Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Friday, 6 Jul 2001

Vol. 167 No. 13

Inquiry into Arms Trial: Statements.

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 more length the contents of the report, but I thought it would be useful if we in this House had the opportunity at least to 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 dis turbances 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 it is reasonable to doubt seriously 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.

What I have set out to achieve in my report, with the assistance of the Attorney General 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 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 a 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.

I welcome the Minister to the House. I know he has already given his report in the other House. It was followed by quite an interesting debate with a variety of points of view put across and no great meeting of minds across the floor.

I am critical of the timing of the release of these documents. It is over six weeks since their release was promised and the fact they were released at 6 o'clock on the day before the Houses rise indicates that the Government is not prepared to take the debate seriously. However, the Minister has indicated, and I accept his assurance, that a full debate will be possible in both Houses when they resume in October. The documents published bear detailed scrutiny as to the full implications.

The reports are already under attack from a number of quarters, most predictably from Mr. Michael Heney of "Prime Time". I share his concern, as do many in the Lower House, about the significant number of files that are now missing. I do not necessarily believe in a conspiracy theory as files can go missing for all sorts of reasons such as misfiling, being mislaid or lost etc., but there is public unease at the extent of the files unavailable or missing. Conspiracy theories grow and develop in such situations. Many of those involved in this debate are well used to such theories. This is one issue the Minister will have to address in order to assure the public that the files are missing for genuine reasons rather than that they disappeared during a particular administration or in order to protect reputations. I do not believe that happened but we need to know. An external examination would have given greater confidence to the public that all avenues had been explored. The Minister will obviously deal with this issue which also caused great concern in the other House.

I refer again to Mr. Michael Heney, who is not a conspiracy theorist but who raised questions today on "Morning Ireland" about the scope and methodology of the inquiry. He promised that "Prime Time" would give a full response to the reports. I look forward to that and hope it will not be like the last "Prime Time" programmes which were more a case for the prosecution than an objective analysis of a major event.

One of the points raised by Mr. Michael Heney was the fact that the Attorney General did not speak with people who might have been in a position to help him in his inquiries. He named in particular Mr. Colm Condon, who was then Attorney General, Mr. Séamas McKenna who was then senior counsel and Mr. Patrick McEntee. He criticised the report particularly because Captain Kelly was not interviewed. I do not know how important such an interview might have been, or even whether it was within the purview of the Attorney General to conduct such an interview. The omission is strange because some people were interviewed, including officials and former officials of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Office of the Chief State Solicitor.

Page 7 of the Attorney General's report includes an intriguing reference to Captain Kelly making an indication to the Attorney General. Does this mean that he interviewed or even spoke to Captain Kelly? It is strange that such an interview is not mentioned in the acknowledgements of people to whom the Attorney General spoke at the beginning of his report. I would like this to be clarified, although I am not certain it would add anything of great substance.

It is important to remember that the nub of the debate is a series of allegations made on two "Prime Time" programmes. It was alleged that vital evidence was withheld during the trial and that other evidence was altered with malice aforethought. The effect of this, allegedly, was to damage Captain Kelly, resulting in his marginalisation and victimisation during the past 30 years. The programmes alleged that the tampering of evidence was done deliberately, that privilege was sought in a manner that would cover up evidence and that the people who could have done this were the then secretary, Peter Berry and the then Minister, Deputy O'Malley. The programme alleged that there had been a perversion of justice and that there was a State conspiracy against certain people. As they watched "Prime Time", the people of Ireland received the message I have outlined. I have no doubt that many people today believe the allegations to be true as a result of the programmes.

The charges made by "Prime Time" were of great importance and cannot be brushed aside easily. The Attorney General and the Minister cannot relegate this issue to secondary importance by referring to it as merely a question of modern history, which the historians will answer when the dust finally settles. Reputations have been seriously damaged by the allegations. It is important that, 30 years on, we discover the truth about events that shaped the recent history of this country and that are still relevant for some people today.

