Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 6 Jul 2001

Vol. 540 No. 4

Arms Trial Inquiry: Statements.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Donoghue)

Yesterday, in accordance with a commitment I made on 11 April last, I laid before both Houses a report on allegations of an attempt to suppress evidence in the Arms Trial. I am conscious that, in the time available today, we can make only short statements and that in any event Members may wish to consider at greater length the contents of the report, but I thought it would be useful if we in this House had the opportunity to at least exchange some preliminary thoughts on the matter.

The Arms Trial was not only a criminal trial of unusual importance but an event of political significance and historical interest. It took place against a backdrop of unprecedented civil disturbances and disorder in the North, events which still reverberate today.

From the outset, therefore, I regarded the issues raised first by the News of the World newspaper and, subsequently, by “Prime Time” as significant and requiring investigation, not only because they relate to the Arms Trial, important though that is, but because they question the integrity of the criminal justice system at that time.

I am conscious too that the issues raised by the media have serious implications for the reputation and integrity of a number of persons who, in some cases, fiercely contested the most fundamental issues in the Arms Trial. Some of these persons are no longer with us and cannot defend themselves against allegations, and I know that the House will share with me a concern that any discussion of this matter should take account of that fact.

The questions raised in the media amounted to an allegation that the statement of Colonel Hefferon, an important witness in the Arms Trial, was altered prior to inclusion in the Book of Evidence so as to remove from it references to the state of knowledge of the then Minister for Defence, Jim Gibbons, of the planned importation of arms. This was one of the key points of contention in the Arms Trial. At least some of the defendants claimed that the Minister for Defence knew of the planned importation, and at least tacitly approved of it, and that, far from conspiring to import arms unlawfully, they were acting at all times on the lawful authority of the Minister. The Minister for Defence always strongly denied this.

There is the complication here that the Minister for Defence could, in any event, only have authorised the importation of arms for the use of the Defence Forces, and that if he had purported to authorise the importation of arms, this would only have been lawful if they had been intended for such use. This is a distinction of significant legal importance, but it does not take away from the central issue, which is that at least some of the defendants claimed to be acting on the authority of the Minister. Supporters of this view will no doubt point to the fact that while it is clearly not the case that the "Berry markings" coincide with the subsequent omissions from the Book of Evidence, it is the case that, in both instances, material tending to suggest that Mr. Gibbons had knowledge of what was taking place was at issue.

In making my inquiries, I asked the Attorney General and the Garda Síochána for a report on the allegation in so far as it touched on their areas of responsibilities. Their reports are attached to my report.

My objective in conducting my inquiries and in making my report to this House was to set out for the information of Members as much of the relevant evidence as is currently available. As my report acknowledges, there are difficulties in the way of establishing, in any definitive way, the truth of the allegations. We are dealing with events of over 30 years ago in circumstances where some of the central personalities are now dead, and where the documentation is incomplete. There is also the obvious consideration, which I mention in my report, that evidence of any conspiracy to pervert the course of justice would be very unlikely to be recorded in documentary form. Indeed, one would imagine that anyone attempting such a conspiracy would take care to avoid any appearance of impropriety. For all of these reasons, it is impossible, at least on the evidence currently available, to make an authoritative finding of fact in relation to the truth of the allegation. Instead, we must seek to establish the likelihood of any such conspiracy by reference to the existing documentation and the surrounding circumstances.

I conclude in my report that, on the basis of an analysis of all of the available material, and on the basis of all other relevant considerations, it seems reasonable to infer that the likelihood of an attempt to suppress evidence is remote. I say that for a number of reasons set out in my report but, in particular, and apart altogether from the serious wrong involved in any suppression of evidence in a criminal trial, I think that is reasonable to seriously doubt whether a number of persons who held positions of responsibility would have engaged in a conspiracy which, from their undoubted knowledge of the law, they surely would have known was almost certain to be exposed. The risk would have been enormous. Any such conspiracy, if exposed, would have collapsed the trial, ended the conspirators' careers and, most probably, left them facing serious criminal charges. It is difficult to imagine such persons taking such a huge risk in circumstances where there would have been every chance of exposure and where in any event the potential gain was so uncertain, given that Colonel Hefferon was in any event going to give his evidence in court. I fully acknowledge that any conclusion as to the truth of the allegation must be qualified by the limitations I have mentioned and cannot, therefore, be definitive. It may be that others will form their own view of the evidence.

