues.

I want to restate what Deputy Harney said in connection with those who provide aid of any sort to the kidnap gang who are still terrorising the country. I do not think considerations of age or sex are appropriate. It must be made clear that the full rigour of the law will apply to everybody involved. I sympathise with the difficult task facing the Minister for Justice. It is not easy. It was never easy, but his predecessors of all political colour accepted full responsibility and did not try to pass the buck.

It is time for the talking to stop. I should like to ask the Taoiseach to immediately ensure that the Extradition Act is implemented on 1 December, to take steps to break off diplomatic relations with Libya and, through the Fianna Fáil organisation, to issue a clear directive to the sneaking regarders, to the people who talk out of both sides of their mouths, who condemn terrorism the day after an atrocity and give succour to the Provisional IRA the following week.

One of the things that shocked me most when I was Minister for Justice was that in the aftermath of the incident at Ballinamore where we had lost a young garda recruit and a member of the Army, one of those whom the gardaí were seeking for that crime had been put up in a house in County Mayo and the Taoiseach knows the person who organised that safe house was a member of a Fianna Fáil branch in that town. However, I have never heard the Taoiseach, or any of his Ministers, or anybody associated with that political activist, condemning that. I hope that that type of ambivalence will not continue in the aftermath of the tragic four weeks we have had.

Mr. Bell

We are all pleased that the Taoiseach agreed to this debate because it is important that all parties represented in the House are given an opportunity to express their views in regard to the events that have occurred in recent weeks. Like Deputy Noonan and other speakers I was left with grave doubts about a number of matters having listened to television interviews with different people and in particular with the Minister for Justice. I am sincere about that statement. It not only reflects the views of my colleagues in the Labour Party but of the vast majority of people in the country. I am not saying that this arose because of a deliberate policy of the Government but the impression created in my mind, and in the minds of many people, was that agreement had been reached with the Government for the payment of a ransom. That view is still held by many people and if it is true it represents a dangerous turn because it will open up many problems. It may lead to people cutting off the fingers of other men in an effort to gain the release of subversives held in portlaoise or other institutions. International terrorists would use similar tactics if they thought the Government would relent on what was the recognised policy of successive Governments since the foundation of the State not to give way to the terrorists that we hear about daily in our country.

Our history books show that the late Eamon de Valera had a cure for such difficulties and he exercised it strongly. He put paid to a lot of the terrorists of his day. It is a great pity that we do not have his type of leadership now, and a pity that we are prepared to bend with the political wind. In my view this matter does not have anything to do with extradition. It represents another group of people waving the green flag for their own reasons. We are being asked to join with other European countries in passing an Act to help stamp out international terrorism. We are being asked to help to deal with those who hijack planes and terrorise people as they travel on aeroplanes and on ships. The Labour Party would not be slow to defend the right of every person to be able to defend himself or herself and I am satisfied that our courts have always given a fair trial to those appealing against an extradition warrant. It must be remembered that Dáil Éireann, and the electorate, by a huge majority decided to join the European Community and that the Houses of the Oireachtas by a huge majority passed the Single European Act. Now we are being asked to introduce legislation that is similar to that passed by our European neighbours. Either we are Europeans or we are not.

I would have preferred if we had not joined the EC and at the time of the referendum I campaigned against membership but the Irish people decided otherwise. I do not know if the Extradition Act is good or bad but I have no doubt that if we experience any problems the Government, or their successors, will amend it. If we find that under the Act Irish people are being abused or are losing their just rights I have no doubt that an amending Bill will be introduced to close the loopholes.

When I listened to the Minister being interviewed on television I felt he was distancing himself from the Garda Síochána. That opinion is held by the majority of people I have spoken to. It is a great pity if that is the case. When the Garda are under severe pressure there should be a closing of ranks between them and the political head. A General cannot blame the soldier with the fixed bayonet in the trench; a General must accept responsibility.

