Vol. 513 No. 4
1 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if, in respect of his statement on 19 December 1999, he will outline the terms of reference to be given to Mr. Justice Hamilton in regard to the planned inquiry into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings; the back-up facilities which will be available to the former Chief Justice; when his inquiry will be concluded; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1339/00]
2 Mr. Gregory asked the Taoiseach the timescale for the inquiry by the former Chief Justice Mr. Liam Hamilton into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. [1404/00]
3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the mechanism by which the inquiry into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings will be undertaken. [1719/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together.
In my statement of 16 December last, which I have circulated with my reply, I detailed the arrangements proposed for inquiring into the Dublin, Monaghan and Dundalk bombings. The outgoing Chief Justice has agreed to conduct an examination and assessment of all aspects of the bombings and their sequel. The terms of reference remain to be defined precisely following consultations, including with the former Chief Justice and the relevant groups of relatives. The legal advisers of the Justice for the Forgotten group met officials of my Department on Monday. The precise terms of reference for the inquiry into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings will be settled very shortly.
The former Chief Justice commenced his examination on Monday, 31 January. The duration of the examination will clearly be related to the amount of material to be reviewed. However, the Government envisages, and believes it would be very desirable, particularly from the standpoint of the relatives concerned, that the former Chief Justice's report should be available for consideration by the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Equality and Women's Rights when it recommences its activity after the summer break in September. We will await the former Chief Justice's assessment of the volume of the task and his proposals as regards the timing for the completion of the report.
The former Chief Justice will conduct his examination in offices in Government Buildings. He has requested that he be provided with research and other staff, and arrangements are being made in that regard. However, the former Chief Justice has indicated that he will not be able to give a precise estimate of the resources he will need to carry out his work until he assesses the volume of his task.
I thank the Taoiseach for responding to the suggestion I first made on the floor of this House, and for the way in which he examined the idea and decided it had some merit. I thank him also for having brought it to completion. Notwithstanding that – and I do not want to be ungracious in any way – would the Taoiseach not agree with me that there is a necessity, after such a long period of time, for clarity to be provided by the former Chief Justice at the earliest possible opportunity? We need to know when a detailed examination can take place, when he will complete his initial analysis of what is required, including resources, and when the relatives of the victims of the bombings will have a definitive timetable by which the former Chief Justice should submit a report. I put it to the Taoiseach that it would be both a discipline and a requirement that the former Chief Justice would have set for him, by the Taoiseach, a specific timetable for a definitive report, although not necessarily the final report. Otherwise, credibility and support for this process will be seriously undermined.
I acknowledge that the suggestion for this inquiry was put on the floor of the House by Deputy Quinn, and was supported by everybody as one of the ways of moving forward. I acknowledge also that when the various groups sought advice and an assessment from the House, Opposition leaders and other individuals supported them moving forward. I have acknowledged that in the letters that were sent.
Having got to this stage I am very anxious that we now move on. I cannot tie the hands of the former Chief Justice, but I acknowledge that he started work on Monday morning, at the first available moment. He intends to give the matter a great deal of time and hopes to make an assessment, on the terms that have been mentioned by Deputy Quinn, as quickly as possible. He is anxious to be able to make an assessment for his own arrangements as well.
I presume he does want to retire eventually.
Yes, he does. He is going to go at this as near to full-time as possible, to see it through. I think he can make that interim assessment fairly quickly. Without ignoring the job he has at hand, I just do not know how much information, including files and other data, he has to go through. During the Christmas period, the then Chief Justice was kind enough to have discussions with me – on 21 December 1999 and a few days after that – giving an indication of what he required. That allowed my Department officials to prepare as much of it for him during January, so that he could commence his work last Monday. There was also a meeting with the legal representatives so they could finalise the terms of reference, which I am confident will happen in the next few days. As I said in my reply – and to put on the record as a benchmark – it would be good if we could have the report for the summer session, if that proves feasible and I hope it does, so that the committee could start dealing with it in September.
