Joe Higgins
Ceist:1 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach when the high level group established by his Department in the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks last met; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1474/05]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
National Security Committee.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:2 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent work of the high level group established by his Department in the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attack in the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2604/05]
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:3 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if the high level group established by his Department in the aftermath of the 11 September terrorist attacks is still functioning; the current membership of same; when it last met; if he will report on its recent work; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3502/05]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:4 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if the high level group established within his Department in the wake of the 11 September 2001 atrocities in the United States has completed its work; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3696/05]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:5 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach when the last meeting of the high level group on terrorism under his Department last met; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4488/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.
The National Security Committee, which is chaired by the Secretary General to the Government, comprises representatives at the highest level of the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Defence and Foreign Affairs and of the Garda and Defence Forces.
The committee meets as required and will continue to do so. Given the security nature of its work, it is not appropriate to disclose information about the dates of individual meetings. However, I confirm that it met on five occasions in 2004. In addition, its members liaise on an ongoing basis to monitor developments that might have national security implications, in particular in the international arena.
The committee is concerned with ensuring that the Government and I are advised of high level security issues and the responses to them, but not involving operational security issues.
I have information from the relevant Minister that the Government forced the taxpayer to pay almost €2.5 million in subsidies to the Irish Aviation Authority to direct US military flights over Irish airspace in the course of the last year. Is this of concern to the high level group? Would any possible consequences of these flights be within the group's remit? Is the continued use of Shannon Airport at a high level by the United States military to facilitate the ongoing occupation of Iraq of concern? Does co-ordination take place between the high level group and the office of emergency planning and if so what is the nature of that co-operation? While I appreciate the office of emergency planning has a wider remit, we need to know whether the criticisms made about the readiness of the State for any kind of emergency have been addressed or whether we must depend on a few iodine tablets to more or less take care of any eventuality we might confront.
Is the Taoiseach aware that early in the new year west County Dublin experienced a mini-tornado, which fortunately was limited but still created frightful damage at the points where it touched down? The damage could have been much more serious and this is a serious point because of the potential nature of the damage and whether the emergency services are sufficiently resourced and capable of response.
Detailed questions including the Deputy's question about Shannon should be directed to the line Minister responsible. The Taoiseach may answer the other questions.
The office of emergency planning deals with the detailed day-to-day issues. Obviously if a policy issue or some vital information arises from the high level group, it would inform the Minister for Defence, who is on the committee, and he would inform his colleagues in the office of emergency planning which deals with the broader remit. There is that crossover of personnel involved in the security area. This committee would not be involved in the financing of the aviation authority. Policy decisions have been made on Shannon. It is not a matter for the day-to-day committee. We have made these facilities available for more than half a century in all kinds of circumstances. That is the policy we follow and it is not a day-to-day issue.
The committee looks at the ongoing information of an international security nature from Interpol or Europol concerning individuals involved in subversion or fund-raising for subversives internationally as well as information coming from the Garda or the Defence Forces on international or local matters. It is involved in the high level area of looking at new threats and new issues. On the Deputy's last question, there is always ongoing concern at all levels that our emergency response units in many ways are available for emergency and contingency arrangements. They can range from weather or climatic conditions, as mentioned by the Deputy, or the foot and mouth issue of a few years ago, which was a major issue that needed to be addressed with security co-operation, to international terrorism. An enormous range of issues concern the committee.
Revelations in February that 30 kg of plutonium had gone missing and was unaccounted for was a cause of great concern to those living in Britain and Ireland. Putting this down to an accounting discrepancy in a statement from BNFL is of no comfort to those affected, many of whom live in Ireland. In this regard, what contact has the emergency planning unit had with BNFL given that the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland expressed concern at this situation and that discrepancies in the extent of plutonium accounted for at Sellafield seem to be getting higher? Will the Taoiseach raise this——
Detailed questions should be addressed to the Minister responsible.
This is about emergency planning.
The Deputy is raising specific incidents which are the responsibility of the Minister. The Deputy should address a general question to the Taoiseach.
God forbid that anything should happen in this regard. I am sure the Ceann Comhairle is anxious that these questions are asked and that he recognises the public concern in this regard.
I agree. That is why the issue should be addressed in a structured manner to the line Minister.
I am not sure whether the Ceann Comhairle has "by-electionitis" but for several days he has been more than tetchy in this regard.
The Standing Orders are quite specific.