The Minister of the day — of Defence or Justice — must accept the responsibility for mistakes made. Passing the buck down the ranks will not work or gain people's respect for the political institutions of this country. It will, effectively, weaken the Garda and the Army, both of whom have always fully supported whatever Government have been democratically elected. There were times when they might have had reason to doubt that support but they always came through with flying colours. On this occasion the people feel that the Garda were let down by the political institutions of the State.

As other speakers already said, all previous kidnappings in recent years were brought to a successful conclusion and, in a number of those cases, members of the Garda Síochána and the armed forces gave their lives to defeat those terrorists. This kidnap has been brought to a successful conclusion except for the fact that there are a number of outstanding matters to be resolved. Unfortunately, one of them was not resolved in my constituency last Sunday night when the gentleman who is alleged to have led this campaign of terror terrorised people in the small town of Dunleer. He went up the street shooting into public houses like something you would see in a wild west film. He threatened people who ran out the back doors of public houses because their lives were in danger. Nothing could be done against that kind of person on that occasion because there is only a very small Garda station in Dunleer with a handful of unarmed gardaí. Even if they had been notified, they could not have dealt with that kind of military terrorist. That sort of person understands only one language, that you match that kind of activity with an efficient, well equipped and well organised Garda Force, backed up by a similarly well organised and well equipped Army.

The man in question could not walk on the streets of Dunleer, Dundalk or anywhere else without the active support of members of the community. I wonder how those people would feel if their husbands had their fingers cut off, if their wives were shot at, if their children were kidnapped or if their husbands, wives, fathers, sons and daughters had been blown to bits like the people in Enniskillen on Sunday. That is what I would like to ask these people who are hiding criminals.

There is success story in relation to the Garda Síochána. In 1986, 353 firearms, including rifles, shotguns, machine guns, pistols and revolvers were recovered; 33,939 rounds of ammunition were also recovered as well as 621 shotgun cartridges, 36 detonators, 35 magazines for firearms, nine hand grenades, 492 lbs of explosives, four bombs of various types and ten rockets. These would have been used against the Irish people in the type of activity seen in Dunleer and elsewhere over the past two weeks. At the same time the Garda had to deal with 1,264 persons who were reported missing, although it transpired that only 25 were genuinely missing. The point I am trying to make is that it is time the Garda were given a different role. Deputy Harney mentioned this and I agree with her remarks. It is time that the menial tasks which the Garda have to perform in relation to tax and insurance certificates, parking fines and so on were shifted to traffic wardens who could do the job. The activities of the Garda should be concentrated on serious crime.

Serious crime is concentrated on my constituency and other constituencies in the Border area. Deputy McGahon, other Members and I know that the price we pay for that is the highest level of unemployment in the country. Much of that can be attributed to the great difficulty the IDA and other agencies have in encouraging people to set up industry in the Border area. It is well known that subversive activity breeds unemployment and that unemployment breeds subversive activity. The two go together.

The people in County Louth have reached a stage where they are fed up with this type of activity. They do not know the day or the hour when people will be shot and banks robbed and they are used to the daily occurrence of people being threatened and beaten up. If the Government and the Dáil do not give the resources to the Army and the Garda to deal with that, people will take the law into their own hands. Since 1969, the Army strength has been reduced by 5,000 personnel. Numbers in the FCA have also been reduced by 5,000 members. We have more officers and NCOs but fewer men. We have too many chiefs and not enough Indians. The net result is that the troops in the Border area are under strength, under equipped and not in a position to cope with the type of situation which occurred over the past few weeks.

In 1969, when we had a similar emergency, we brought in local units of the FCA and we manned Gormanston Camp and Dundalk Barracks. We released the PDF — the professional troops — to do the work. That is a simple operation of planning that could be achieved. Instead, we have reduced recruitment of FCA units in the Border area and it is a year since a man was recruited into the PDF there. How can we expect to counteract terrorist activity in the Border area when we are running down the armed forces and reducing the level of overtime in the Garda? Then we crib when we do not have enough people to deal with emergencies. It is hypocritical, to say the least. The Minister should go on television to say that it was not the Garda or the Army who made a mistake, that it was Dáil Éireann.

