JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, EQUALITY, DEFENCE AND WOMEN’S RIGHTS (Sub-Committee on the Barron Report) debate -
Wednesday, 25 Feb 2004

Public Hearings on the Barron Report.

Chairman

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I welcome you all to the resumed hearings in the consideration by the sub-committee of the Barron report, the report of the independent commission of inquiry. This evening I welcome the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern. Taoiseach, it has been acknowledged by victims and members of bereaved families at these hearings that you have not just shown an interest in their concerns but were also instrumental in establishing the inquiry that culminated in the Barron report.

It was felt by the sub-committee during the course of deliberations that your presence here might assist us in our work, in particular, on the following issues: your representations to the UK authorities, seeking their co-operation with the Barron inquiry and our deliberations; the responses you received to such representations and, most importantly for the deliberations of the sub-committee, whether it would be possible to secure agreement from the UK authorities to allow an independent or international body or person to have sight of relevant files in the UK jurisdiction or Northern Ireland and/or to provide to such a person or body full co-operation on any tasks undertaken.

I thank you for taking the time to come here today and invite you to make a statement. I also acknowledge the presence of many of the victims, the families and relatives of victims of the Dublin-Monaghan bombings and their representatives who have been here every day during the hearings.

The Taoiseach

Thank you very much, Chairman. I thank you and members of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for the work that you have been doing on the Barron report in recent weeks. I have been following your work with great interest. I am glad to accept your invitation to attend the committee hearing. I also acknowledge that we have with us this evening relatives of the victims and victims of the bombings and those who represent those who were bereaved. I particularly acknowledge their presence. Everyone on the committee and in the Oireachtas has been impressed by their commitment and the dignified way in which they have put their case. I have over the last five years been involved, not to mind 25 years, in this particular process with them. I appreciate their attention at all times.

The Ireland of 1974 was a very different place from the Ireland of today. The conflict in Northern Ireland was at its height. The hope that had been generated through the Sunningdale Agreement was being exhausted and it was difficult to see how a political settlement could be achieved that would have the confidence of all communities in Northern Ireland. At that time of gloom and political uncertainty, the devastating bombings on Friday, 17 May 1974, were visited on the people of Dublin and Monaghan. I was working in the Mater Hospital at the time of the bombings and recall very well the horror and devastation of that day. The victims came from all over Ireland, as well as from France and Italy - ordinary people going about their daily lives.

No one who listened to the testimony of the victims and the bereaved at these committee hearings could have failed to have been moved by their stories of pain, loss and abandonment. Many of those who were victims of the bombings came from my constituency, and I would know them personally. Their campaign started 11 years ago. They formed the group Justice for the Forgotten, formally establishing it in 1996. Over the years, I knew of their sense of abandonment.

I was determined, when it became possible for me to do so, to help in any way that I could to get to the truth of what happened. Following his consultations and consideration of the matter, the Victims' Commissioner, Mr. John Wilson, reported in 1998 and recommended that a private inquiry should be undertaken. I met with the relatives and their legal advisers in April 1999, almost five years ago. That was the first occasion on which they had an opportunity to meet with a serving Taoiseach and at that meeting there was a palpable anger at the way they believed they had been let down by the State and its agencies.

It has also been clear that while the relatives strongly advocated a public tribunal of inquiry, there was not at that time a basis for holding such an inquiry, other than the suspicions which had built up over the years that British security services had been involved in collaboration with loyalist paramilitaries and that the State had not carried out a proper investigation. It was my firm view at that time that before any tribunal of inquiry could be held a further examination of the case would have to be undertaken in order to ascertain if such an inquiry would have any prospect of achieving the truth.

As you are aware, Chairman, the Government appointed the former Chief Justice, the late Mr. Justice Hamilton, to examine all of the circumstances of the bombings. He was the most senior officer we could appoint at that time. As a former Chief Justice he had huge respect in the country. His remit included an examination of the Garda investigation and the "Hidden Hand - the Forgotten Massacre" documentary programme. Sadly, Mr. Justice Hamilton passed away while conducting his examination, and I would like again to pay tribute to his work. In October 2000 a former Supreme Court judge, Mr. Justice Henry Barron, took over the examination of the case.