My question relates to emergency planning.
Detailed questions are a matter for the line Minister. That has always been the official position of this House.
Emergency planning always deals with details. It is not a matter of reassurances that we will be all right if something happens. I am talking to the Head of Government——
The Chair has no choice but to implement Standing Orders.
May I ask another question? The Taoiseach is aware that reports in February indicated that 30 kg of plutonium were missing from facilities——
That matter was raised in the House with the appropriate Minister. The Deputy has more ways than other Members of asking that question.
Will the Taoiseach raise this matter with the British Prime Minister?
That does not arise out of these questions.
It is a general question about emergency planning. If the Ceann Comhairle will permit, I have a second question. The air fleet is of considerable age, with half of the Air Corps fixed-wing aircraft more than 20 years old and some as old as 32 years, and more than half of the Air Corps helicopters 20 years old, with some in service for as many as 41 years. If an aircraft left some other country and was presumed to be on a terrorist mission to Ireland, have we capacity in the air to defend ourselves?
Again, the Deputy's question is more appropriate to the Minister for Defence.
The office of emergency planning which co-ordinates the work relevant to Deputy Kenny's question and uses the various emergency services in preparing contingency plans is under the aegis of the Minister for Defence. All the issues raised by the Deputy, including those relating to aviation, are the responsibility of that Minister. The high level group was set up after the events of September 2001 to examine anti-terrorist legislation and international co-operation in this area. It works on that basis and is not involved in the issues raised by the Deputy.
Whenever incidents take place at Sellafield and even in the absence of such, the Government and I continue to engage directly with the British Prime Minister on this matter. I do not want to comment on the detail of the security issues because there is an ongoing legal action under UNCLOS where these cases are being made. The Government continually raises these issues in support of that legal action.
What is the current assessment of the high level group concerning any international terrorist threat to this country? In particular, is information available on a threat from Islamic terrorists in this country? Has the high level group considered the position whereby a Boeing 737 is used by the CIA to traffic terrorists, whom it abducts in other states, through Shannon Airport? Will the Taoiseach, as Head of the Government, express a view on that matter?
While this committee discusses information on one or other group of terrorists there is no particular or specific threat to this country. There is always information about the movement of certain individuals associated with different organisations who at times move through this country. They are small in number compared to their numbers in most other European countries. There is ongoing monitoring of some individuals but there is no group or body working as is the case in a number of European countries where there is considerable concern regarding these issues, as I know from European Council meetings and as Deputy Rabbitte will be aware from his colleagues involved in various groups. We do not have those difficulties.
On issues concerning Shannon and security, the high level group does not have particular concerns. It monitors what happens in Shannon and other airports and in respect of other issues. It is an advisory group and it would relay concerns to me if it has any in this regard, but it has not done so.
Has the high level group addressed or discussed the range of measures introduced by the British Government under the guise of anti-terrorist legislation but which attack basic human rights? I am speaking specifically in regard to condemning people to detention within their own homes and the abolition of jury trial in many more cases. Is the Taoiseach concerned that the legislation the British Government introduced will apply to citizens in the north of Ireland? Has he raised with the British Prime Minister the grave concerns of people here about the prospects of the introduction of compulsory identity cards for citizens under the jurisdiction of Westminster?
That does not arise under these questions.
This legislation is being introduced as a direct result of the events of 11 September.
It does not arise under these questions.
It arises because this is what the British Government is doing allegedly in response to the events of 11 September and it will have a direct effect on Irish citizens on the island of Ireland. Has the Taoiseach addressed the matter of the introduction of compulsory ID cards? Irish citizens on this island should——
The Deputy should leave it at that. This question is outside the realm of the five questions before us which deal specifically with the high level group.
Yes, and I have asked if this issue has been addressed by the high level group and if the Taoiseach has followed through by raising it because unquestionably Irish citizens will strongly object to compulsorily bearing British identity cards. Will the Taoiseach be good enough to take on board this issue?
Will he also advise the House of his position on this issue following the commentary of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform that in the event of this legislation being introduced these measures would also have to be considered — because of the Border — and more than likely introduced on this side of the Border in terms of compulsory ID, to which I believe the overwhelming majority of Irish people would strongly object? If the Taoiseach has not done so, will he indicate if he would be prepared to address these matters with the British Prime Minister at the earliest opportunity?