We must ask what the reports of the Attorney General and the Minister tell us. At its most basic, history is what evidence forces us to believe. The reports published today provide us with some more evidence to take into consideration. From my reading of the detail, the reports conclude that the "Prime Time" charges do not stand up to close scrutiny. The Attorney General's report is clear on the matter of whether the original statements were available in court, as it concludes that they were. His report also says that it is highly unlikely that Peter Berry tampered with Colonel Hefferon's statement. No attempt, according to the report, was made to deceive the legal drafters of the book of evidence regarding the substance of Colonel Hefferon's statement. This is a key finding.

Could the then Minister for Justice, Deputy O'Malley, or his Department have been party to a conspiracy to deceive the prosecution team? The Attorney General's report deals with this question at some length and concludes that such a strategy of deception was highly unlikely. The reports released today find against the key allegations of "Prime Time", although the reports are not the last word. In a convincing speech in the other House, Deputy O'Malley dealt at great length and detail with some of the charges made. The reports are of great help and move the debate forward, but they are not the last word, as the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform said.

An overwhelming case can be made in the public interest for a structured investigation into the events of 1970, based on access to archival material and perhaps also on interviews with the survivors. I realise most people have made up their minds at this stage and new evidence may not change that. I do not envy the Minister or anyone charged with setting up an inquiry, but it is clear that today's reports do not push this matter to a conclusion. The Minister and others seem to think that I am asking for a version of official history, but there is no such thing outside a country run by Stalin or Hitler. As the Minister said, we should not try to get Tim Pat Coogan or Ruth Dudley Edwards to agree, nor do I want to try to get them to agree. We must open up the archives to some form of public inquiry or investigation into the events of 1970. They are not just part of recent history, they are also part of the continuing life of this State.

I accept the Minister's invitation to reflect on the reports over the summer months and to return in the autumn with a more structured set of proposals regarding what should be done. I look forward to hearing what the "Prime Time" team have to say. I read Deputy O'Malley's statement with great interest and although the Minister might like to bring matters to a conclusion today, I think this debate has only just begun.

I welcome the Minister and the publication of these reports. I concur with Senator Manning's view that it is unfortunate that the reports came to hand only at 6 p.m. yesterday. It is difficult to examine in detail a document of the volume of the Attorney General's report. Nevertheless, it is fairly obvious from the reports that the allegations made on "Prime Time" in April do not stand up. The programme focused on a single issue, although we know there are many aspects to the period in question. By concentrating on a single side of the story, however, huge question marks were placed over many people, some of whom are still alive and others who have passed away. It gave my family and me great discomfort to have the situation portrayed in the manner in which it was. We discussed the matter in this House shortly after the "Prime Time" broadcast and the result of our contributions was that reports would be made by the Attorney General and the Minister. I am grateful that the reports are now before us.

As Senator Manning has said, the reports have moved the debate on to another phase. Certain information and analysis has been provided, particularly in relation to Colonel Hefferon's original statement of evidence. It is correct, fair and proper that all statements submitted at the time should be examined in the same manner as Colonel Hefferon's statement to see what changes may have been made. We know that huge deletions were made, and reasons have been given for them. RTE's response to the reports will be interesting, but the situation has to move on. The Minister's report causes me great concern where it mentions that a number of documents, which could be of great benefit, are missing. The documents in question include the prosecution file, the Garda investigation file, working papers from which the book of evidence was constructed, transcripts of both trials and sound recordings of both trials. Where is this information? How did it disappear? It is important that we find out what happened to these documents because they contain extremely important information which could clarify a great deal for many different people. It is imperative that we investigate when the documents went missing and why. If they can be recovered, they should be because it is in everybody's interest that this should happen.

In the context of the debate moving forward and in the interest of writing history properly, all the information should be made available. However, a great deal of archival information has not yet entered the public domain. Military intelligence files are available but people have been threatened with law suits if they publish them. That is alarming. What type of State are we living in? Do we want to know all the facts or only some of them? Are we trying to portray a particular picture or do we want the true picture?

A number of interesting Army archive documents from the Army intelligence section came to my attention recently. One relates to the transfer of power from Colonel Hefferon to Colonel Delaney. The undated memorandum states:

1. Colonel HEFFERON said that he did not tell Colonel DELANEY about Captain KELLY's activities as he thought the Minister should tell Colonel DELANEY himself.