It is important to make the point that it was always the case that the assistance of the British Government would be required if any inquiry was to prove entirely successful and achieve the truth regarding all the circumstances of the bombings. I know that the efforts that were made to achieve the co-operation of the British authorities with the Barron inquiry are of particular interest to the sub-committee, as you have outlined, Chairman, and I wish, therefore, to focus on this in some detail and to answer the questions you have raised.

In my statement on 19 December 1999, setting out the process for the examination of the Dublin, Monaghan and Dundalk bombings, I said that I intended that the Government would seek the co-operation of the British authorities with Mr. Justice Hamilton's examination. Early in 2000 a request for such co-operation was sent to them. Throughout the four years that Mr. Justice Barron was undertaking his inquiry, the Government sought to ensure that the commission received all of the co-operation that it required. This was an independent inquiry. Our contacts with the British authorities in support of the inquiry were undertaken primarily in response to requests for assistance from time to time made by the inquiry. Specific requests for assistance were also reinforced in the context of frequent contacts that I had during the period of the inquiry with Prime Minister Blair.

In the period during which the inquiry was being undertaken, I met Prime Minister Blair on more than 30 occasions. While the Barron inquiry was not raised with him at every such meeting, it was raised with him on quite a number of occasions. I consistently pressed the need for the maximum amount of co-operation by the British authorities with the inquiry. I reported on these meetings to the Dáil throughout the period, both in the context of specific questions on the Barron inquiry and also in the context of exchanges in the Dáil on Northern Ireland and Anglo-Irish relations generally. At the most recent meeting with the Prime Minister on 19 January 2004, I urged him to extend the fullest possible co-operation to the work of the sub-committee.

Let me make it clear. On all occasions throughout the period, the British authorities would have been in no doubt that the Barron inquiry was a matter of the highest priority for us, including ensuring it had the fullest co-operation. My efforts would also have been complemented at other levels in the course of contacts with the British authorities.

The sub-committee is aware from the report that on 10 November 2000 Mr. Justice Barron wrote to the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Peter Mandelson, requesting assistance with the inquiry. In response, on 15 December the British authorities said it would take time for the relevant records to be researched and examined and it would not, therefore, be possible to give an immediate reply to the letter. They did say, however, that they would respond substantially as soon as they could.

Judge Barron again wrote to the Secretary of State on 9 January 2001 requesting the use of normal Garda-RUC channels to obtain answers to specific questions as they arose. Secretary of State Mandelson's successor, Dr. John Reid, responded to that request on 15 February confirming that he had no objection to this proposal.

Judge Barron wrote to Dr. Reid again on 20 February 2001 reiterating his request for a substantive response to his earlier letter. On 23 February 2001 I supported Judge Barron's request in a letter I wrote to Dr. Reid. In this letter I said:

While appreciating the value of police to police co-operation, I believe that this co-operation also needs to take place at the higher Departmental and Governmental level. You will appreciate that these matters are of great public concern in this jurisdiction and there is considerable public pressure for progress to be made on the inquiries. The matter was raised by Deputies in the Dáil recently and I undertook to ask you that any available information be supplied to the Commission. In the circumstances, I would appreciate if every assistance could be afforded by the British Government and British and Northern Ireland authorities to Justice Barron's Inquiry.

The Secretary of State responded to me on 7 March 2001 reaffirming the commitment of the British Government to treat all requests from the independent commission sympathetically. He stated all relevant British Government Departments had been searching their records to establish what information they held. He added that the task had been more time consuming than might have been hoped but it was nearing completion and that they would be able to respond in the near future.