Indeed, what I have set out to achieve in my report, with the assistance of the Attorney Gen eral and the Garda Síochána, is to put Members of this House, and the wider community, in the best possible position to form their own judgments in this matter by establishing the available evidence and publishing it. I do not claim to have any monopoly of judgment on this matter.

For all that the documentation and other evidence is incomplete, it is still the case that these reports, taken together, contain detailed and complex information on the prosecution in the Arms Trial. I appreciate that Deputies will need time to consider more carefully the contents of these reports and to form their own conclusions. I am sure that more time will be needed in the House to discuss the matter further and when we resume after the recess, it can be dealt with again in the House in early autumn.

I undertook to inquire into the allegation raised in the media and to report back to both Houses. I have now done so. The reality of the circumstances dictates that my report cannot reach definitive conclusions, but I hope Deputies will accept the report as an genuine attempt to establish as far as possible the circumstances which gave rise to the allegation. It may be that a definitive conclusion will never be possible. Certainly, the passing of the years will diminish the possibility but, in another sense, perhaps the passage of time will bring objectivity and perspective to our understanding of the events of 30 years ago and enable a fuller understanding of the events of that time. Perhaps, in this as in so many other matters, history will have to be the best judge.

Mr. Shatter

The issues which resulted in the publication of last night's report and the Minister's speech relate to the most traumatic and dramatic trial since the State's foundation which involved senior politicians and events that rocked the country and the Government of the day. Those events impacted dramatically on developments within the Fianna Fáil Party for decades.

It is regrettable that this truncated debate is taking place so shortly after publication of documentation yesterday. Most of us have only had an opportunity to read the documentation once and have not had sufficient time to analyse it in detail. I welcome the Minister's assurance that we will have a further opportunity to discuss this issue when the Dáil reconvenes in the autumn.

The kernel of the Minister's speech is the reference to possible evidence of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in the context of the extraordinary events which occurred in the early 1970s and the trial which ensued. The Minister stated fairly that no definite conclusions can be reached from the available documentation and the examination conducted. Having had an opportunity to examine the documentation provided to Deputies, there is something rotten about what occurred which requires further explanation. It is little short of scandalous that crucial and essential documentation relating to one of the major historical and political events of the early 1970s cannot be located.

In the statement issued last night, the Minister refers to missing documentation, also referred to by the Attorney General, as including the following: the prosecution file, Garda investigation file, working papers from which the Book of Evidence would have been compiled and transcripts and sound recordings of the two trials. I wonder whether similar files on other issues have also gone missing. Serious questions must be asked about the files' whereabouts, the identity of the people responsible for their maintenance and of those with access to them and the point at which they disappeared. Were the files still in the Department in the early 1980s and had they disappeared by the 1990s? Were these papers and files interfered with in any way during Charles Haughey's tenure as Taoiseach? No one can say that the current Minister bears any blame for these issues but the questions must be answered. One would have expected the crucial background papers relating to this event to have been very carefully guarded.

The investigation on which the Minister embarked with the assistance of the Garda Commissioner and the Attorney General's report leave far too many questions unanswered. The catalyst for this investigation derives from a period during which a Member of this House, Deputy O'Malley, former leader of the Progressive Democrats, served as Minister for Justice in a Fianna Fáil administration. Deputy O'Malley has outlined his recollections of these events. In the document published by the Attorney General, statements made by Deputy O'Malley are queried. Questions were also raised by those involved in the production of the "Prime Time" programme which was the prime mover behind the documentation published yesterday. It is important Deputy O'Malley puts on record his views of these events.

The document to which "Prime Time" had access indicates that the Minister of the day, Deputy O'Malley, had sight of the documents to which Mr. Berry is alleged to have had access. Deputy O'Malley says he has no recollection of having seen them. Members of this House find it difficult to come to terms with these extraordinary events and the extraordinary revelation that essential files and papers are missing. The Minister indicates in the paper produced yesterday that he has raised questions about the missing files. Paragraph 15 of the paper states: "The Minister has raised further queries on these matters and will report on the outcome of these queries when he has been provided with the answers."

I am disappointed the Minister did not detail the queries raised in yesterday's document but I felt that he would perhaps raise them in the House under privilege. I am disappointed he did not take the opportunity during his speech to detail precisely the queries he has raised about the missing documentation. The House is entitled to know this information and to know to whom the queries were directed. That such information is not being provided is disappointing.