How could this be true since Colonel HEFFERON kept Colonel DELANEY's existence in Intelligence from 9 February to 8 April secret from the Minister for Defence? The Minister did not know Colonel DELANEY existed in Intelligence until Colonel DELANEY walked into his office on 8 April 1970.

2. Colonel DELANEY asked Colonel HEFFERON many times during these two months to introduce him to the Minister for Defence. Colonel HEFFERON did not do so until the day before he retired from the Army – 8 April 1970.

Questions must be asked about this. If one is handing over power to one's successor, surely one must follow the proper procedures. Why did that not happen? The procedure used was not proper.

I have another document which is a statement dated 29 September 1970 for Mr. McKenna from Colonel Delaney who was director of intelligence. It states:

1. Captain James KELLY's name appeared on the Duty Roster for Regimental Duties at Army Headquarters for 11th April 1970.

2. On 10th April 1970 I instructed Captain O'SHEA of the Intelligence Section to arrange to have Captain James KELLY relieved off Regimental Duties as they pertained to Army Headquarters. I told Captain O'SHEA that my reasons for this were the same as the reasons I had for having him relieved off Intelligence Duties generally in that if he were permitted to do Regimental Duties at Army Headquarters he would have possession of the keys of the Intelligence Section offices and he would be the recipient of possible Intelligence reports from various parts of the country from Army sources.

3. Captain O'SHEA telephoned Captain KELLY on 10th April and informed him that he was relieved off Regimental Duties for 11th April. Captain O'SHEA did not give Captain KELLY any reason whatsoever for this action.

4. Mr. McKENNA will see from the Press Cutting attached that Colonel HEFFERON said he was not able to arrange to relieve Captain KELLY from Regimental Duties on his own authority and that he had to ask Mr. GIBBONS to have him so relieved. It is believed to be most unusual if not indeed unprecedented to have a Minister asked to have a Captain relieved off Regimental Duties,

These documents pose questions which must be answered. There is a great deal of information in the Army intelligence archives which must be examined.

The Minister stated in the Lower House that he expected to return to this issue in the new session. It is important that all the information is put in the public domain because at the end of the day people must make up their minds about what really happened on that occasion. I look forward to the day genuinely interested people, particularly historians, will have the opportunity to avail of all the information.

I welcome the Minister to the House. I am disappointed the report was circulated only last night. It was quite difficult to gain access to the report and, therefore, we have not had the opportunity to examine it in the necessary detail. The time provided for the debate at the end of the session is a nonsense and it is unfortunate that the Government did not see fit to publish the report and debate it long before now.

I observed the debate in the Lower House and it was a travesty of justice that the former Minister for Justice, Deputy O'Malley, had no more than ten minutes to make his case. His contribution is viewed as crucial and it does not do democracy in this State any good that a person who is still alive to put on record what he knows did not get ample opportunity to do so.

As Senator Manning stated, the report is clear in regard to the allegation made in the "Prime Time" programme that the statement of Colonel Hefferon was substantially interfered with so as to change its tone, content and intent in its presentation in the book of evidence. All the evidence in the Minister's report suggests that is not the case and the original statement, while not in its original form in the book of evidence, was available to the trial and could have been used any time during the trial.

The debate earlier in the Lower House brought back memories of the debate there 31 years ago and it was interesting that similar divisions and divisiveness surfaced. The Minister has a combination of responsibilities in regard to this issue. He has a responsibility to ensure the truth is put on the record. As previous speakers said, this report is only beginning to open up the issue. It does not present the full picture to tell the full story. Perhaps the Minister feels he has a party political responsibility to contain the issue as much as possible because it may lead to internal lynching in the Fianna Fáil Party. However, his prime responsibility is his constitutional responsibility as Minister to ensure the truth is put on the record openly and clearly.

Will the Minister outline in detail, in regard to the documentation that was not released into the archives, who makes such decisions, how such decisions are reached and who assesses whether documents have a security content or whether there is a fear about certain individuals? The public deserves a full, transparent account of how this was assessed.