Mr. S. Barrett

I am glad of the opportunity to speak on this Motion though I regret that this debate had to take place. I do not intend to engage in personal attacks but it is rather unfortunate that all the Opposition parties in this House, having seen fit to come in here to debate this issue, we have not yet had one speaker from the Government side.

I and many others born after the civil war detest civil war politics, the continuation of flag waving, speech making and the enunciation of aspirations about which we do nothing. Although the present Taoiseach is a man of ability he has failed to lead his party away from civil war politics. In local authorities, we have the spectacle of councillors and TDs using county council meetings for waving the green, white and orange flag and to insinuate that those who are not in the Fianna Fáil party are less Irish than those who support Fianna Fáil. If this continues, there is no point in us condemning violence when people have been blown to bits in the North. The people are sick to death of politicians making speeches condemning acts of violence when they do nothing about it.

There is ambivalence here towards the men of violence. There is a sneaking regard for those who call themselves true republicans, for those who will use any tactic to achieve their aims while ignoring the fact that the people they are killing are fellow Irish men and women. The spectacle of Gerry Adams and his cohorts sympathising with the relatives of those killed in Enniskillen epitomises what has gone wrong in this country.

I welcome the Taoiseach's conversion to dealing with our financial problems but I wonder what is the point in getting our finances right if we are going to allow the men of violence wreck everything we are trying to achieve. We have only to talk to the people to see their fear. Our own parents who live alone are afraid to open the door at night, afraid to walk the streets, they are afraid that some headbanger like Mr. O'Hare will walk in and hold them hostage. What are we doing about it? We are discussing whether to pass the Extradition Act. We are making excuses. We thank the French authorities for capturing the Eksund and for preventing that quantity of arms and ammunition from coming to this island, but when it comes to doing something we have doubts as to whether we should or should not. For that reason, I am glad that the Leader of my party stood up here today and clearly stated that this party intend to support the passing of the Extradition Act. When I was interviewed on BBC television and on radio and by RTE and when I spoke to journalists, I found myself in a hypocritical position in that when they asked me what I was going to do on 1 December, I could not say quite clearly that I was against the men of violence and that if it meant sending people who committed atrocities such as those committed in Enniskillen last Sunday to face justice in Northern Ireland, in Great Britain or anywhere else, I would support the Bill.

I appeal to the Taoiseach to lead his party and stop the civil war politics in local authorities, to stop the civil war politics enunciated by his backbenchers on radio and television. The Taoiseach should stop the nonsense of having conferences and conventions where people stand up and wave the flag and imply that if one is not with them, one is a West Britand no good for the Irish people. Let us stop this nonsense. If we do not stop it we cannot seek the support of those who are trying to help us and, God knows, we need to deal with terrorism.

When I say that, I do not remove the responsibility from the British Government. It is about time that some of their commentators stopped implying that we are harbouring terrorists, that we allow people who commit crime in the North to seek refuge here and that we do nothing about it. They give the impression to the British public that we offer an open house to the men of violence. It is about time the British Government looked at the real cause of the Northern problem and did something about it. The leadership should also come from the Taoiseach and he should force his Minister for Foreign Affairs to deal with this. So far as I can see, to date the Minister has been halfhearted in his approach to the implementation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. These are the real facts. People are very concerned about our ambivalence towards the men of violence.

We also have had the spectacle of the Minister for Justice using the unfortunate Garda as a scapegoat for his inability to deal with the recent kidnap affair. There is no point in shifting the blame to the unfortunate men and women of the Garda Síochána. The buck stops on your desk. As my colleague, Deputy Noonan said, from past experience, everybody knows that when a kidnap occurs, it is not just an ordinary crime where you get an odd report from the Garda Síochána. We all know that you are consulted on an hourly or half-hourly basis about what is happening.

An Ceann Comhairle

I would much prefer if the Deputy would direct his remarks through the Chair rather than directly to the Minister.