In the short time available to me, it is not possible to deal in any detail with the information contained in the Attorney General's report. It is important, however, that one matter is put on the record to assist our knowledge of these events and in fairness to the people involved therein. In the detail of the Attorney General's report, he states: "I have not attempted to formally interview any of the surviving lawyers or gardaí involved but I have had brief informal conversations with some of the lawyers involved." At the time of these events, Mr. Colm Condon, a distinguished senior counsel, was Attorney General and Mr. Séamus McKenna, also a distinguished senior counsel, was prosecuting counsel. Page 13 of the Attorney General's document reads:

Séamus McKenna, SC and the former Attorney General, Colm Condon, SC have both stated that to the best of their recollection, they never saw the original statement of Colonel Hefferon. This does not necessarily mean, however, that the original signed statements were not in court and available to be used.

In fairness to Séamus McKenna and Colm Condon and for the information of Members and those whose lives were so dramatically affected by the events surrounding the Arms Trial, it is important to clarify whether the informal conversations referred to by the Attorney General included conversations with Mr. Séamus McKenna and Mr. Colm Condon. The implication is that they did but we are entitled to confirmation on this point. That information should be made clear and should not be obtuse or a matter of public debate.

Outside this House, members of the families of those affected by the trial that took place, Captain James Kelly who was prosecuted, and others have said there remain serious questions to be answered. It is clear that the documentation before the House, the information available to us and the general public, does not yet allow for the answers to be obtained to the questions that remain.

Mr. Howlin

I wish to share my time with Deputy Michael Higgins.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is agreed.

Mr. Howlin

The subject matter of this debate is one of those unusual areas that fall into that twilight zone between contemporary politics and history. More than half our population were either not born at the time of the arms crisis or would have been too young to have any direct memory of it. To these it would seem like ancient history, as remote as the Emergency or the Civil War. On the other hand, many of the principal actors in the drama are still alive and a number are still active in politics in the State. For these, the issues are clearly very relevant and capable of stirring great passion.

There is no doubt that events generally referred to as the arms crisis were among the most dramatic in the history of the State. Even at this stage it is difficult to come to terms with the concept of two of the most senior Ministers in the Cabinet being sacked, arrested and put on trial on charges of attempting to illegally import arms into the State. The events surrounding the attempt to import arms and the subsequent trial destroyed careers, divided political parties and families and could have plunged the country into civil war. The arms crisis was a direct result of the outbreak of civil disturbances in Northern Ireland which, in turn, flowed from the civil rights campaign and the response to it of the Stormont Government.

In many respects we are still dealing today – it is apt that it is this very day – with the fallout from those events. It is ironic that we are discussing an attempt in 1970 to illegally import arms for use in Northern Ireland when the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs are preparing for intensive discussions with the political parties in Northern Ireland in Britain next week and among the important issues in which the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will be involved is the decommissioning of illegally imported arms.

I welcome the reports we have received from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Attorney General and the Garda Commissioner, but they do not add greatly to our knowledge. The allegation that the Minister for Defence at the time, Jim Gibbons, knew more about the attempts to import arms than was revealed at the trial is not new. It was dealt with in a number of books, an extensive series of articles in Magill magazine going back to the early 1980s and “Prime Time” produced material in the aftermath of those events. All this has been rehearsed in public before.

Some commentators have talked about the need for some sort of formal inquiry into these events. Having read the documentation sent to us yesterday by the Minister, I am not sure such an exercise would be fruitful. It would not be a useful exercise for a committee of this House to engage in, but I am in favour of putting every shred of documentation in the public domain.

In that regard, I welcome the motion passed by the House this morning regarding the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and its investigations of the time. I understand the Committee on Procedure and Privileges authorised the release, of which the House approved this morning, of almost all papers, but has elected to honour the guarantee given to witnesses who appeared before the committee at the time who are classified in language as "persons outside the jurisdiction", that is, from Northern Ireland. On balance, that is quite proper and ethical. If the committee of the time gave that undertaking, it cannot lightly be set aside now. If it was, it would have repercussions for the workings of Committee on Procedure and Privileges in other matters.