The Garda report is clear, precise and concise. The Garda's role at the time was to write down and then type the statements. The legal team which came from the Attorney General's office included three individuals who edited the statements and the Garda personnel involved subsequently typed them. Commissioner Byrne states clearly in his report that the legal team, Mr. Durand, Mr. Browne and Mr. Quigley, read and edited the statements and the gardaí typed them up.

I also note in the report that Mr. John Gallagher, who was a detective garda at the time and is now a senior counsel, was not interviewed. I would like the Minister to tell us why he was not interviewed. Why was there selectivity in terms of who was interviewed? The Minister said it is not possible to come to certain conclusions because a number of people are deceased. He also said it was not possible to interview certain people because they are deceased. Why were all the people who were alive and were central to the case at the time not interviewed? They should have been interviewed. The report presented to the Houses should have included interviews with everyone concerned, whether they were on the side of the prosecution or the defence. I want to know why there was selectivity in terms of those who were interviewed.

Extensive reference has been made to the Attorney General's report. The Minister mentioned what the Attorney General did in analysing the allegations of interference with the statement of Colonel Hefferon. I commend the Attorney General for doing that. However, when the Attorney General makes statements about formal and informal interviews, he is doing so as the Attorney General, not as a private citizen. There is no such thing as formal and informal interviews. Once he speaks about such a matter, he is doing so in his role as Attorney General. I criticise that aspect that refers to informal interviews or discussions with individuals. That is unacceptable. We want full details about who was spoken to and we will not categorise it as formal or informal. The report does not give us those details. We cannot have selectivity. This matter must be discussed openly and we should be given all the details.

The report states that no unreleased papers were identified which could shed light on the issues raised. Who decided that no unreleased papers were identified? Is it possible that unreleased papers were not identified that could shed light on the issues raised? Deputy O'Malley in his contribution in the other House clearly stated that the S/7/70 file which was released into the archives was different from the file with which he was familiar. Perhaps we should have more detail about that file.

A major problem with the report and the investigation is the absence of important documentation, such as the prosecution file. That was referred to by previous speakers. We are talking about an event in Irish history which was the singular most serious event in terms of the foundation of our democratic institutions. It is a serious matter – I will not take as soft an approach as Senator Manning on this issue – for any Government since 1969 or 1970 to say that the Garda investigation file, the working papers from which the book of evidence would have been constructed, the transcript of the two trials and the sound recordings made at the two trials were unavailable. The Minister has questions to answer. When were those files last available in the Four Courts, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Attorney General's office or the Chief State Solicitor's office? Who last handled those files and when did they go missing? We want to know the answers. The Minister is talking about a critical time in our democracy and Government history, yet the most critical evidence is missing. That is a serious matter and the Minister has an obligation to investigate it as a matter of urgency.

The Minister referred to certain gaps. He said that certain files are not available and other witnesses may need to be interviewed. We should interview them. Why is there selectivity? He also said he has raised further queries on these matters and he will report on the outcome of these queries when he has been provided with the answers. Perhaps the Minister will tell us in his reply with whom he has raised other queries. On what specific issues has he raised queries? How long will it be before he will be in a position to come back with answers on those queries? I would like answers this evening. There is a need to address that issue.

The Minister referred to the state of knowledge of the late Mr. Jim Gibbons. I have sympathy with the Gibbons family in this matter. The former Minister for Justice at that time, Deputy O'Malley, presented his side of the case in the other House today. Unfortunately, Jim Gibbons is no longer with us so he is not in a position to present his case. The way Mr. Gibbons's case is dealt with in the report raises questions. I am concerned that it is easy to raise questions when someone is dead compared to when people are alive. There is a need for balance and for the full truth to be put on the record. This report is only a slight look at what happened. We have not got the entire story. The Minister said that the possibility of an attempt to suppress evidence cannot be definitely ruled out. I acknowledge that because of the type of evidence available to the Minister.

