I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this motion and to share with the House some preliminary thoughts on the issues raised by the recent "Prime Time" broadcasts on RTÉ relating to the Arms Trial. At the outset I might note that these issues arise from an analysis of documents released by my Department, with others, at the end of last year under the Archives Act.
No matter what the outcome of the current controversy, I believe the decision to release the documents was correct. The Archives Act effectively allows for a certain degree of subjective discretion in decisions on the release of documents, but it is right, and in the spirit of the Act, for such decisions to be informed by a commitment to openness and transparency to the greatest possible extent. Whatever the short-term difficulties that might be caused by the release of documents in cases of this nature, they are far outweighed by the insight which such records give us into our past.
The Arms Trial and the controversies surrounding it are an important part of that past, occurring as they did against a backdrop of civil disturbance in the North on an unparalleled scale. While we are now, thankfully, in a period of genuine hope where, more and more, peace is being embraced and violence rejected, it is nevertheless the case that the events of 30 years ago still reverberate today. Any fresh insights into the Arms Trial, therefore, are bound to be not just of historical significance, but of contemporary interest. It is not surprising that the rolling programme of release of Government papers under the 30 year rule, having reached an era of such particular significance, should have attracted considerable interest and, no doubt, will continue to do so in the coming years. This is all the more so when it is inevitable, in some cases, that the release of papers, instead of explaining events, raises new questions.
Such is the case with the analysis by "Prime Time" of papers relating to the Arms Trial. The issues raised by "Prime Time", as I understand them, derive from a particular interpretation of the released documentation and focus on differences between an original statement by Colonel Hefferon, the former director of military intelli gence, and the version of his statement which was included in the book of evidence. The allegation, as I understand it, is that Colonel Hefferon's original statement was altered prior to inclusion in the book of evidence so as to remove from it references to the alleged knowledge of the then Minister for Defence – which he always denied – of the proposed importation of arms because, it is argued, such references were seen as potentially damaging to the prosecution and helpful to the defence, at least in respect of some of the defendants.
This allegation was again discussed on "Prime Time" last night and has more generally been the subject of much comment in the media, with suggestions that the book of evidence was compiled in an unusual way and even some claims made that the statement in question must have been altered in the Department of Justice. Of course, Colonel Hefferon proceeded to give direct evidence in the Arms Trial on the subject matter removed from his statement, but it is argued that this makes no real difference and that it is no answer to an allegation of an attempt to suppress evidence that in the end it was unsuccessful. Having said that, it seems a matter of common sense that as the book of evidence was going to be available to the defence, and Colonel Hefferon could have been made aware of its contents, the fact that his original statement differed from that in the book of evidence was liable at any time to come into the public domain, and presumably those preparing the book of evidence would have been conscious of this.
I accept, however, that the allegations which have been made – I stress that we are talking about allegations which arise from a particular interpretation of certain documentation – are serious and cannot be ignored. As the House may be aware, I undertook, when this matter was raised in Dáil Éireann shortly after the first "Prime Time" programme, to make inquiries into the matter and report back to the Dáil as soon as possible. I am currently in the course of making those inquiries. I am having the papers in my Department double-checked, and I have been in contact with the Garda Síochána and the Attorney General to see whether they may have information on what happened. I hope to be in a position to report within the next two to three weeks or so.
The House will, I am sure, appreciate that there are particular difficulties in inquiring into a matter of this kind. The issues surrounding the Arms Trial were and remain fiercely contested by those involved. We are talking of events of 30 years ago and in circumstances where some of the main participants are no longer with us, where documentation may be incomplete and where issues of legal privilege and client confidentiality may arise. I say this not as an excuse not to inquire into the matter or as an alibi for any fail ure to find answers, but simply to be realistic with the House on the prospect of conclusively determining to the satisfaction of all concerned what happened and why it happened.
I assure the House that I will do whatever I can to find answers to the questions which were raised in the original "Prime Time" programme and that I have an open mind on whether any further inquiries might be needed. It would be wise, however, for judgment to be reserved until we obtain a clearer understanding of what happened. I appreciate it is thought by some that the documentation which has been released reveals an occurrence which is inherently incapable of innocent explanation and that the only questions needing answers relate to the identity and motivation of those who, on this understanding, sought to perpetrate a miscarriage of justice. However, I would counsel extreme caution. I do not believe that our proper understanding of what happened 30 years ago will be helped by a rush to premature conclusions. What is needed is calm analysis and cool judgment. We should remember, in particular, that the good name and reputation of individuals is at stake and that some of these individuals are no longer here to defend themselves.