I have said that all the documentation should be put in the public domain and agree with the comment of Deputy Shatter that it is surprising and a little alarming that a number of documents referred to by him, the prosecution file, the Garda investigation file, etc. have been lost. I am suspicious enough to be fearful that there were people in office since 1970 who might well have had good reason to ensure some of that documentation went missing. I hope there is an investigation into that alone at a future date. I will pursue it by way of questioning and calling on the Minister to explain to the House how those relevant papers, documents, transcripts and tapes came to be missing. It is hard to believe that files central to such an investigation could go missing in this way.

The events to which we are referring are historical but have resonances for today. Unfortunately we are living with the consequences of the awful events that resulted in 3,500 deaths in Northern Ireland that were contributed to by some of the actions that took place in the 1970s.

Mr. M. Higgins

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform stated at the end of his speech that, "Perhaps, in this as in so many other matters, history will have to be the best judge." Would that it were so neat. In the interim some of us will have to come to some conclusions on the basis of what we have seen, what has been presented and what demands an answer.

I have come to the conclusion that Captain James Kelly and his family and John Kelly have paid an enormous price for the matters that have not been resolved and were addressed in RTE's programme. It is not a matter for academic history. It would be interesting if we were ever able to reconstruct the events that led to the attempt to import arms or the subsequent trial in which I would be as interested as anybody else. This raises many and interesting questions. It raises questions as to the relationship of members of the Cabinet to each other, collective responsibility, the relationship between the line Minister and the person in charge of a Department. It raises many more questions about the chain of instruction through delegated authority, in particular, in relation to the Minister for Defence and the Department of Defence.

There are issues to which we will have to return. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform admitted this and encouraged us to do so as we resume. These are fundamental issues. There is the issue of the integrity of the records. It is unacceptable that records that are so important in relation to the responsibilities of Cabinet, Ministers and administration would simply be missing. More questions are raised by the admission that they are missing. One must ask the question in what circumstances did they come to be missing.

Issues also arise in relation to the integrity of the process of justice. I cannot see how the fact that statements were changed is affected by the speculation on who might possibly have any benefit to gain from such changes. That does not answer the implications of the conclusion, which is that the statements were changed. To say, for example, that we should get involved in a long speculation as to whether an interested party would take the risk standing to lose so much and would, therefore, attempt this and so forth is just what it is, empty speculation. The reality of the matter is that statements were changed and the change in the statements had a known consequence and effect on the lives of certain people. That matter cannot be left lying.

When the Dáil resumes in the autumn we have to return to this matter and address the issue of compensating those who may have suffered wrongly on the basis, perhaps, of altered records. I cannot reach a conclusion on that point myself but the statements we are allowed to make today, in a short period of time, cannot stand as any obstacle to our returning to this matter in the fullest sense.

I have the greatest respect for those who are not free to speak and defend their names. One must do that as it is an enormously important ethical consideration and there are other participants at the time I am also interested in hearing from but this afternoon we will not be able to answer all the questions that remain. I counsel very strongly against any suggestion that we simply say that in these matters we will never be able to come to a conclusion. We have to come to a conclusion on the grounds of ethics and public responsibility.

Mr. O'Malley

I welcome the reports of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Attorney General and the Garda Commissioner in respect of certain questions relating to the Arms Trial. It is clear from these reports that the changes made to the Hefferon statement were made by members of the prosecution legal team, in conjunction with the investigating gardaí who typed them; it seems these changes were made primarily in order to comply with the rules of evidence; neither I nor Mr. Berry had any involvement with such changes; and the claims of privilege were made on foot of legal advice and the certificates of privilege themselves were drafted in the Attorney General's office. These three reports are perfectly compatible with my statement of 9 May 2001.

In the very limited time available to me it is impossible to traverse every aspect of this complex matter but I emphasise the following points. First, the clear impression created by the "Prime Time" programme was that the changes to the Hefferon statement correspond closely to the markings apparently made by Mr. Berry on that statement; that I had been furnished with the Hefferon statement complete with the Berry markings and that therefore I had colluded in deliberate and deceitful changes to that statement. As I pointed out in my earlier statement, there is simply no close correspondence between the Berry markings and the subsequent changes to the Hefferon statement. This conclusion is confirmed at page 17 of the Attorney's report.

Second, it seems clear that the changes which were made to the Hefferon statement were made primarily to comply with the rules of evidence. Both the reports of the Garda Commissioner and the Attorney make clear that all the evidence demonstrates that these changes were made by the prosecution legal team and typed by the gardaí and that in any event there was no involvement by either me or any member of the Department of Justice in that process.

