The matters raised in last night's broadcast occurred more than 30 years ago. Neither I nor any of the officials who deal with security matters were dealing with such matters in the Department at that time and, therefore, the primary information on which I can base my reply in that contained in the small number of files held in the Department on this matter.
These records do not cast any further light on the substance of the allegations made in last night's programme. I cannot substantiate or dismiss these allegations. In so far as my Department is concerned, the evidence on which any judgment would have to be based is already in the public domain. That documentation does not permit us to draw any definitive conclusions as to what happened more than 30 years ago and last night's programme reflected this fact.
The documents referred to in the programme fell, for the first time, for consideration for release to the National Archives under the 30 year rule at the end of last year. These records were examined by officials of my Department with a view to releasing as much material as possible, given the degree of interest expressed over the years in regard to these events.
In December last year, my Department delivered to the National Archives all material on the Arms Trial which was due for release under the 30 year rule. The National Archives Act, 1986, provides that all records over 30 years old should be transferred to the National Archives to be made available for public inspection unless they fall within very specific criteria for retention.
The Act provides that if a Department considers that making particular records available for inspection by the public would be contrary to the public interest; would or might constitute a breach of statutory duty or a breach of good faith on the ground that they contain information supplied in confidence; or would or might cause distress or danger to living persons on the ground that they contain information about individuals or would or might be likely to lead to an action for defamation, such records may be withheld from public view with the consent of the consenting officer, an official of the Department of the Taoiseach.
My Department took the view that it was in the public interest to ensure that as much material as possible entered the public domain. There was, however, a small amount of material which the Department felt fell within these grounds and was, therefore, not appropriate for release at this time. On these grounds a very small amount of material was obscured from the documents released to the archives and a small number of documents were withheld in their entirety. This material was withheld after careful examination and consideration as the intention was to release as much material as possible. When examining material with a view to releasing it, reference may only be had to the criteria I have outlined. No consideration can be given to the wider implications of releasing records. It is not within the competence of the Department to withhold records on the basis that it may raise questions about the events they concern. That would defeat the purpose of the National Archives Act.
None of the material withheld related to the allegations made in last night's broadcast. It dealt in the main with matters that were and are concerned with operational procedures of the Garda Síochána dealing with sensitive intelligence information.
While my Department still has to assess fully files which may fall to be released at the beginning of next year, my understanding is that my Department holds no further records that would shed any light on the substance of the allegations made in last night's programme. Having said that, I accept there are aspects of this case which, of their very nature, give rise for concern. I know the House will appreciate that it has not been possible in the limited time since the "Prime Time" broadcast last night to inquire fully into the matter. However, such limited inquiries as have been possible in that short time leads me to believe that more detailed inquiries are necessary.
In the circumstances, I would be grateful if the House would give me an opportunity to pursue further this matter on the understanding that I will make a further report to the House when I am in a position to do so.