Mr. S. Barrett

It is rather unfortunate that the impression has gone abroad that we are going to blame the Garda for what has happened over the last few weeks. The rank and file members of the Garda behaved exceptionally well in this whole episode. I am sure mistakes were made but very good police work led to the release of Mr. O'Grady. Unfortunately, a detective garda lies very ill in hospital as a result of his bravery. It is fortunate that his colleague, Sergeant Spring is not along with him. The Garda should be congratulated for their bravery during this whole period. Surely you do not expect us to believe that there was a proper network of communications, that there was a proper chain of command and that when it went wrong, suddenly you were not responsible? I do not like saying this, but I am afraid that if you cannot come up with honest answers to what has happened over the last three weeks, the Taoiseach should take you from the office you hold and put in somebody who will do the job. A lot of questions have to be answered. Let us start with the Midleton affair. If you recall, I endeavoured by way of Private Notice Question to raise this matter in the House when it happened. It was obvious from the replies you gave that you were not giving the full facts to this House.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but he seems to be drifting back to making direct remarks to the Minister rather than through the Chair.

Mr. S. Barrett

Through the Chair, I am directing my remarks to the man who holds the position of Minister for Justice. The Midleton affair was scandalous. Obviously a solo job was done. Somebody wanted his hour of glory, at the expense of the rank and file members of the Garda and at the expense of the taxpayer. It is nothing short of scandalous to think that because of mismanagement and mishandling the chief superintendent in charge of the kidnapping was not informed of what was going on in Midleton. No preparation went into the surrounding of the house; there were no checkpoints; there were no road blocks and the Army apparently were not used. Yet, when I asked the Minister what had gone wrong he assured me that both he and the Garda Síochána were in full control of the situation. He also assured me that there was no shortage of resources for overtime or any other exercise that might be necessary to secure the safe release of Mr. O'Grady.

For the Minister to try to tell us that there was no shortage of resources is nothing short of scandalous. We have heard stories from different divisions all over the country where it is well known that superintendents were afraid to overspend because of the instructions they had been given in relation to overtime and the use or personnel to man road blocks.

Why did the Government come in here and pretend there were plenty of resources available when we know there were not. They are treating the public and us as absolute imbeciles. It is well known that the kidnappers travelled the length and breadth of the country without being stopped: from Cork to Dundalk to Dublin to Limerick to Tipperary. Apparently there were no road blocks. Where were the Army? The Minister owes it to this House and to the Irish people to outline exactly what went on and who was at fault in regard to the lack of instructions in relation to the ability to pay people overtime. Who was responsible for no road blocks? I want to know the answers to these questions.

I want to refer to the ransom. Here, again, there was a complete lack of leadership. I do not blame the O'Grady family for wanting to pay a ransom. If it was my son or daughter who was involved in the kidnap I am sure I would pay or do anything to try to get their safe release. Unfortunately, whether we like it or not we have a leadership role to play in dealing with this situation.

I have been told, by very clever answers to questions that I put to the Minister, that the Government, the Minister and the Garda Síochána were not assisting in any way in the payment of a ransom. I want to know how somebody could bring £1 million sterling from Northern Ireland to Dublin airport in a small plane, be escorted to the Bank of Ireland, be taken from the bank with IR£500,000, travel all the way to Cork, presumably with the assistance of the Garda Síochána and how there were men on duty in Cork to watch over what was going to happen when this money was handed over. It was the mercy of God that in between Mr. O'Grady got free. Anybody who would encourage that type of policy is doing no favour to anybody in this country.

Suppose the money had got into the hands of the kidnappers, what would have happened if they were followed by the Garda Síochána? Would they have been stupid enough to release Mr. O'Grady, or was the Minister going to be faced with a situation where he would have been told by the kidnappers that if he did not get those people off his back Mr. O'Grady would be killed. That is the natural follow-on to the payment of ransom. The people concerned are murderers and killers. They were not going to take £1.5 million and hand back Mr. O'Grady until they were satisfied they were free and they could presumably leave the jurisdiction and take the money with them. Not alone did the Minister endanger Mr. O'Grady's life but, more importantly, he has indicated to others who may be thinking of doing the same thing that if they kidnap somebody while he is in Government he would condone the payment of a ransom.