A number of commentators have made the point that, while accepting that there were extensive changes to the other witness statements, the changes to Colonel Hefferon's statement were exceptional in that they altered the sense and intent of that statement and that none of the changes to other witness statements altered the sense and meaning of those statements. Here again this charge does not stand up to scrutiny. Two examples must suffice to make this point.

Michael Donnelly of the Department of Justice made a five page statement in which he gave very damaging evidence concerning some of the accused. That statement was almost completely excised and the five pages reduced to a paragraph or so. The sense of that particular statement was completely changed in that all the damaging material was quite properly deleted on the ground, we must assume, that it mainly consisted of hearsay.

The same is true of Mr. Gibbons' statements. Large chunks of those statements, again containing highly damaging evidence and assertions against the accused, were excised and edited out. Thus, for example, Mr. Gibbons was asked by Chief Superintendent Fleming on 22 May 1970 two questions to which he replied in terms very damaging to three of the accused. These answers were not included in Mr. Gibbons' statement in the Book of Evidence, presumably on grounds that they contained a mixture of hearsay and opinion evidence. Yet these deletions also clearly altered the sense and intent of Mr. Gibbons' original statements.

This brings us to the next question which none of those who contend a conspiracy occurred has yet answered. If there was a deliberate attempt to doctor the witness statement, why then was material damaging to the defence case also excised in the course of the editing process? As I pointed before, not all the changes to the Hefferon statement favoured the prosecution. Many were neutral and, on one view at least, some of the changes strongly favoured the defence. However, the extensive changes to the Donnelly statement, for example, all favoured the defence by excluding damaging and prejudicial hearsay evidence. The same could be said of many of the changes made to the various Gibbons' statements.

A number of commentators have also questioned whether the changes to the Hefferon statement were, in fact, hearsay and have noted that Mr. Finlay, SC, was permitted to cross-examine Colonel Hefferon without objection concerning whether he had informed Mr. Gibbons about Captain Kelly's trips to the continent relating to the purchase of arms. If the relevant changes to the Hefferon statement were on grounds of hearsay, why, then, was this line of cross-examination not objected to by counsel for the prosecution, it is asked?

First, I was not responsible for what prosecuting counsel does or did. Then, as the Attorney points out, this all depends on the view which the prosecution legal team took in advance of the trial as to issues which would be relevant to the trial. Again, as the Attorney notes, we all face the difficulty of attempting to reconstruct with hindsight what was in the minds of the prosecuting legal team in advance of the trial. Nevertheless, the statement by Colonel Hefferon to Mr. Gibbons as to the future intentions of one of the accused would seem in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Cullen v. Clarke to be hearsay on the ground that it was not clearly the spontaneous declaration of the witness as to his own intentions. On the contrary, these Hefferon statements as to Captain Kelly's intentions were not in their context spontaneous and, moreover, as we have just seen, related to the intentions of another.

As far as the issue of privilege is concerned, I must point out, as does the Attorney, that the claim of privilege was based on advice from counsel and the certificates of privilege were themselves drafted within the Attorney General's office. I repeat again that the file in respect of which privilege was claimed, file S/7/70, was in October 1970 a very different file from that released to the National Archives. In the intervening years, that file had become a sort of depository file within the Department for matters relating to the arms crisis and file S/7/70 today has documents which could not possibly have been the subject of public interest privilege, including, for example, the actual Book of Evidence itself, the trial exhibits, drafts of the claim of privilege and so forth. While unfortunately it is not possible to recreate the file as it existed when, based on advice from the Attorney's office, I claimed privilege in October 1970, it seems clear, as the Attorney points out at pages 19 and 20 of his report, that the claim of privilege related principally to matters relating to Mr. Berry's contacts with President de Valera.

In any event, it is highly improbable that the Hefferon statement was contained in file S/7/70 as it existed in October 1970 or was the subject matter of a claim of privilege. First, as the Attorney concludes in his report, all the evidence points to the fact that the original of the Hefferon statement was already in court. What would be the point of claiming privilege in respect of the Department of Justice's carbon copy if the original of the Hefferon statement was already in court? Second, the privilege expressly contained a saver for inspection by the trial judge and, of course, if the original Hefferon statement had been deliberately suppressed via the claim of privilege, any such deception would have been immediately exposed had the trial judge requested to see the documents which were the subject matter of the privilege claim.