In June 2001, following contacts from Judge Barron's office, I spoke to Dr. Reid directly in the course of a visit to Scotland requesting that the matter be treated urgently. At Judge Barron's request, I wrote to Dr. Reid again on 31 August 2001 requesting that he meet with Justice Barron in order that the judge could fully apprise him of the commission's requirements and to help expedite matters. On 8 November 2001 Judge Barron received confirmation that the Secretary of State would meet him. There were subsequently some considerable contacts between the commission and the Secretary of State's office to confirm arrangements. The Secretary of State met Judge Barron on 17 January 2002.

In reporting on that meeting to the House of Commons the Secretary of State said he had emphasised the seriousness with which the British Government took the inquiry's request for information, and reiterated his and the Prime Minister's commitment to respond as sympathetically as possible. The Secretary of State also noted the contacts that had taken place between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the independent commission and he undertook to look into a number of points raised by Mr. Justice Barron. On 26 February 2002 Judge Barron received what was, in effect, the substantive response to his request for co-operation from Dr. Reid.

On 15 April 2002 the commission wrote to Dr. Reid seeking answers to specific questions. Again, at Judge Barron's request, I followed up on this request for specific information with Prime Minister Blair and I handed over a paper on behalf of Judge Barron at a meeting with him in July. I hope it is clear from the foregoing detail the efforts expended to achieve the co-operation of the British authorities to allow Justice Barron to undertake his work.

This is not in my text but Northern Ireland Question Time is closely monitored in this House, by many in Northern Ireland and by the Embassies which continually have people at the meetings in the Distinguished Visitors' Gallery. I do not think I have done a Northern Ireland Question Time this past five years without raising this particular issue. The records and transcripts of those extended debates would all have got into the British system.

In his report Mr. Justice Barron comments on the co-operation received from the British authorities as follows:

Correspondence with the Northern Ireland Office undoubtedly produced some useful information, but its value was reduced by the reluctance to make original documents available and the refusal to supply other information on security grounds. While the Inquiry fully understand the position taken by the British Government on these matters, it must be said that the scope of this report is limited as a result.

For the British part, I am aware of the correspondence to the committee by the Secretary of State, Paul Murphy. I note, in particular, his insistence that all the potentially relevant information that had been uncovered had been shared with the inquiry, including that from some very sensitive sources; that he had personally ensured that the information had been provided to the fullest manner; that he did not believe that there was anything further of use that he, or his predecessors, would be in a position to say; that he had personally assured the sub-committee that had any evidence that pointed to collusion been uncovered, it would have been passed to the inquiry; and that he was satisfied that he was fully briefed by his officials and that no relevant information had been withheld.

As part of its terms of reference, the sub-committee must consider whether a further public inquiry into any aspect of Mr. Justice Barron's report would be required or fruitful. I will not pre-empt the sub-committee's consideration of this issue. I am well aware of the frustrations of the relatives and of the overwhelming desire to get definitive and clear answers to the questions that are still there about what happened on the dark and tragic day of 17 May 1974. When the sub-committee reports back to the Oireachtas, the Government will, of course, have to consider its comments and recommendations very carefully before deciding on what, if any, further action should be taken.

I simply do not know whether there is more information that might have been of assistance to Mr. Justice Barron, or would be of assistance to a further inquiry. However, I have already stated in the Dáil that it is my personal view that we have received as much information from the British authorities as they have, or are prepared, to share. I also said that it is my belief that a public inquiry will not change this position. I say this in the light of the efforts that I know we expended throughout the course of the inquiry to encourage co-operation, and which I have shared with you this evening, and also because, frankly, it is the only conclusion I can draw from the definitive statements in Secretary of State Murphy's letter to the sub-committee.

I conclude by commending Mr. Justice Barron for the comprehensive report that he has undertaken. His work was thorough and painstaking, not least in drawing specific conclusions about a range of matters including with regard to the perpetrators of the bombings. All of this work has considerably advanced our knowledge of the bombings. We are now, in fact, in a very different place to where we were in January 2000 when those examinations began. I also commend the sub-committee for the work it is undertaking, and I am glad to have had this opportunity to assist you in your deliberations.