I repeat that the national security committee meets periodically and its members stay in touch on an ongoing basis. The committee's role relates primarily to classic security issues, particularly international terrorism. That is the purpose for which its members come together, namely, to examine information from Europol and Interpol in a broad sense, which would not be dealt with in the office of emergency planning in the Department of Defence. That committee has a formal role in emergency planning. Co-ordination of emergency planning is a function of the Department of Defence, particularly of that unit we set up some years ago. The national security committee raises questions when it becomes aware of gaps or inadequacies in this country's emergency response preparations. Such preparations tend to relate to potential emergencies which could be caused by threats or acts of terrorism, biological or chemical attacks or nuclear discharges. The committee is concerned with issues which are not ordinary day-to-day issues. It does not have a role in operational matters.
The issues referred to by Deputy Ó Caoláin have been raised in other forums by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on foot of complaints received from the public. Such complaints regularly originate in Northern Ireland but sometimes originate in the Republic of Ireland. We raise the operation of new legislation and procedures on an ongoing basis. I am aware of how the procedures have been operated against Irish citizens over the past year or so. We have raised that issue on a number of occasions. The key point in this regard, in effect, is the identification and classification of particular citizens who are pulled out of the normal mill and discriminated against. We have raised that issue many times and made a number of specific complaints in that regard.
Has the Government received similar advice to that given to the UK Government by its senior scientific adviser who said that climate change is more of a threat than international terrorism and needs to be considered as such? Deputy Joe Higgins raised that issue in his initial contribution. Will the Taoiseach indicate whether he believes that the high level group on terrorism is sufficiently well informed to do its job? The media has reported that Israeli secret service agents were caught at the weekend in the act of planning to assassinate a Palestinian member of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade in Dublin. Is such information known to the high level group or does it learn about it in the Evening Herald like the rest of us?
Will the Taoiseach revise the Government's view to help the high level group to do its job? When ships like the HMS Illustrious, which carried nuclear weapons in the 1990s, are docked in Dublin Port, does the Government ensure that the group is allowed to instruct that searches of the ship can take place? I do not mean that it should be simply given a passing assurance that no nuclear weapons are on board. What is the policy of the Government in this regard? How well informed is the high level group, which needs to be taken seriously if it is to do its job properly? Similar questions can be asked about the Gulfstream jet and the Boeing 737 at Shannon Airport which were referred to earlier. Can such airplanes be searched? Does the Government accept the assurances of the American authorities——
The Deputy's questions would be more appropriate to a line Minister.
——that prisoners are not being illegally trafficked through this country to Guantanamo Bay, for example? Is the high level group in possession of the actual facts in this regard? Are we just depending on assurances?
I state for the third time that the high-level group is not involved in day-to-day issues. The relevant procedures involve the Department of Transport for civilian aircraft and the Department of Foreign Affairs for military aircraft. The authorities' procedures, which have been laid down for 50 years, are followed in such cases and are updated along the way.
International security intelligence has improved significantly in recent years as a consequence of the investment of resources in Europol and Interpol. Intelligence information about the many terrorist groups and bodies, most of which are quite small, is given to the high level group. If such information is new or significantly different to that accruing from the day-to-day activities of the Garda — the Defence Forces have a different remit — it is discussed by the Garda. If, in respect of any of the organisations or Departments, it believed there was a gap regarding what was happening, it would make a judgment and advise on it. It would say it believed the procedure is in place because of a threat or implied threat, or because of the implications or what it picked up internationally. It would say the procedure should be reframed if necessary. Obviously, the Government would give that advice to the relevant Minister, Department or the office of emergency planning. That is how the procedure would work. The group would, as the Deputy suggested, get most of its information from international sources of information on terrorism. The Garda is actively involved in the various committees. If it is not actively involved in them, it is given the security intelligence on these international issues.
Arising from the Taoiseach's reply, does he not agree that the usual procedures associated with the landing of a civilian aircraft at Shannon Airport are not being fulfilled? The aircraft in question, which has been described in the international and local press——
That is a question for the line Minister.
Is the Taoiseach concerned that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has said he would be appalled if Irish facilities were used to service an aircraft that was used for facilitating breaches against the international convention on torture? The Minister for Defence has said he cannot give an answer one way or the other. Will the Taoiseach undertake to investigate the report that Shannon Airport has been used to service an aircraft that was being used to ferry individuals to places of detention in Syria and Egypt where they may have been tortured?
That is a matter for the Minister for Transport.