For these and many other reasons contained in the three reports and in my own earlier statement, I trust that any fair minded person would conclude that the conspiracy theory has been shown to be without foundation. For my part, I repeat once again that I had no hand, act or part in the changes or editing of any of the witness statements. This task was undertaken by the prosecuting legal team who appear to have acted with total propriety in accordance with the accepted practice of the day.

The events of 1969-70 presented a threat of unparallelled gravity to this State. Despite the acquittals, there is no doubt but there was a wide ranging conspiracy to import arms for the use of illegal organisations in Northern Ireland. By definition, this plan had to be illegal since, under the Firearms Act, 1925, neither the Minister for Defence nor the Minister for Justice had authority to licence imports of arms for this purpose. There is no record whatever of the Government ever having purported to take a decision to import arms for this purpose and the evidence refutes that contention. I know. I was there. I sat at the table from July 1969 onwards.

Beyond the issue of mere legality, it is also clear that the plotters must have known that what they were doing had not been sanctioned by the Government. Why else would they have taken such elaborate steps to cover their tracks? Why was the cost of Captain Kelly's trips to the continent paid for out of the funds of Northern Ireland defence committees if it had been duly authorised? Why was there a departure from all known arms procurement procedures if the Department of Defence had sanctioned this purchase? Why would Captain Kelly not co-operate with the investigating gardaí or the Taoiseach if the operation had been duly sanctioned? Why was Captain Kelly, by his own admission, reporting to the Minister for Agriculture rather than to the Minister for Defence regarding his activities?

Some of the commentary in the wake of the "Prime Time" programmes sought to portray some of the defendants as some sort of a latter day Dreyfus, while others were even more blinded to the realities and denied that there ever was a plot to import arms. One denied that the murder of Garda Fallon had any bearing on the arms crisis. Yet there is some reason to believe Garda Fallon may have been murdered in April 1970 with a weapon which had been part of earlier illegal arms shipments into the State. There is also reason to suppose that some senior gardaí suspected that a prominent politician was fully aware of this earlier importation and had turned a blind eye to it. These same gardaí became aware through intelligence reports that by December 1969 certain politicians were funding illegal organisations. Such was the depth of the crisis which confronted Mr. Berry in April 1970 and which – following my appointment as Minister for Justice in May 1970 – I, in turn, confronted. Had Jack Lynch, Peter Berry and various Ministers been less than steadfast in their determination to preserve democracy and the rule of law, heaven knows what catastrophe would have befallen this State and the people of the entire island.

"Prime Time" has raised questions about the conduct of the Arms Trial itself. These questions have now been comprehensively answered in so far as they can be at this remove, and I am glad to note that my reputation and that of the late Peter Berry have been vindicated. Now that these issues have been determined, I want answers as to the arms crisis itself. Who conspired to import arms? Which politicians conspired to defeat the democratic process through this illegal importation? Which politicians conspired with members of illegal organisations? Which politicians encouraged the establishment of the Provisional IRA? What happened to the bulk of the money voted for the relief of distress in Northern Ireland? These, and many other questions about the events of 1969 and 1970, merit answers. We may now have moved into the realm of modern history rather than of current affairs. That, however, does not stop certain media people trying to construct a story in current terms. If they want to do so they should get the facts and the details right. Sensationalism and history are rarely compatible. The truth is often boring and unexciting, especially if it is complex. History cannot be written from a superficial view of one document, backed up by a sense of mission. As the historian Ronan Fanning puts it "while good history can make good news, what is newsworthy is not necessarily good history".

Ten minutes on this topic is ridiculous. I wanted, for example, to quote extensively from the military intelligence files in the National Archives. I cannot. Because I cannot, and unless some other Member of the Oireachtas does, no writer can because he risks being sued, as the archives themselves reportedly have been. Injustice can be easily perpetrated, and not just in a court. Television is a powerful and potentially lethal weapon. It should be used to crusade only with care and genuine fairness.

If I had been dead who could or would have defended me? It took a month of hard work by me, and by two skilled people who helped me, to produce my statement of 9 May and to remove the obloquy. That should not have been necessary.