The motion before the House calls for the setting up of a small independent expert group to collect all available evidence relating to the Arms Trial and the events surrounding it, to examine and evaluate such evidence, to put all such evidence into the public domain and to publish its conclusions on the issues involved. I understand the desire on the part of Senators to inquire into the allegations which have been made, but I believe that the motion is, at this stage, premature. In saying that, I am not seeking to avoid the making of inquiries which may need to be made. Indeed, I have accepted that the allegations need to be examined and I have undertaken to make what inquiries I can and to report on the results of those inquiries. I suggest to the House, therefore, that it would be reasonable to await the results of my inquiries before coming to any definitive conclusion as to the need for a more formal investigation.
I cannot guarantee that my inquiries will find answers to all the questions raised and it may be that the Senators proposing this motion will remain minded to call for the establishment of an expert group to examine the matter. I do not ask Senators, therefore, to accept in advance that my inquiries will result in a complete answer to their questions. As I am already undertaking inquiries into the matter, it would make sense to await my report which I expect to complete within the next two to three weeks. The more information we have available to us, the better placed we will be to come to a determination as to whether further action may be necessary and what form it might take. It is best for me to complete this initial inquiry to see whether any clarifying or explanatory information may be available and to enable all of us to come as far as possible to an informed conclusion on the matter.
There is also the point that even if it there were to be a consensus on the need for a further inquiry into the matter, there would remain the question of the nature and scope of that inquiry. The motion calls for such an inquiry to be carried out by a small independent expert group. I express no opinion on that at this stage, but there may be those who, if there were to be an inquiry, would question the subjectivity of such concepts as independent and expert and there may be those who would, particularly if their good name and reputation were at stake, argue that any inquiry should provide them with an opportunity to be represented and to test any evidence obtained. The protection of the reputation of people who have, sadly, died and are therefore unable to defend themselves could also be an issue.
There might also be differences of opinion on the scope of any such inquiry. The House will be aware that already there are conflicting views on this even among those affected who agree on the principle of an inquiry, with one argument being made that any inquiry should be limited to the narrow although extremely important point of the apparent alteration of a witness statement, and another argument being made that individual aspects of the Arms Trial can only be understood in context and that therefore any inquiry should be comprehensive. I make no comment at this stage on the merits of these different positions or on the interests underlying them, but it is necessary to recognise that this would be an issue to be addressed in the event of an inquiry being held.
It would be misleading, however, if I did not say that the questions of whether there should be a further inquiry and what form it should take are not straightforward. One issue is the extent to which an expert group or some other form of inquiry would have access to records which were deemed not to be releasable in accordance with the criteria set out in the Archives Act. Is it the case that different public policy considerations should apply to matters such as the Arms Trial? There is also the related point that if papers contain defamatory references to people, making them available to a group of experts does not mean that a possible action for defamation does not arise. I understand from reports in the media that one of the defendants in the Arms Trial has indicated that he is considering suing the State in relation to some documents already released to the National Archives and we must be mindful of this issue in dealing with this matter.
We must also be conscious of the danger that the Oireachtas or the Government might be seen as in some way trying to sponsor some agreed version of the State's history. It can be argued that the papers which are releasable under the National Archives policy set out by the Oireachtas in legislation are freely available in the National Archives and it is a matter for historians, journalists and everyone else who has an interest in the matter to form their own judgment. I make these points not to obstruct in any way the taking forward of this matter – I have an open mind about that – but to point out to the House that the matter is not without some difficulty. Given the length of time which has elapsed and the fact that a number of people involved can no longer present their version of events, it may prove ultimately to be the case that history alone will be in a position to judge these matters.
The motion before the House would not only seek to decide now the question of holding an inquiry in advance of hearing the results of the inquiries which I have under way, but would seek to decide the form of that inquiry and its scope. I urge Senators to accept that it would be premature to decide all these issues today. Staying their hand would not in any way prejudice their view if it remains their view upon considering my report that some form of expert group should be set up to inquire into this matter. I have an open mind on the matter, but today is not the day to determine these issues. I ask Senators to join me in recognising this and to accept the amendment to the motion.