It is not solely a matter of concern to the Irish press. Is the Taoiseach concerned about the reputation of the country internationally?
That does not arise out of these questions. I will take Deputy Costello's question.
A Cheann Comhairle——
I am taking the questions of Deputies Michael Higgins and Costello and the Taoiseach can answer both of them in a final reply.
The pertinent points raised by Deputy Michael Higgins deserve a reply in the normal way.
Absolutely.
The Taoiseach is the Head of Government and he has been asked if he will investigate these matters. The Ceann Comhairle ought to permit him to reply to——
The question was a lot longer than that.
If the Ceann Comhairle applied that approach there would be no question permitted other than what time the Taoiseach comes to work in the morning.
Or how he feels.
No, if the Deputies submit questions, within the terms of which there are——
Deputy Michael Higgins raised a number of matters——
The Taoiseach answers the questions directed to him but line Ministers' questions should be directed to a line Minister.
——and he asked if the Taoiseach, as Head of Government, would have these matters investigated.
Guantanamo Bay——
That is not new, and Deputy Rabbitte knows that.
Deputy Michael Higgins asked whether the Taoiseach, as Head of Government, will have a number of specified matters investigated.
That does not arise from these five questions. It can be addressed in another way.
What other way?
The Chair has a difficulty in that, at the rate at which we are proceeding, it will take at least ten weeks to get through the Taoiseach's questions.
With due respect to the Chair——
If the Taoiseach——
——they are our questions.
Deputy, the Chair is speaking. If the Chair were to allow questions on every single topic outside the questions submitted by Members, we would not even get through the questions in ten weeks.
With respect, a Cheann Comhairle, we are the Members.
I call on the Taoiseach.
We complain about several matters regarding which the Chair cannot provide redress and therefore the Chair should permit the Taoiseach to reply on the matters regarding which we do not complain.
Nobody is preventing the Taoiseach from replying to anything.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I gave a short reply. There are procedures laid down on prisoners and munitions, for example, as I have already stated. If these procedures are breached, of course we would be concerned about it. I do not have any particular issue with the point raised by the Deputy. He has asked a question and I will pass it on to be examined.
I thank the Taoiseach.
Last week we finalised Report Stage of the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Bill, which came about as a result of the attacks of 11 September 2001. Did the final two amendments made by the Minister come from the expert group? One was to set up a second Special Criminal Court and the other was to oblige service providers of fixed lines and mobile phones to retain data for three years.
I very much doubt that although I could not be certain they did not. I doubt the group went into that much detail.
Dublin-Monaghan Bombings.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:6 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the further inquiries being undertaken by Mr. Justice Barron; the further action to be taken by his Department on foot of reports already issued; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2403/05]
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:7 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach when he expects to receive reports from Mr. Justice Barron on the outstanding areas within his remit; the action he has taken arising from the reports already submitted by Mr. Justice Barron; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3503/05]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:8 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he has raised the issue of the British Government’s failure to co-operate with the Barron inquiry into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings in his recent meetings with the British Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3561/05]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:9 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the commission of inquiry headed by Mr. Justice Barron; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4637/05]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:10 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the action he has taken on reports received from Mr. Justice Barron; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6514/05]
Tony Gregory
Ceist:11 Mr. Gregory asked the Taoiseach his views on the failure of the British Government to co-operate in any meaningful way with the Barron inquiry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7826/05]
I propose to take questions Nos. 6 to 11, inclusive, together.
I thank the members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for their work in preparing the final report on Mr. Justice Barron's report into the Dublin bombings of 1972 and 1973, which has been published. I am grateful to the sub-committee for the timely way in which it prepared its report and for providing the bereaved families with an opportunity to make submissions to the sub-committee and to appear before it.
The Government will consider the recommendations of the joint committee in due course. I received a letter from the Prime Minister Mr. Blair regarding the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of 1974 and the Dublin bombings of 1972 and 1973, which I passed to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, in view of the committee's deliberations on Mr. Justice Barron's report.
In that letter dated 10 January 2005, the Prime Minister said:
The Government welcomed the establishment of the Barron inquiry and cooperated with it as fully as possible, conducting a thorough search of all government records and, consistent with its responsibilities for protecting national security and the lives of individuals, ensuring that all potentially relevant information that was uncovered, including intelligence information, was shared with the investigation.