Ms Fitzgerald

Deputy O'Malley is right in saying that there should be time to put everything which he would like on the record. The files of the National Archives should be laid before both Houses so that the type of information that is there can be made public. A short debate like that today can take the general debate somewhat further, but it is very limited. I raised this matter on the Adjournment on 11 April and I welcome the fact that the Minister has made further inquiries. We only got the information at 6 p.m. last evening and the most any of could have done is to have a quick read of the complex data which will have different meanings for different people. Deputy O'Malley would bring a certain perspective to it, as everyone does.

The "Prime Time" programme, which Deputy O'Malley has criticised, shows that public service broadcasting is important. Information has been uncovered in these reports and it is important that it has been revealed. The information the Attorney General has put on the record is important. There is detailed analysis of Colonel Hefferon's statement. Why certain things were edited – which were clearly marked in each part – and the reasons for that are not clear to the Attorney General. The Attorney General is not sure why some of information given to the former Minister, Mr. Gibbons was edited. The Attorney General's analysis of the deletions of Colonel Hefferon's statement raises worthwhile questions which cannot be adjudicated on today. In time, and with various inputs, those questions will be considered. That is an important process. The opening of archived files is a worthwhile, if sometimes painful, process. It is not something on which we can give a judgment at short notice.

The arms crisis was a most traumatic time in our history. Maybe upon learning what we have come to accept, there can be a process of expressing doubt. It will take time for the implications of the material which is in this report to be understood. We will need historians to help interpret this, we will also need to re-interview those from that period. Deputy Michael D. Higgins said that we do need to be informed of the quality of the archives and the integrity of the files and I agree with him. These are questions which need answers. As politicians we want to create the conditions where an open and free discussion on this can be possible and that the information can be placed in a open and accessible way.

It is both extraordinary and disturbing to read in the report of the Minister of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, that in the course of the investigation it became clear that a number of documents and files that could be germane to an investigation of the matters alluded to in the News of the World and “Prime Time” programme were either missing or otherwise not available. I do not know what “otherwise not available” means, perhaps the Minister will tell me when we return to this discussion. It is incredible that the prosecution files, Garda investigation files, working papers from which the Book of Evidence would have been constructed and transcripts and sound recordings from the two trials are missing. The Minister should return to this House with as much information as possible on this. There should be a report to the House on this and questions must be answered. How did this happen? Is there a possibility of this happening again? Who took these files? Are there so many files in the Department that these have not yet been accessed? How can a comprehensive report be compiled when these key files are missing?

In other countries, when files were opened, extraordinary information emerged. Where countries had more troubled histories than us, more extraordinary information emerged. Entire populations had to rethink their history and what they thought of it and realise that their loyalties had been betrayed. Many would say the exercise in which we are involved is historical, but there are lessons to be learned. It is important for us, as citizens, because the arms trial was a period of loyalty and betrayal of alleged sovereignty and treason. There are fundamental issues which require further investigation and teasing out.

People have suffered, reputations have been put on the line and individual families have had very difficult years as the "Prime Time" programme showed. The experiences of Colonel Hefferon and Captain Kelly and the families' views as reported on the programme were such that, while a microcosm and one part of this affair, one could not fail to be struck by the effects this period had on their lives. The detailed work by the Attorney General, especially on Colonel Hefferon's statement, needs to be teased out further.

As one goes through the report, many questions come to mind and there are many points one would like to raise. For example, the Attorney General confirmed that, before the 1970 Arms Trial, the key statement of the former head of Army intelligence, Colonel Michael Hefferon, was extensively edited. He said, however, it was and is usual practice to edit statements. He also said the edited version of Colonel Hefferon's statement was probably prepared by gardaí in Dublin Castle under the supervision of prosecution lawyers. However, there is a separate short report from the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána, Mr. Patrick Byrne, who states that no member of An Garda Síochána edited any statement taken during the course of the investigation. That is another point which raises more questions than it gives answers.

Both the Minister and the Attorney General say they cannot come to a comprehensive understanding or absolutes on this matter. The Attorney General said there is no prospect of an official, authoritative, objective and generally accepted history of the events now being written about. That may be true, but I have no doubt that conducting this type of analysis, making the material available, returning to this debate later in the year, putting more information before the House and granting a full debate to allow those who want to put detailed accounts on record are very important. I welcome these developments.