Chairman

Thank you, Taoiseach. I will now invite questions from members of the sub-committee. I call Deputy Peter Power.

Deputy Peter Power

Thank you, Taoiseach, for taking the time out of your very busy schedule to assist the sub-committee with its work. It is much appreciated.

As you will be aware, over the past six weeks we have held public hearings in accordance with our terms of reference, and possibly the most important of those is whether a public inquiry would be fruitful. Most, if not all, of our work has been directed towards finding an answer to that. It has become very apparent to the sub-committee over the past number of weeks that a big distinction must now be made between, on the one hand, mere voluntary co-operation, which is what you and Mr. Justice Barron requested, and, on the other hand, sight of real and original documentation, including files and papers, throughout the entire United Kingdom Administration. That runs all the way from political and intelligence sources, including MI5 and MI6, to RUC and UDR sources. The original files are necessary. Over the past week or so, we have explored with legal experts, including our own, the possibility that a public tribunal of inquiry here might be able, possibly through a High Court order in England, to coerce the UK authorities to hand over those documents. However, we would preferably like to see the documents discovered and made available voluntarily.

In the light of your experience in the peace process over the past five years and your regular engagement with the British authorities, can you, as an expert in the field, provide us with an assessment of the likelihood or, indeed, possibility that the UK authorities will voluntarily release all of those original documents to ensure that such a public inquiry, which may or may not be held here, will be fruitful?

The Taoiseach

I am not prepared to draw any conclusions one way or the other about the level of co-operation. I am not aware of any deliberate policy of non-co-operation at British Government level. It is British Government level that I deal with, not at official level, certainly not at MI5 and MI6 level; thankfully, I never meet them. I have set out my own efforts on behalf of the inquiry to elicit co-operation and information. I simply do not know whether there is still valuable information within the British or Northern Ireland systems or whether such information was withheld for security or other reasons. If a public inquiry was to be established, we would have no guarantee that any additional information would be forthcoming. My own personal belief is that it would not. For these reasons, as I said in my statement, my personal view is that we have received as much information from the British authorities as they have at official level, or are prepared to share. A public inquiry is unlikely to change that position.

As well as that, and moreover, compellability of documents or witnesses, as Deputy Power has implicated, would not apply outside this jurisdiction. The committee has to be aware of this. Of course, I would have wished that the British Government had given Mr. Justice Barron access to the original source material relating to the bombings. I do not know why it did not do that, and I think it should have. As Judge Barron commented in his report, the scope of his report is limited as a result of him not having such access. The judge's report is still a very telling and valuable document, in my view.

On the reason I set out the dates, I think it is fair for the committee to look at the differences from the periods I raised issues, from the time we got replies and the times we had to go back to them. Many of you can see from these dates that there were long delays. In many cases I had to go back two or three times to follow up, which was very important. You cannot get a much more important investigation or examination than that of the former Chief Justice and one of the most eminent members of the Supreme Court. They were very serious legal people who would have been highly known in the British system as well because of their contacts. Mr. Justice Hamilton and Mr. Justice Barron were extremely high level people.

On the last question, I have little or no experience of MI5 or MI6, as I have said in the House. However, any time over the years that I have endeavoured to find information, whether it was in relation to Bloody Sunday, the Cory report, the Dublin-Monaghan bombings, the Sackville Street bombings or any of the other incidents, I have failed to do so. MI5-MI6 information seems, certainly from my position or that of my colleagues, to be something that we can never get our hands on, or something on which we can never get very satisfactory answers either. I might as well be frank with the committee about that. Mr. Justice Barron's and Mr. Justice Hamilton's efforts to get information through the Secretaries of State seem to have reached the same conclusion. I do not want to draw analogies with Derry's situation but I think you have seen the difficulties there too.