The Government notes Mr Justice Barron's conclusions that, while allegations of collusion between British security forces and the perpetrators of the bombing were not fanciful, he had not seen any evidence to corroborate it and it could not be inferred, even as a probability.
In the circumstances, the Government concludes that no further benefit to the public interest would accrue from the establishment of an inquiry, within the United Kingdom, to re-examine these allegations.
On the matter of British cooperation with Justice Barron's extended inquiry into the Dublin bombings of 1972 and 1973, it was our judgement at the time of Justice Barron's approach that, given our experience of the scale of the task in identifying relevant material in the Dublin-Monaghan and Dundalk bombings, it would not be possible to conduct another major search through our records for material relating to the 1972/73 bombings within the timescale of the inquiry.
Notwithstanding this response, I would like to see a mechanism that would allow for independent scrutiny and assessment of material and files held by the British authorities. I reiterated this view in London at my meeting with the Prime Minister Mr. Blair on 1 February and I raised the matter again at my meeting with the Prime Minister on Thursday last.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, also raised the issue of British co-operation with inquiries in this jurisdiction with the Secretary of State Mr. Murphy at last week's meeting of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference and the Secretary of State said that a response would be forthcoming to the letter he received from the Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights.
I have received Mr. Justice Barron's report on the murder of Seamus Ludlow and I expect that, following necessary consideration, the report will be forwarded to the Oireachtas in the coming weeks. My Department is making the necessary arrangements for the establishment of the commission of investigation into matters relating to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of 1974 and I expect these to be finalised and the commission established in the coming weeks.
I understand that Mr. Justice Barron expects to complete his report on the Dundalk bombing of December 1975 and the Castleblaney bombing of 1976 and other incidents in April.
Does the Taoiseach recall that the final report of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, on Mr. Justice Barron's inquiry into the Dublin-Monaghan bombings of 1974, recommended that a public tribunal of inquiry be established in Northern Ireland and-or Britain? This report states that this represents the best opportunity for success.
The Taoiseach quoted a response from the Prime Minister. Is that the response sent on 10 January?
Yes.
I thank the Taoiseach for that. Does the Taoiseach agree that response represents a point blank refusal on the part of the British Prime Minister and government to co-operate with the calls of the joint committee? When the Taoiseach said he raised these matters with the British Prime Minister since 10 January, did he reply in writing to Prime Minister Blair's letter of 10 January and in what terms? Has he reflected either in writing or orally on the fact that the joint Oireachtas committee deplores the fact that there has been no co-operation from the British side with Justice Barron's inquiry and with the deliberations of the committee? On the commission of investigation into the Garda handling of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings in 1974, will the Taoiseach widen the terms of reference of same to cover the Garda handling of bombings in 1972 and 1973, including the Crinnion, Wyman and Littlejohn cases, as recommended by the committee? Has the Taoiseach considered the recommendation of the committee that if there is continual British refusal to establish an inquiry, the Irish Government should take a case to the European Court of Human Rights? I ask him to do that.
The Deputy asked a number of questions. On the 1974 bombings, we again took up that issue directly with the British Prime Minister, restating our previous position. That was done in my original letter of 17 November, to which the Prime Minister replied on 10 January, and again we put our position and made a statement to him on 1 February. I raised the matter last week.
Was that in writing?
Yes, we provided a report by hand——
Is the Taoiseach sure of the terms?
Deputy Ó Caoláin should allow the Taoiseach to answer his question. Six Members have submitted questions on the matter.
The Minister, Deputy Ahern, made those points again last week at the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. The terms have not changed since 17 November. We are still making the same points.
On the second question, everyone felt that the best way to deal with the issue was to get a Cory-type investigation, an investigation that emanated from the Weston Park talks. It was felt that kind of investigation, based in Northern Ireland, would be the best way to deal with the issue from the point of view of being able to get witnesses, papers and so on. As the Deputy said, the British do not feel the same on that matter. We said that we would set up a committee of investigation to deal with the issues within our domain. As I said in my reply, that matter must come before the House formally. Work on the membership and chairmanship of the committee is well advanced and the matter will come before the House in due course.
If we do not make progress with the British Government and if it does not move on these issues, which appears likely — we have not given up yet — we must decide on whether to go to the European Court of Justice. We have not considered that option, but we will do so if we cannot get the type of investigation we want.