I hate to think what effect that will have on people living in this country. If one is fortunate enough to have wealth or is famous, one is now open to perhaps the cruel crime of kidnapping. Is the Minister, after the first telephone call, going to stand back and allow a ransom to be paid? That is the implication of what the Minister has done. Whether we like it or not, we are going to have to pick up the pieces. We are going to have to re-establish that as long as we have a democratic Government in this country no Government, Taoiseach or Minister for Justice will ever condone or assist in any way in the payment of a ransom for kidnapping. Once it starts it can never be stopped. It was foolish of the Minister to give the impression that he is soft on this issue. As my colleague, Deputy Michael Noonan, said it can be difficult when one is Minister for Justice to have to face a family who have such trauma before them. However, that is the job the Minister has to do and he has got to do it.

I cannot for the life of me understand why the Dáil was not told the full facts during the past three weeks. Why were we left with the impression that the Garda Síochána had all the resources available to them to do anything they felt was necessary to secure the safe release of Mr. O'Grady? Why were we given the impression that there were no cutbacks in relation to overtime to deal with this situation? Why were we given the clear impression that the Government were supporting the policies of previous Governments in relation to the payment of ransom? That is clearly not what happened and the very least the Minister owes us is to come in here and explain exactly why there was a change in policy and who made that decision. Maybe the Minister did not make that decision but somebody made it. It would not be advisable for the Minister to continue on pretending a decision was not taken at a very high level that the Government condoned the payment of a ransom in this case because we know that is not true.

I do not know where we are going to go from here to restore confidence. So long as the Minister remains in office and carries on the way he has carried on during the past three to four weeks public confidence will not be restored. The most despicable feature of the whole exercise was the shifting of the blame by the Minister for Justice to members of the Garda Síochána. If we have made mistakes we should be man enough to admit it, we should not shift the blame to members of the Force who were out there risking their lives to secure the safe release of a hostage and when things went wrong run for cover and blame someone else. If we are prepared to take some of the glory when things go right, then we should be prepared to take the blame when things go wrong. We cannot have it both ways.

As somebody who has not got a great deal of experience at national level, as somebody who is much younger than plenty of other people on the opposite benches and as somebody who was born after the Civil War, I appeal to everybody to stop this nonsense of pretending that we are not good Irish men and women unless we shout "Up the Republic" and wave a green, white and orange flag. We should stop pretending we are going to do something about the Northern situation when for our own political gain we use every occasion to show that we are better Irish men and women than the people in other parties. Are we going to be serious about restoring peace and stability in the North of Ireland and about implementing the provisions of the Anglo-Irish Agreement?

The indications from the Government to the British authorities would not indicate that they are serious about the Anglo-Irish Agreement. People have not forgotten that when it was negotiated the then Opposition came into the House and opposed it vigorously and the present Minister for Foreign Affairs attempted to sabotage it in the United States. Now we expect the same man to go along and with all force and vigour to implement the provisions of that agreement. I do not think we are fooling anybody. This issue is far more important than even the current financial problems we are experiencing. Perhaps we can deal with those in time but we cannot bring back to life those who lose their lives by acts of savagery as we saw in Enniskillen last weekend.

An Ceann Comhairle

I must now call on the Minister for Justice to reply.

Mr. S. Barrett

I suggest that if the Minister cannot do the job he step down and let somebody else do it somebody who is prepared to tackle these thugs, these men of violence.

Mr. Kemmy

It is unfair that members of small parties got no chance to speak in this debate, an important debate in the history of this House.

An Ceann Comhairle

I can only remind Deputy Kemmy that the procedure has already been agreed to here. The Chair is merely conforming to that. I am now obliged in accordance with the agreement arrived at earlier in the day to call on the Minister now.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Kemmy

This is grossly unfair. I am entitled——

An Ceann Comhairle

I have called on the Minister for Justice. This is strictly in accordance with the agreement of this House to which you were a party earlier today.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

I have outlined to the Deputy the procedure laid down by agreement of this House.