Chairman

There are time constraints and I want every member to be able to get a question in. Therefore, I am going to ask, if you will agree, that Deputies McGrath and Hoctor ask the questions that the Taoiseach can reply to.

Deputy P. McGrath

I too welcome the Taoiseach and thank him for coming and joining us at the committee.

In the Barron report Judge Barron spent five pages talking about the failure of the British authorities to co-operate with his inquiry. This was raised in the Dáil on a number of occasions. In your statement you tell us that you raised it with Dr. Reid and Mr. Blair on numerous occasions. I take your word. Unfortunately, it failed to secure the co-operation that was needed. You stated that Judge Barron had said that the scope of the report was limited because of the failure of the British to co-operate.

Noting your strong relationship with Mr. Blair, the high level of co-operation between the two Governments and the commitments they gave you that they would co-operate, and given the fact that co-operation was very poor in Judge Barron's eyes, where would you put responsibility for the failure to secure that co-operation?

Chairman

Taoiseach, do you mind also taking questions from Deputy Hoctor?

The Taoiseach

No.

Deputy Hoctor

I welcome the Taoiseach. My question is somewhat related. Over the four years that you assisted Mr. Justice Barron in supporting his request to the various authorities, when did it come to light that there was going to be limited co-operation? Mr. Paul Murphy's letter, dated 6 February, states that certain information could not be released to Mr. Justice Barron because of the responsibility to protect national security and the lives of individuals. When did this come to light as a reason for not releasing all the information? Was it in the first part of the four years of the inquiry, or was it only on 6 February 2004, when we got this statement?

The Taoiseach

I have given the key dates. In response to Deputy McGrath and Deputy Hoctor, as you can see, even within those dates - this is the reason I want to put them before the sub-committee - while we were raising it continually with Prime Minister Blair and the Secretary of State, and often through the Minister for Foreign Affairs and at official level, those requests at all times were coming back to the political system, which I assume would have been the Northern Ireland Office or the relevant Departments in the UK. I would say that any information that was useful to us, or any reports or any assessments of information we got - we did not get the statements - would have regard to the code language for the security of the state and other matters in these issues. In the British system that normally means MI5 and MI6. As I said, it seems almost impenetrable to get any information from these sources. I have never once got information from MI5 or MI6. Whatever assessments, analysis or considerations given at any time were probably within the remit of the intelligence services, which has proven to be an extremely difficult aspect.

To be of assistance to the sub-committee, even though we have a clear understanding from the Weston Park talks three years ago regarding the Cory report, again the British legal system on these issues has proven to be quite difficult in terms of getting information in dealing with the Finucane case and other cases. That is when there is a strong view - a possible strong view; I will be careful of my words - that there would certainly have been collusion by the security forces that would have possibly been known by arms of the state, particularly in the Finucane case. Information is hard sought, but in cases where the information is held, or assessments might have been held by MI5 or MI6 - even if they had nothing to do with all of these matters, I am sure there would have been assessments - they will not give that information.

I would do no more than focus on the aspects of what has been said by Mr. Justice Barron on one side, and what has been said by Secretary of State, Mr. Paul Murphy, on the other. Secretary of State Murphy, would, in my view, be a truthful individual in saying that he has given the information, fully and completely and comprehensively, that he has. However, on the other side there is the refusal to give originals of documents to the Barron inquiry, and there lies a dilemma. Any other relevant information that may have been there, which may have been just assessments of the position - I'm not saying they had anything to do with any of these things, I am not saying they referred to collusion - but the assessments of these things perhaps could have been given to Mr. Justice Barron. It would have helped. They could have been made available to him or he could have seen sight of them. That did not happen. However, in my view you will not see those assessments no matter what you do.

Deputy P. McGrath

So the Taoiseach is saying that MI5 and MI6 are in fact controlling the shop, rather than the Prime Minister, the ally of the Irish Government, being able to tell them to hand over documents or to at least make them available for viewing.

