Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 17 Nov 1999

Vol. 511 No. 1

Ceisteanna–Questions. - Dublin and Monaghan Bombings.

Ruairí Quinn

Question:

7 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he has received any submission from the Justice for the Forgotten group in view of his statement to Dáil Éireann on 29 September 1999 regarding a private inquiry into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings in 1974; if his attention has been drawn to the fact that members of the group rejected this proposal at a meeting on 9 October 1999; if he has received any submission from the group subsequent to that meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22391/99]

John Bruton

Question:

8 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the submissions or correspondence, if any, he has received recently from the Justice for the Forgotten group; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23330/99]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 8 together.

Following the announcement of the Government's decision to establish an inquiry into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, officials from my Department and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which has a role in facilitating implementation of the decision at which we arrived, met with representatives of the group, Justice for the Forgotten, on 9 October and again on 14 October.

At the 14 October meeting, the representatives for the group asked that a period of four weeks be allowed, where no action would be taken to set the process for establishing the inquiry in train, to allow the group to make a further submission on the nature on the inquiry to be established and the legal and technical issues involved. The Government considered this request subsequently and agreed to it. A submission is awaited from the group.

The Government called for a public inquiry into Bloody Sunday after the publication of a very detailed assessment of the new material in relation to Bloody Sunday and the Widgery Tribunal. In the Pat Finucane case, British Irish Rights Watch prepared a very detailed submission on that case. In the cases of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings and Séamus Ludlow, no such detailed assessments have been made.

My understanding is that, at that meeting of 9 October – I refer to a letter from 26 October to facilitate the Taoiseach but will not quote from it—

The Deputy is giving information. He should seek information.

My question is framed by the fact that I was informed in a letter I received on 26 October, something I would like the Taoiseach to confirm, that at the meeting of 9 October, the representatives of the families in question rejected the proposal put forward by the Government. Will he elaborate on the nature of the request made, I presume on 14 October, inviting the families to put forward a proposal and agreeing that there would be a four week period in which they would submit a response to what was suggested on 14 October? Is he confirming to the House that, since the meeting of 14 October, there has been no correspondence or response of any kind from this group to Government representatives, including the Taoiseach's Department?

At the 14 October meeting, the representatives of the group asked for four weeks to be allowed where no action would be taken to set the process of establishing the inquiry in train to allow the group to make a further submission. They wished that we take no further action to proceed with the private inquiry until they could make their submission and we have agreed to that.

Perhaps the Taoiseach forgot to answer the last part of the question. Will the Taoiseach confirm that his Department and officials have not heard anything from this group since 14 October?

Perhaps there has been some phone contact. There is nothing in the reply I gave and it was only drafted today.

Is it the position that the process was stalled for four weeks after the 14 October meeting, that there has been no response and that the process is now frozen? Is that the correct interpretation?

No, we are waiting until the group responds.

And it has not substantially or substantively responded yet?

No, not yet.

At the meeting of 14 October, what arguments were advanced against the proposed private inquiry with which the Government decided it would proceed? Could the Taoiseach outline those and would he give his preliminary response to those arguments with due respect to the fact he awaits a fuller submission from the group?

The families have from the outset sought a full public inquiry. The case put forward by the Government, which is based on all the legal advice and assessments in which we have engaged with the representatives of the committee, is that, until we have a comprehensive assessment, it would not be in the families' best interests to proceed with a public inquiry. While much was said about the Bloody Sunday inquiry, an enormous effort first had to be made by the previous Government before it became a reality, something I have acknowledged on a number of occasions.

I met the entire group of families, which comprises about 40 or 50 people, in April and suggested to them that they follow the advice given to us. To be fair to the families and their representatives, they believe they have substantive advice. If that is so, it must be put in an order in which it can be examined. I will not reject it if they can do that. The experience of the other inquiries, particularly the Bloody Sunday inquiry which is proving very fruitful and working very well, indicates that this preliminary work should be carried out. A legal person of substance should carry out this work because I do not think a substantive case exists at present. I must be honest about that.

I agree with the Taoiseach's view. Does he agree with me that the experience of all tribunals, not just those relating to atrocities or alleged atrocities, shows that if the preliminary work is carried out well in advance and the terms of reference are narrow and carefully drawn, they will be effective? However, if a tribunal's terms of reference even include the kitchen sink because people do not know where they want to look most closely, the result will be nothing more than a corridor of frustration. Does the Taoiseach accept that it is on that basis that I agree with his pursuit of the matter in this manner?