The Attorney General's report is an analysis of why these changes have been made by reference to the rule against hearsay. It does not emphasise that there is no information available which would indicate definitely what the actual intention was behind each of the changes as distinct from the likely intention. This is a case of the actual versus the likely intention. There is a need for something more specific and for clarification on this matter. The statement about the risk of exposure because of the possibility that Colonel Hefferon might give the same evidence is acceptable. It is clear that Mr. Berry's name has been completely cleared in this report. There is evidence available to justify why that is the case, and that is welcome.

The report contains more questions than answers, and the onus is on the Minister to answer those questions. Deputy O'Malley asked a number of questions during his contribution in the other House. Now that the issue has been raised, the full truth should be known. If that includes a thorough examination of files which have not yet been released to the archives but which are in the Department, the Attorney General's office or the Chief State Solicitor's office, that should be done and the information should be pulled together to give the full picture. He said clearly that there was a conspiracy in 1969 and 1970 to illegally import arms into this country and wanted to know which politicians conspired to import them, with whom they conspired and what happened to the bulk of the money, particularly the £70,000 that has never been accounted for. These questions have never been answered and it is time the Minister, in his capacity as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, had the files thoroughly examined and presented answers to the House.

I welcome the report on the Arms Trial. While I am not qualified to judge what happened one way or another, I accept what Senators Manning and Gibbons said, but reject totally what Senator Taylor-Quinn said over the past ten minutes. She should apologise to the House and the Minister for her remarks. To call on him to tell the full truth in such a demanding way is very wrong. She has, basically, accused the Government, civil servants, the Minister and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform of some type of corruption. If somebody from another country was visiting this House today, they would say the Minister and the Department for which he is responsible are corrupt in some way. The Senator was totally irresponsible and out of order—

On a point of order, the Senator is deliberately misconstruing what I said. I ask him to withdraw his remarks.

The record will show the contribution made by Senator Taylor-Quinn.

The record will show that Senator Taylor-Quinn told the Minister it was about time the full truth came out.

What I said clearly – it is on the record – was that the report was just an initial insight into what went on, and that we needed the full story.

Senator Taylor-Quinn has made her contribution. Senator Fitzgerald is now making his—

Senator Fitzgerald is misconstruing what I said.

—and is allowed to comment—

I am sorry, a Chathaoirleach. Senator Fitzgerald is not allowed to engage in a selective interpretation of what I said. That is what he is doing.

The record will show clearly and accurately what everybody said in the debate.

That is correct, but nobody has a right to misconstrue it.

I will allow the Minister to interpret what the Senator said, but when a demand is made on him on two occasions to come out with the full truth—

Yes, the full truth.

It was also intimated in Senator Taylor-Quinn's contribution that something was going on behind the scenes and that because we were in a coalition Government with the Progressive Democrats, there was some type of cover up.

On a point of order, as a Member of this House, I will not have my character assassinated in this fashion by a colleague, and what I said misinterpreted and misconstrued. I am asking you, a Chathaoirleach, to protect the interests of all Members of this House.

Senator Taylor-Quinn has made the point that it is her contention that her comments are being misconstrued or misrepresented. The record will show accurately what Senators Taylor-Quinn and Fitzgerald said on which people will have to make up their own minds.

I never meant to comment on all this. Both Houses of the Oireachtas and the general public demanded the Minister to produce a report on the matter. That is what he has done. He has put the facts, as best he can and with what is available to him, before us today. He was not the person who had to trawl through all the documents. He had civil servants to do so. Is somebody trying to tell me that every now and then they threw a few pages under the table? I accept the Minister's word that these files are missing or mislaid. That is all I am trying to say. The Minister is not telling us lies. I wish people would accept the contents of the report.

I feel sorry for all those on both sides of the argument. This argument will go on forever and no matter what happens, people on both sides will maintain that they are right. I respect both sides enormously, and I know the people involved. I accept what the Minister has put before us and my only wish is that those who are no longer with us should rest in peace and those who are alive will in some way try to come to grips with their situation.