Chairman

Given the time constraints I ask three members - Deputy Costello, Senator Jim Walsh and Deputy Finian McGrath - to ask their questions.

Deputy Costello

I welcome the Taoiseach. We share a constituency, and I know well the considerable interest that he has taken in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings over the years. I applaud his efforts in getting to this stage of the investigation and his co-operation with the Barron inquiry in trying to ensure that the British authorities would co-operate with it. Nevertheless, we have here a litany of delays by the UK authorities, including in Northern Ireland, in 2001 and 2002, with fudging and hedging. There is no original documentation and no documents were produced for Mr. Justice Barron. When the sub-committee requested some of the principals, including the Secretary of State, former Secretary of State and Chief Constable to attend, there was absolute refusal. Nobody would co-operate with the tribunal. That leaves much to be desired.

In view of this, I find it surprising that you should come to the conclusion in your submission that it was your personal view that, "We have received as much information from the British authorities as they have, or are prepared to share" and that, "It is my belief that a public inquiry will not change this position." We received information yesterday from Professor Colin Warbrick of Durham University that there was a very arguable case for having a public inquiry-type investigation in this jurisdiction with regard to the extent and effectiveness of the Garda inquiry here, under the European Convention of Human Rights——

Chairman

Will the Deputy submit his question?

Deputy Costello

It could be argued that, under the European Convention of Human Rights, a case could be made for an inquiry in the UK jurisdiction. Naturally we would like to see the matter dealt with on a co-operative basis. Do you see any possibility of getting a Cory-type investigation, to which the British authorities agreed to establish to inquire into several matters in Northern Ireland? Would it be possible now to deal with sensitive material that they might not have been prepared to disclose to Mr. Justice Barron in his voluntary and private inquiry?

Senator J. Walsh

I welcome the Taoiseach, whose attendance contrasts with others who have declined our invitation. It is fair to say Mr. Justice Barron was unhappy with the level of co-operation he received from the British authorities, and that is stated in the report.

The Taoiseach was one of the primary architects of the Good Friday Agreement, which was to herald a new era in Anglo-Irish relations. I wish to quote from a statement made to the sub-committee by Mr. Sean Donlon. He states:

However, I hope we have now reached a stage in Anglo-Irish relations where both Governments might agree on an international form of inquiry, and that both Governments would commit to co-operating with it so that, at a minimum, we can say we have done everything possible. ... This new era strengthens the relationship, and therefore we can put forward proposals that perhaps we could not have done in the past.

He goes on to state:

This is not simply for the families whom we would all have as our first point of sympathy, but because there is an issue of sovereignty here. It is very important that a country is confident that its neighbouring country has not in any sense attempted to breach its sovereignty.

Does the Taoiseach broadly agree with these remarks?

Chairman

What is the question?

Senator J. Walsh

Does the Taoiseach broadly agree with the sentiments of that statement?

Deputy McGrath

First, I welcome the Taoiseach and thank him for attending our hearings. As Senator Walsh has just said, it is a pity that some former taoisigh and Cabinet Ministers did not show the same respect, especially a sense of solidarity and understanding for the victims of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings.

Does the Taoiseach agree that failure by the UK authorities to co-operate with any inquiry is a serious insult to the victims and families and also extremely damaging to the development of our own peace process and could damage Anglo-Irish relations while full co-operation could lead to truth, justice and reconciliation? Does he also agree that all states have a duty to fulfil their international legal obligations on issues such as the Dublin-Monaghan bombings? Does he further agree that it is essential and important that security services co-operate with neighbouring states?