We all accept that the process outlined by the Taoiseach is a reasonable compromise. We hope it will result in the questions that have remained unanswered for so long, being answered. Like Deputy Quinn, I was simply concerned, as were the relatives, about the timescale, but the Taoiseach has answered that question. Can he say, for example, while there are no formal terms of reference for the inquiry available as yet, when will the actual terms of reference be ready? I hope the entire process will be completed in time for the committee to consider it in September.
That would certainly be the hope. Although I cannot tie the hands of the former Chief Justice, I hope he can do it. I think he would like to achieve that, for personal reasons, as I said earlier. The meeting on Monday concerning the terms of reference was successful, although they will have to be finalised. Broadly, however, they are working around the idea of undertaking a thorough examination involving fact finding and assessment of all aspects of the Dublin, Monaghan and Dundalk bombings. This will include the facts, circumstances, cause and perpetrators of the bombings; the nature, adequacy and extent of the Garda investigations; the adequacy of co-operation with and from relevant authorities in Northern Ireland; the adequacy of the scientific analysis of forensic evidence; and the reasons no prosecution took place, including if the investigations were impeded and, if so, by whom and to what extent. There have been other suggestions also. The meeting the other day examined broadening them, but that is their gist.
(Mayo): There were other bombs in Dublin in 1972, namely, in Sackville Place, where people died. Is it envisaged that the Sackville Place bombs will be included in the scope of the Hamilton inquiry? The victims' relatives feel very aggrieved that they rank in the realms of the forgotten. Given that the two incidents happened within a relatively short period in 1972 and 1974, the perpetrators are still at large and we still do not know the source and the cause of the bombs, will the 1972 incidents be included in the scope of the terms of reference of the Hamilton inquiry?
Since the initiative on the Dublin and Monaghan bombings came to light, a number of other cases have been brought to my attention by Members and by people who wrote to me. These cases were not pursued with any great vigour over the past quarter of a century. I understand why they are being raised now, given the amount of talk about these matters in the media and the House. I do not have a closed mind about including them. However, I am anxious for attention and resources to be focused on establishing the truth in the cases which have been the basis of such active representation and controversy, and for the former Chief Justice to be able to concentrate on reporting within a reasonable timescale. He might come across files on these matters in the course of his examination of documents, and we are considering that. However, to return to Deputy Quinn's point, if every point were to be included at this stage, this process would not work.
(Mayo): Will the Taoiseach give serious consideration to this in view of the fact that the two incidents could be connected, in that the same perpetrators could have carried out the 1972 and 1974 bombs? Given the proximity of time and the possibility of the two incidents being related, will this be included in the scope of the inquiry, as distinct from the other incidents mentioned by the Taoiseach which occurred over a 25 year period?
I will certainly look carefully at that.
I join with other Members in wishing well the former Chief Justice, Mr. Hamilton, in his quest for the truth. The Taoiseach referred to the staffing and other resources that will be made available to the former Chief Justice. Will he ensure the appropriate Oireachtas committee will also be capable of the task? Will he clarify that his indispensable Minister of State, Deputy Brennan, is conducting a review of the operation, staffing and physical space available to Oireachtas committees—
More candles, please.
—which are not functioning in a manner befitting our democracy? What legislative changes does the Taoiseach propose to introduce to allow the Oireachtas committee deal with this matter in a transparent way, with particular reference to making available to the committee the appropriate Garda files?
It is envisaged that the report or reports that will be presented to the Government through me will be directed to a joint committee, which will take it from there. The Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunity of Witnesses) Act, 1997, enables the Oireachtas to deal with it, so it does not require any new powers. The Act enables it to send for a person's papers and records. It is envisaged that its powers would be invoked, including when the committee considers in public session the follow-up to the report of the former Chief Justice.
The only other aspect brought to my notice is that, due to the separation of powers, the Government cannot determine the outcome, which is a matter for the Oireachtas. However, on behalf of the Government, I have given assurances to the Justice for the Forgotten group that we will use our best endeavours to deal with this on the basis of the Act, with the co-operation of the Opposition parties. Whatever resources are necessary for that review will be made available.