Mr. Kemmy

When the Ceann Comhairle was an Independent Member of this House——

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Kemmy, you will desist from interrupting any further the business of this House.

Mr. Kemmy

It is most unfair of you not to allow people like myself to speak.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am merely conforming to the order of this House and the Deputy knows that full well. I am sorry Minister that there has been an erosion of your time.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Collins)

Having listened to this debate this evening the thought uppermost in my mind is that there is a need for us all, if you will excuse the expression, to "keep our cool." Not for one minute do I wish to deny that we are confronted with problems, serious problems, on the law-and-order and security fronts and I will talk about these in a moment. But it will do us no good, and may do us a fair amount of harm, if we do not maintain a sense of proportion in relation to the difficulties which beset us at present. We must keep our heads, continue to support the forces of law-and-order which we have at our disposal and continue to have confidence in these forces. To do otherwise is to depress the morale of these forces and of our society which depends on them and at the same time, to give heart and renewed audacity to the criminal enemy that we face.

What has happened essentially and what is causing the particular concern that has been voiced in the House this evening, is that, most unfortunately, a number of major spectacular events that impinge in one way or another on the Garda Síochána have coincided and, in combination, they have excited, and perhaps to some extent alarmed, the public interest and given rise to extra heavy demands on our security services. These demands in turn have led to the emergence and highlighting of some of what I might refer to as the side issues that have been mentioned here this evening.

I mentioned that there are three main matters of present concern. These, to take them in the sequence in which they came to attention, are: (i) the kidnapping of Mr. John O'Grady and the events that have happened as a consequence of it; (ii) the discovery by the French Authorities of the arms cargo on board the boat Eksund and the Irish connection with this matter; and (iii) the horrible bomb atrocity in Enniskillen on Sunday last which killed 11 people and injured scores of others.

Any one of these matters would, in the normal way, be the cause of great concern. When they all come together they naturally heighten concern. But this should not be so to the extent that we talk of law and order being in a state of collapse and of the forces of law and order being in a state of disarray and no longer able to cope. We are not at that stage or near it and it is seriously damaging to the fabric of our society for anyone to suggest that we are. I can speak with assurance on this as only this morning, with the Taoiseach, I met with the most senior officers of the Garda Síochána to talk over present difficulties. The Taoiseach and myself were assured of the Garda determination and confidence in their all-out efforts to cope with their difficulties. We, in our turn, assured these officers of the total support of the Government for their efforts and that no resources which they needed at this time would be denied to them.

I am glad to take this opportunity to allay any public concern there may be about reports that Garda operations are being inhibited by financial cutbacks. I have been assured by the Garda Commissioner on more than one occasion that all necessary resources for the conduct of the investigation into the O'Grady kidnap are available and that the searches were not hampered by any lack of resources. In fact I am informed by the Assistant Commissioner from headquarters who got in touch with local divisional officers throughout the country that they were satisfied that the resources available to them were adequate for the conduct of the investigation.

I propose to refer to the three main events one by one and then to refer to what I have referred to on some of the more important side issues.

The first of these three incidents, namely, the kidnapping of Mr. John O'Grady, occurred just four weeks ago today. There is no need for me to underline to this House the appalling experience he has been through. I do not propose to go into the details of what happened during the kidnap because at the moment three persons have been charged with serious offences and are currently before the courts. The case is therefore sub judice. Furthermore, I am informed that one other person is due before the courts tonight. The papers dealing with charges that may be preferred against others are currently with the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Deputies will recall that after the incident in Midleton, when an attempt by the Garda to secure Mr. O'Grady's release did not succeed, I reported to this House and stressed that the Government's primary concern at the time was the release of the kidnapped man.

When I had outlined the facts of the case to the House, I stressed that the question of postmortems or investigations into how the matter was handled could wait until Mr. O'Grady was released. Indeed I was gratified to receive a degree of support from another side of the House on that issue.