Mr. Blaney

I wish to share my time with Deputy Ó Caoláin. I wish to register my deep dismay that I and fellow Members are expected to debate a report a mere 24 hours after it was published. It is of crucial importance to the State and the well-being of our democracy and concerns a subject matter which was a watershed in the country's history and subsequent development. From the beginning the affair has been surrounded by controversy, cynical opportunism, dirty tricks, allegation and counter-allegation. It was and remains sensational. The episode dubbed the Arms Trial remains unresolved after more than 30 years.

Its complexity and intrigue are illustrated by the fact that this report was only published yesterday, almost six weeks later than the date specified by the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue. Given its obvious complexity and the gravity of the issues which go to the heart of what we consider accountable democracy and fair administration of justice, no one bar its authors can in a 24 hour period reach an informed and considered conclusion on its contents. A cursory glance shows that even the authors appear unable to arrive at any firm conclusions. Many noble, honourable and honest people had their lives wrecked, careers ruined and reputations impugned.

So as not to rush to any premature consider ation of the report, I have decided not to comment directly on its findings. To do so would be wrong. The Government has done the people, this House and those involved a great disservice in arranging a hasty and paltry one hour debate, even before the ink was dry, on an issue of such magnitude, especially given that the House is to adjourn today for the summer recess. This issue and the report are too important to be treated so scantily and hastily. It is little wonder there is such cynicism among the people towards politicians and the House. Democracy, if it is to thrive, demands open and firm debate and thorough analysis from its elected representatives.

Having said that, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform tried his best to make the report available much earlier but was frustrated in doing so. I thank him for his statement and agreeing to arrange a full debate on the matter in early October after the Dáil resumes. I look forward to taking part in that debate.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

It is vital we put the Arms Trial in its proper context. An extraordinary feature of the debate in the State since the "Prime Time" revelations in April has been the extent to which it has focused almost exclusively on events on this side of the Border. There has been little mention, let alone exploration, of the reasons arms were sought in the first place. All the emphasis has been on the crisis within Fianna Fáil and the machinations in and around Government Buildings and Leinster House.

Deputy O'Malley is not alone in what I regard as the totally false view that what was at issue in 1969 and 1970 was an alleged threat to democracy in this jurisdiction. In this fairy tale version of recent history, the late Jack Lynch saved the people from anarchy and civil war. This grossly partitionist view deliberately ignores the catastrophe experienced by the Nationalist people of the Six Counties. People were killed by the B-specials and the regular RUC in collusion with loyalist paramilitaries. They were forced from their homes, their streets were burned and we had one of the largest forced movements of the civilian population in Ireland, if not since Cromwell then certainly since the Famine. This was the real threat, crisis and catastrophe in Ireland in 1970 and it was not in the leafy suburbs of Dublin 4.

The problems in 1970 were not what the Government did but what it failed to do. It failed to come to the defence of those under attack by the forces of the Orange state. It failed to confront the British Government with its responsibilities. The Nationalist people saw the prosecution of the defendants in the Arms Trial as confirmation that the political establishment in the State had abandoned them and was concerned only with its own partitionist political interests.

What is clear from a preliminary reading of the reports is that they raise infinitely more questions than they give answers. There is a glaring contra diction between the Attorney General's report, which states that the edited version of Colonel Hefferon's statement was probably prepared by gardaí in Dublin Castle, and the report of the Garda Commissioner, Patrick Byrne, which states that the gardaí were merely typists of the statement and that "no member of the Garda Síochána edited any statement taken during the course of the investigation."

Perhaps the most striking aspect of the Attorney General's report is the list of documents and material which have disappeared since the trials. These include the prosecution file, the Garda file and working papers relating to the preparation of the book of evidence. What has happened to these documents? I believe there was a cover-up and that they were concealed or destroyed to serve that cover-up.

The reports published last night do nothing to undermine the view that Colonel Hefferon's statement was edited to hide the knowledge and involvement of the then Minister for Defence, Jim Gibbons, in the arms importation. It should not be forgotten that the accused in the arms trial were acquitted. Two of them are in this building today, my colleague Sinn Féin Assembly Member, John Kelly, and Captain James Kelly. A key reason for the acquittals was that they were seen as the scapegoats while the Lynch faction in the Cabinet protected itself from the consequences of actions which had been initiated by the Government and not by the defendants.

The reports published last night strengthened the demand for a public inquiry into this whole affair. In conclusion, I call for such an inquiry to be established without further delay.