In view of the many allegations over the years of cover-ups in relation to these matters – although I do not know what interest Departments and successive Governments on this side of the Border would have in a cover-up – does the Taoiseach agree it is very necessary that every possible shred of information, such as reports, available to the Government, Government agencies, the Garda and so on is made available to the inquiry?
There is clearly a connection north of the Border in relation to these matters. What facilities could be made available to the inquiry to ascertain and follow up events north of the Border? In particular, have representations been made to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland seeking his co-operation and that of the various authorities north of the Border?
The answer to the question is, "Yes". I indicated that was our intention in my statement on 19 December. I am assured the former Chief Justice will have full access to all the relevant files and papers in Departments and the Garda Síochána. The Government will direct all members of the public service and the Garda Síochána to extend their full co-operation to him. I have already written to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform asking him to put that in place.
The answer to the second question is also, "Yes". I indicated at Christmas that I had written to the Minister for Foreign Affairs asking him to put the British authorities on notice of our wish and expectation of co-operation from the Secretary of State and his officials, together with the likelihood that there might be more specific requests for their co-operation as the examination develops. As I have said here before, I have regularly raised this with the British Prime Minister.
Has there been any response to that request for co-operation and information? Does the Taoiseach agree it is of the utmost importance, and in the interests of the British authorities, that co-operation is facilitated so that the full truth can be outlined to the relatives and the public?
As I said, we have put them on notice at this stage. I do not know if that letter has been acknowledged or replied to, as that is a matter for the Minister for Foreign Affairs. However, I assume it has been.
It is very important that the answer is, "Yes".
In response to a question by Deputy Flanagan, the Taoiseach referred to the Government's inability to give assurances in regard to the work of committees because of what he described as the separation of powers. In view of his legal advice that the Government's power does not extend to committees in this way, does he consider that, as recommended by the Committee of Public Accounts, the Oireachtas Vote should be separate from the Government Votes? Does he agree that, in light of his advice about the separation of powers, the determination of the amount of resources required by the Oireachtas to do its work ought to be taken out of the hands of the Government and placed in the hands of the Oireachtas as a whole? Will the Taoiseach reflect on that matter, in view of the obviously quite important legal advice he received about the inability of the Government to influence committees? If the Government is in a position to deny committees money, it is in practice able to influence those committees.
This is a separate area. However, that recommendation by the Committee of Public Accounts is receiving attention in the Department of Finance.
Will the Taoiseach confirm that he has received legal advice to the effect that there is a clear separation of powers between the Government and the committee system and that that advice has financial implications as well as procedural ones?
The Government and the committee system have been separate since the foundation of our parliamentary system. As regards the Committee of Public Accounts, that was always the advice and it dates back to the 1940s. It has not changed. The proposal on the separation of the Vote is one I remember we discussed 18 years ago when the Deputy, as leader of the House, was dealing with Opposition reform. Now there is a recommendation from the committee on the issue of the Vote being separated and that matter is being looked at.
Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis An Taoiseach as an freagra a thug sé ar Ceisteanna Uimh. 1, 2 agus 3. Cuireann an Páirtí Ghlas fáilte roimh bunú an iniúchadh. Ba mhaith liom dhá cheist a chur mar gheall ar an freagra.
To what extent will the Justice for the Forgotten group be involved in the terms of reference following the establishment of the inquiry? Will it be consulted further? To what extent will it be consulted on the detail of the terms of reference? Following the question put by Deputy Currie, are there any means, whether under the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference or legislation, whereby information can be insisted on if it is not forthcoming or are we entirely dependent on the willingness of the British authorities to co-operate voluntarily? Is that the extent of our request? Is there any provision to acquire information other than simply requesting it?
As I already stated, the Justice for the Forgotten group and its legal representatives have been fully involved in the terms of reference going back to the period before the agreement was reached on 18 December and also in the subsequent discussions up to the time the former Chief Justice took up this position to undertake this task. There was a further meeting on Monday. It is being fully and comprehensively informed.
There are no powers and I expect the British Government and, through it, the Northern Ireland authorities to co-operate on this matter and to use whatever powers they have to try to get to the source of some of this information which might be within the arms of their security or departmental areas.