Mr. O'Grady's release from his captors in Carnlough Road in Cabra last Thursday was a most welcome development, not only for Mr. O'Grady and his family, but also for the nation as a whole. There was almost a palpable sigh of relief from the whole nation.

Mr. O'Grady's release was a matter for which the Garda deserve commendation and congratulation. Deputies will recall that I asked all sides of the House to join with me in commending the Force generally and in particular the officers who were involved in the successful rescue.

The good news of the rescue was, of course, marred by the injuries sustained by Sergeant Henry Spring, and more seriously, by Detective Garda Martin O'Connor, who is still, after five days, in the intensive care unit of the Richmond Hospital. We all hope and pray that he will make a complete and full recovery and be fit to resume his duties before too long.

There may be times when, as public representatives, we may be critical or appear to be critical of the Garda Síochána, but it is fitting that we should praise and congratulate them when they achieve success such as they did in this case. The safe release of a victim in a kidnap case is usually a difficult task and the Garda have a proud record in this respect.

The horrible mutilation of Mr. O'Grady's hands is something which caused shock and horror in all decent human beings. Mindful as I am of the convention of not discussing matters which are sub-judice in this House, I will steer clear of further mention of that subject.

A lot has been said and written in the various branches of the media and, indeed, a lot of comment has been made by the Members of this House on the fact that some of the persons who escaped from the house in Cabra were able to travel across the country to Limerick, and that two persons escaped from Garda custody in Tipperary town Garda station on the following day. Deputies should be aware that I have asked the Garda Commissioner for a full report on how all aspects of the case were handled by the Garda Síochána. This will be a comprehensive report setting out not just the facts and details of the case; I have asked that the report should include an analysis of all that happened as well as proposals for improving whatever deficiencies are identified. When that report is received it will be studied in detail by the Government. Its findings and implications will be considered and the Government will then decide on what further action is necessary.

I do not want to anticipate at this stage what might be necessary. To do so in advance of the report itself would be premature and unwise. We will come back to this issue again in the future. Of that I have no doubt. But I can assure the House, at this stage, of the Government's commitment to taking any steps that are found to be necessary to ensure that there is not a recurrence of events such as those which have caused so much disquiet in the last week or two.

Mention has been made of the payment of ransom, Government policy in relation to this matter and whether there was any breach of this policy in this instance. I want to make this clear. It is the policy of this Government, as it was the policy of previous Governments, that ransom payments would not be made in the case of kidnappings. This policy was made abundantly clear in this case to those on whom a ransom demand was made. No undertaking was given that the Government would condone the payment of ransom or that the Garda would be prepared to turn a "blind eye" to any such transaction.

Dr. FitzGerald

Did they condone it or turn a blind eye to the loss of nerve?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister without interruption.

Mr. Dukes

The Minister will not get away with that.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): That is not even a fig leaf.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us hear the Minister out without interruption.

Mr. Collins

And, in the event, no ransom whatsoever was paid. I do not intend to be drawn on the different discussions and conversations that took place at the time between the different people concerned in this matter. The people were faced with a predicament of extraordinary difficulty and urgency, involving issues of policy and of plain humanity. I am satisfied that they behaved correctly.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): That means that the Taoiseach went over the head of his Minister.

Mr. Collins

I am disappointed that this matter should have been raised here this evening.

Mr. J. Mitchell

Why was the money moved?

Mr. Collins

I think it ill-becomes Deputies of this House, or anyone else, to try to make political capital or any kind of criticism out of actions taken in the circumstances and under the pressure that applied in this instance.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Collins

I now want to turn to the second matter which I mentioned, that is, the happenings off the Franch Atlantic coast some ten days ago. The seizure of the Eksund is to be welcomed by all of us who are determined to protect the democratic institutions of the State. The impact which such a cargo would have had upon the campaign being carried out by the Provisional IRA can only be imagined. All the signs are that this cargo was intended to raise the campaign of violence onto a new plane, a plane not hitherto reached in the history of this State since the early twenties. What exactly the would-be recipients of this cargo had in mind to do with it one cannot be sure, but the House can be sure that they would pose a serious threat to the well being of our people whom we represent here.