The Taoiseach

Let me say a number of things in reply to those questions which range a little. Let me give a comprehensive reply. As I said, I am not prepared to draw any conclusions one way or the other; this is not the time or the place for me to do so. However, I am not aware of any deliberate policy of non-cooperation at British Government level. I have drawn a distinction between British Government level and security level. It is not the same as our system. I think from our limited knowledge of MI5 and MI6 it does not work in the same way - that the direct Department is answerable to Ministers and Parliament; that is not the way the system works. Obviously, their security intelligence system at that time in Northern Ireland was very different from the one that we would ever have been accustomed to. What I have done is set out my own efforts on behalf of the inquiry to elicit co-operation and information. I totally respect all of the points that Mr. Justice Barron made in all respects. I think you would take it that everything he said is exactly the truth as I would know it and see it.

I can fully understand the urge, from some of the questions at the committee, to do something but I do not want to embark on an initiative where we cannot see much of an expectation on the part of relatives that it will be fulfilled. I think we have to examine that very closely. I simply do not know whether there is any more information in the British system. I just do not know the answer to that question. I know that we had unanswered questions and lack of direct access to original material. Suspicions will inevitably remain, and they will inevitably remain about whether the British system knew about the bombings, and if it did, at what levels. I know that question will remain. I know that we can dodge or duck that issue and put it fair and square but that is the position.

I had hoped we could get every single shred of information. I can tell you that I am more familiar with dealing with inquiries of all kinds than I ever thought I would be in my public life. I know that when we receive requests from them in any form, whether in their private sessions, their public sessions, their judicial sessions, or any other sessions, that Governments comprehensively go about supplying and submitting the full and most comprehensive information. That is the way we practise. The Secretary of State's letter to the committee clearly suggests that they believe they fully co-operated with the committee and that they have handed over all information relevant to the committee's work. I am not in a position to contradict the Secretary of State, though I have set out the times, the dates, the delays and the timescale because I think that that is useful for your report.

Deputy McGrath's question was about the issue of collusion or the related involvement of MI5 and MI6. I think that is very important. As you know, I have no private knowledge of these matters but Mr. Justice Barron has reported that collusion could have taken place at the level of individuals. He has not proven that collusion was sanctioned at a higher or Government level. In that instance there is unlikely to be files or reports in Departments or agencies.

I believe from my knowledge - I do not claim to be an expert, as I have been kindly branded - that it is unlikely that at that time MI5 and MI6 would not have taken a fair amount of interest in what happened - let us say very carefully that we assume that they had nothing to do with it and that there was no collusion - and that they would not have come to assessments, at least, after it. It is hard to believe that there was nothing that they could have reported on. I find it hard to believe that there was not some report somewhere about these issues. I have to say that we found out in all of this that in our own jurisdiction the reports and the level of paperwork also left an awful lot to be desired.

I believe that Mr. Justice Barron has over the past four years conducted a painstaking and thorough review. Although he was not satisfied that he received all of the available material - I agree with that - I believe that he did get access to the material that was available. I do not believe that any of the Secretaries of State that we have dealt with or Prime Minister Blair would have knowingly withheld it. To answer Deputy McGrath's question, if there were any other papers that would have been useful to us, I think they were at the level of MI5 or MI6. That is not to say that there is any question of collusion in that answer; I am saying that they could have been helpful, perhaps, with papers.

As a former Supreme Court judge, Mr. Justice Barron has brought a level of rigour to the examination of the material that lends his report a high degree of credibility. I was asked a question by my constituency colleague, Deputy Costello. I thank him for his remarks. The Barron inquiry was established to examine all the circumstances of the bombings and to establish the truth of what happened in so far as it could. I believe that Mr. Justice Barron has done an outstanding job.

The issue of a possible cross-jurisdictional inquiry has now arisen, as Senator Walsh and Deputy Costello have put it to me. I have no information to suggest that the British would accept such an inquiry. That would be an issue that the sub-committee would need to raise. The greater likelihood is that they believe that they have already fully co-operated, as stated by the Secretary of State, and there is nothing further that such an inquiry would bring to light. I think that is what they would say but the sub-committee would need to check that.