I do, for obvious reasons. In this case, and in the connected case of Seamus Ludlow, people, with the best of intentions, believe they know certain facts. We are talking in many cases about people outside this jurisdiction. However, facts do not seem to exist when information is checked. It would seem that a private investigation would elicit such facts. If a public inquiry were to seem merited at that stage, I would be the first to call for it. However, we must first establish the facts of the case and then consider where we can go. I am aware the date has passed, as Deputy Quinn stated. There is not any conflict in the advice we have received but that this is the way we should proceed.

On the basis of what the Taoiseach said, would it be correct to interpret his views to the effect that if the group could provide him with reasonably sufficient and verifiable facts, he would proceed to order some kind of public inquiry?

If there were hard evidence, I would seek legal advice on the matter. I am very conscious of the sensitive nature of this matter. From meeting the relatives, I am aware that the fact that 25 years has passed since the bombings has not changed the enormous emotion which attaches to this issue. While I totally understand that, it does not allow a legal case to be taken—

Until such time as clear, independent facts are established?

Yes. I realise the process is a painstaking one for people who are concerned that time is passing quickly and everyone in the House will sympathise with that. However, it is necessary to establish the facts; we must construct the case before the matter can be investigated.

(Dublin West): Does the Taoiseach agree that the request for a public inquiry into the appalling atrocity of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings must be seen in the overall context of the inquiries which have taken place on this island over the past 30 years? Unfortunately, there is a history of some inquiries having clearly been whitewashes. There is a fear among the relatives and others who wish to see the truth arrived at in this case that a private inquiry will not bring the full truth into the open. Given the allegations of collusion, involving security forces and so on, which have been made, there is a fear that the private inquiry proposal is being made to cover up certain elements of this issue. Bearing that in mind, will the Taoiseach reconsider the Government's view on this matter? It would be far preferable if the inquiry into the Dublin and Monaghan atrocities were a public one.

We hope that an eminent legal representative will be able to sift through the existing facts which have been collected by the Garda, Government Departments or by groups such as Justice for the Forgotten to ascertain whether a substantive case can be made. The person appointed to do this job would not be interested in anything other than doing a good job. There are eminent people here who could do that in a credible way which we could stand over. A public inquiry which does not have any focus other than the atrocities of 1974 will not succeed in getting us to the position we want to reach.

Does the Taoiseach agree that there is plenty of evidence north of the Border that where a tragedy occurs and where people believe, rightly or wrongly, that the full truth has not been disclosed or that some facts have not been made publicly available, that the initial sorrow is followed by anger, resentment and bitterness? In those circumstances, and having regard to the letter from the Justice for the Forgotten group, to which Deputy Quinn referred, in which it informed a number of Members of the House that its lawyers are currently in the process of submitting the case for a public inquiry to the Taoiseach, will the Taoiseach consider the case in the most positive light possible in order to ensure that the great and merited feeling of injustice experienced by these people can at least be lessened? Will the Taoiseach take whatever action he can to ensure that all of the facts of this case will be made available?

I have met representatives of the Justice for the Forgotten group on a number of occasions and have met the full group on one occasion. Of course, I will give an assurance to do my utmost to bring this matter through a proper process as soon as possible.

While I welcome the Taoiseach's confirmation that the surviving victims and relatives of victims of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings sought a public inquiry from the outset, is he aware of the anger among families and campaigners in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings cases at the claim made by former Tánaiste, Mr. John Wilson, that they had not sought a public inquiry? Can the Taoiseach confirm that a senior official in his Department was given this very information by Mr. Wilson, in spite of the fact that the Justice for the Forgotten group's demand has always been, as the Taoiseach has again confirmed, for a public inquiry?

I am aware that in both the Dublin and Monaghan bombings and Seamus Ludlow cases, the families and representatives have sought an inquiry. Mr. Wilson did an excellent job in a short time and his recommendation, which was accepted by the Government, was that we should ask an eminent legal person to conduct the inquiry, having regard to all of the facts and then decide how to proceed. I do not think there is any dispute in regard to the legal advice received. We will wait and see what the representatives come up with and decide where to go from there.

Top
Share