I am almost afraid to put my head above the parapet, with all that has gone on. I was very struck by what both Senator Manning and Senator Gibbons had to say about this matter. I welcome the Minister and commend him on the work that has been done in presenting the report. I do not intend to comment on the substance of the report because I have not had the opportunity to study it, but was pleased to hear the Minister say we will have an opportunity to debate it more fully in the autumn.

I am interested, if Senator Manning will allow me to call myself an historian and a student of Irish politics, in the whole issue. It is important because people's reputations, some of whom are dead and some of whom are still alive, are at risk and they are entitled to have the information available to clearly set out the facts. Society and historians have a right to the maximum information available to enable them form a view on this matter.

I had intended to comment briefly on methodology. The report is welcome but it is a bit like the dance of the seven veils – tantalising rather than revealing. I have worked long enough in the business to know that files go astray and do not feel the need to invent conspiracy theories. For me, the cock-up theory of administration has been sufficient to explain most matters.

I am surprised that the prosecution file on this case, which, as Senator Taylor-Quinn said, is one of the landmark cases of modern Irish politics, has gone astray. In most countries it would be a collector's piece, and might have become such. Before we resume this debate in the autumn, it might be helpful if efforts were made to see if these files could be found or recreated from other sources to a greater or lesser extent because as long as they are not available, people will speculate on their contents. I am not for one moment imputing anything other than the greatest probity and care of records but it would help us, and allay the public concern about these matters, if another search could be made. My own view, for what it is worth, is that the sensible approach would be to have a commission of academics, historians or those used to devilling around in archives to examine them because, increasingly, it is an archival matter rather than a matter of taking evidence.

In so far as we have the report before us, I am grateful to the Minister for it. I thank him for the time he took to present it to us and the comments he made, and look forward to a longer debate in the autumn.

Unfortunately, I have not had a chance to read the report because I was in Carlow last night at the general council and had other work to do today, but I made a contribution on the occasion when we last debated this matter. If he did not know by now, the Minister will realise how protective Senator Tom Fitzgerald is in his position as Whip, and rightly so. I commend the Senator.

The Minister outlined that his statement did not contain the final assumptions or interpretations which can be made of the report. He is not suggesting this is the end of the matter. My primary interest in this matter is due to the fact that I come from County Donegal and am a member of the party of which the late Deputy Neil Blaney was a member for many years. These events had a significant effect on all of us through the years. For years after them, many people in Fianna Fáil continued to support Neil Blaney. Only when it was obvious he was not going to return to the party, and other events took place, did we get on with our lives. We experienced difficult times, as did those in the Blaney camp. When we should have been working on behalf of our county, we divided. Neil Blaney stated he did not leave Fianna Fáil, but Fianna Fáil left him. This may be true to some extent.

As the Minister stated, over 30 years have gone by and many of those involved in these events are dead. He also stated that evidence of any conspiracy to pervert the course of justice would be unlikely to be recorded in documentary form. I accept that.

The Minister also said it was reasonable to doubt seriously whether a number of persons who held positions of responsibility would have engaged in a conspiracy. I presume he is referring to those in the Department. I find it difficult to believe all those involved in the Arms Trial, and the events which led to it, would have become involved in something they thought was illegal because of the effect it would have on them.

These events had particularly significant effects on Captain Kelly. I commend him for his research to try to get behind some of the information. I am not a lawyer and have never been involved in court cases, but a previous speaker noted that even though the entire statement was not included in the book of evidence, it was available at the trial. Was there no indication of any of these allegations at the time? I commend Captain Kelly for going behind the scenes. I also compliment the Minister on stating this is not the end of the matter and that when we have a better opportunity to examine the report, we can debate the issue again in the House.

I am disturbed by the fact that documents are missing. I bow to Senator Maurice Hayes's experience of working in the Civil Service and his assertion that files do go missing. I worked in the private sector for years. While files go missing, they turn up when one looks for them. Every effort must be made to find these files.

I would welcome the opportunity to debate this issue again in the House when we are in a better position to examine events. Perhaps some commission of historians could interview those involved who are still alive, examine the documents and report on the matter. This issue should not be left to fester on the back-burner. Both sides have a right to the truth. It may be difficult, but I hope we will get closer to what actually happened.

Top
Share