In direct reply to the question, do I believe that a Mr. Justice Cory-type investigation would prove useful, the sub-committee will be meeting Mr. Justice Cory in early March and will have an opportunity to talk directly to him. It needs to be borne in mind that the British already believe that they have fully co-operated with Mr. Justice Barron, but I think the question certainly can be put. In answer, it is just not possible at this juncture to make an assessment as to whether a Cory-type inquiry would expand our knowledge of the facts of the bombings and the issue of possible collusion.

It is worth putting these questions: Would Mr. Justice Cory or a similar international figure get the co-operation of the British Government, per se? Would he be able to uncover anything else that the late Mr. Justice Hamilton or Mr. Justice Barron has not done? The first issue I raised regarding the compellability of witnesses and documents is very important as we have been through this in Derry. How would we deal with it outside of this jurisdiction? These three questions have to be taken into account. It is not for me to answer them.

Having said that, Mr. Justice Cory has done outstanding work. He has in a very short period of time done an enormous amount of reading and research. I think you will hear from him, because he has said it to me - I say this as notes for you to help your own questioning of him - that he got total access to an enormous amount of records and data. We know that those who sought such information in previous years failed in their efforts.

The question arises: how did he get that in these cases? I think he got it in these cases because we had made a deal between two sovereign states in Weston Park that there would be total co-operation with an international judge, that whoever that person would be the reports would be accepted and that within our systems we would adhere to their tribunals. As you know, we have agreed to examine the cases of Chief Superintendents Breen and Buchanan in inquiries. We have already agreed to set up an inquiry on that basis. Both Governments gave commitments at Weston Park, including in relation to the Pat Finucane, Robert Hamill and Rosemary Nelson cases, that these commitments would be adhered to. I think, as I have said, that we have done our bit.

Of course, Justice Cory has stated he has recommended public inquiries into these cases. In the case of the Dublin-Monaghan bombings the Government was informed by the reports of the Victims Commissioner who had called for a private inquiry and also by our own belief that at the time there was simply not enough hard evidence that would provide a basis for it. We will be in a position, at the end of your work, where we will have had the Hamilton report completed by the Barron work. We will also have the deliberations of this committee. If you ask me if it is worth exploring with Justice Cory to see if there is merit in that, I think it is well worth exploring. I give you my personal position; it is well worth exploring in questioning with him rather than exploring it in a fully sworn inquiry because in a sworn inquiry I believe you will meet an absolute wall in that you will get the statements from the British system that you got. Second, you will deal with the compellability issue and, third, I do not think you are likely to get any co-operation from other individuals involved because they are either dead or not now available. I think the committee has to take all of these grounds into account.

Perhaps on the basis that he got access to papers, it is worth going through and exploring that with Justice Cory him to see what his view is. I would certainly listen to him because I have worked with him for the last few years and he has been very useful. To be honest with you, I think it is a more interesting set of questions than a full sworn inquiry that will probably cost in excess of enormous tens of millions of pounds, and take several years in a case which, looking at the Justice Barron report, you are unlikely to be able to progress.

Deputy F. McGrath

My question was that the failure by the UK authorities to co-operate with any inquiry was an insult to the families and victims. It was also related to the damaging of Anglo-Irish relations.

The Taoiseach

I have to accept what Prime Minister Blair, the Secretary of State and the British Government have stated to me, that they have checked it within the files in their domain. I could not take any insult because they have checked it. In so far as there are records in MI5 and MI6, my view of events, right or wrong, is that it operates in the British system as a totally different system. I would not hold the British Prime Minister responsible for this.

Chairman

We are over 20 minutes over what we had originally intended. I thank you for taking the time and know I am going to be rapped on the knuckles by your office. Thank you very much for assisting the sub-committee in its deliberations. Over the next few days the committee will be deliberating. The Dáil requested us to report back on the deliberations by 10 March. It is our intention at this point to so do. The hearings are now adjourned until 10 a.m. next Wednesday when the sub-committee hopes to meet in public session with Judge Peter Cory.

The sub-committee adjourned at 6.50 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 2 March 2004.