A Deputy

What about Gadaffi?

Mr. Collins

As I said last week, the French Customs Authorities in particular are to be commended for their excellence. We are indeed very grateful to them. Our gratitude and our congratulations have been conveyed to the French Government by the Taoiseach.

The House should know that there are reports to the effect that certain shipments of arms, apparently originating in the Mediterranean, were also brought ashore here. So far it has not been possible to confirm these reports. Urgent investigations by the Garda Síochána, with a view to determining whether these reports are true, are under way. The Garda Commissioner with responsibility for security has already been to France to obtain first hand knowledge of the affair. His officers are in regular contact with their French counterparts to ensure that we are kept abreast of any new developments in the case. It has been suggested that four shipments of arms have already been brought ashore, two in 1985 and two in 1986, but this report is being checked out by the Garda authorities at present.

I want to inform Deputies that I have recently been in touch with the Garda authorities on the question of co-operation with the customs authorities and co-operation with other police forces to prevent illegal arms importation into this island. I have been assured, and the House can be assured, that there is the fullest co-operation in this respect between the various authorities. That, in itself, is reassuring. However, the prospect of over 100 tonnes of arms apparently heading in our direction from the Mediterranean is something which forces us to think hard and look long and hard at what existing arrangements we have to prevent illegal arms importations.

What we and all previous Administrations have been geared to prevent arriving here in the past have been, in comparison with the Eksund cargo, small consignments of arms and ammunition. While there have been some spectacularly large seizures — I mention here in particular, the Claudia in 1973 and the Marita Ann just a few years ago — most, but not all, of the seizures have been relatively small. But even they are dwarfed by the scale of the Eksund operation. Matters will be reviewed and, where seen to be necessary, additional measures will be put into effect to prevent any cargo of the scale of that contained on the Eksund, from reaching our shores.

Mr. Birmingham

Will the Government maintain their cosy relationship with Libya?

Mr. Collins

I will now turn to what happened last Sunday. I am in no doubt that all Members of this House will join with me in condemning the outrageous and horrific atrocity committed in Enniskillen on that day — a day specially dedicated to honouring the dead. The Taoiseach has already spoken for every decent Irishman and Irishwoman when he expressed the anger and revulsion we feel towards those who planned and carried out this act of slaughter which has shocked and horrified not only the people of these islands, but people throughout the world. Our sympathies must be extended to those who have lost their loved ones, to those who have been injured, and to those families who are enduring pain and suffering as a result of appalling injuries suffered by relatives.

The Taoiseach, on behalf of the Government, has conveyed to the British Prime Minister the shock and revulsion which we all feel and has emphasised that all the security forces in this island must co-operate fully in all out efforts to have the perpetrators of this most foul and inhuman deed brought to justice. The Garda Commissioner, at the request of the Taoiseach, met the RUC Chief Constable this very evening with a view to co-ordinating the efforts of the security forces on both sides of the Border. Every effort will be made by the Garda to bring those responsible to justice if they are known to be in our jurisdiction. There is no question, and can be no question, of people who would perpetrate a crime of this sort, finding a safe refuge here.

I will conclude on the note on which I began. I have commented on the main matters which are the causes of the concerns that have been expressed. I make no attempt to deny or diminish the seriousness of these things, but what I think is important for us to do is to continue our support for the forces of law and order and do nothing that will undermine their morale or their ability to cope with the demands being made on this. I believe that our confidence in the Garda Síochána will not be misplaced.

Mr. Dukes

On a point of order, it was established that it was part of the order of the House before we began this debate that the Minister would speak at the end of the debate in order to reply to the matters that have been raised. I note that the Minister has made no reply whatever. The Government have made no reply and have abandoned the Minister to this rag of a script that does not deal——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister has replied to the Debate.

Mr. Dukes

——with one of the issues raised.

(Interruptions.)

The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 11 November 1987.