The Deputy's last question referred to extending the terms of the commission of inquiry to cover the Littlejohn and other cases. That issue is being examined. The original joint Oireachtas committee which examined the Barron report on the 1974 bombings recommended the establishment of a commission of inquiry, to which we agreed. It asked us to examine the issues in this jurisdiction, including the specific aspects of the Garda investigation at the time, the reason the investigation wound up so quickly and the Garda did not follow up on specific leads, and information relating to the movements of the white van, a man who stayed in the Four Courts Hotel and the alleged sighting in Dublin of a British army corporal. These will all be investigated by the commission. The issue of the missing documentation, which has been raised by Deputy Costello, will also form part of the investigation. Documentation that is unaccounted for, explanations for the missing documentation, where the missing documentation has been located and if the systems currently in place are adequate to prevent a recurrence will all be investigated. We have agreed with this recommendation and arrangements are being made.
We are also looking at including in that, although we have not finally decided, the issue of the missing Clones files, the details of the Crinnion, Wyman and Littlejohn brothers case and the question of whether forensic evidence was properly followed up. It seems sensible to me but we have not formally made a decision that they should all be in the one committee of investigation because they are all outstanding issues from the report. That is the updated position.
When will Mr. Justice Barron complete his remit and finalise his reports? The Garda Commissioner gave a commitment to the Oireachtas committee when it dealt with this matter that he would assist the families in terms of taking them through the investigation files of the victims in this State. Has a Garda officer been appointed for that purpose?
Is the Taoiseach aware that a multi-million pound fund has been announced today in Northern Ireland with a view to investigating unsolved murders in that jurisdiction and that it is envisaged it will involve bringing in policemen from outside the state? Does the Taoiseach see any merit in establishing a similar fund in this jurisdiction to investigate these and other unsolved murders by paramilitary organisations from whatever side they come?
Mr. Justice Barron has two outstanding issues to complete in his work — the bombings in Castleblayney and Dundalk — and he will complete them in April. That will be the end of his work.
The answer to the question on the Garda Commissioner is "Yes" and I welcome the statement he made when he addressed this issue. The Garda has now established liaison arrangements with victims and those have improved a great deal from what they were, as we know from what we heard in the committee. A member of the force is available at Garda Headquarters to talk to families and this is a significant movement from the previous situation.
The proposal in Northern Ireland to appoint a victims commissioner is an interesting development and we are examining the consultation paper provided. It details the proposed role and responsibility of the commissioner. When Ken Bloomfield and John Wilson were working on this, we had set up a fund and argued that a similar position would be helpful in Northern Ireland. At that time we argued that any new initiative should be centred on victims and their families. At the time, John Wilson was very strong that it was what it should be about and that it should be directed to help the victims in a humane way when dealing with some of the welfare issues. We have made progress in recent years in addressing the needs of victims North and South. The memorial fund in Northern Ireland and the remembrance fund commission in this jurisdiction are up and running and I pay tribute to the work of those involved, including Ken Bloomfield and John Wilson, in setting it up. The Secretary of State announced plans last week, to which Deputy Rabbitte referred, for a broadly based consultation and involvement with individuals, victims groups and communities. I welcome these consultations to recognise the importance of cross-community support and the involvement for any future process.
We had a debate in 1997 and 1998, before and after the Good Friday Agreement, on whether we should have a truth commission. At that stage all sides had agreed that it was not the way to go. Deputy Sargent has continually raised this issue in recent years and I have given those views.
It is well worth looking at these proposals because, as Deputy Rabbitte is aware, an endless number of groups have been formed which are concerned with various atrocities. As time passes, instead of the healing process setting in, bitterness arises. I can understand that having met numerous groups of families. The more they see one case getting prominence, the more they feel they have not served their families' interest. I understand that and say it in the most respectful way because every death and atrocity from whatever side or quarter is enormous. If we were to find a way to deal with all these, cases we would still be here talking about them in 100 years' time. I do not think anybody wants that, not least the families.
It is useful to see if there is some way that people can lodge their submissions in these cases. I am certainly open to that; otherwise we will never get closure on issues. I do not know what is the best way to do it. The South African way proved to be an effective short means, but I do not know if it solved the problems for people. It certainly seems to have done so, but perhaps somebody will correct me some years from now and say that has not been the experience.
Something must happen. I have made the point to the Secretary of State, Paul Murphy, on a number of occasions and to the Northern Ireland Office that we must find some process. It is not a financial issue but one in which the fact that people know in their heart that something was never investigated means that it goes on to create an irritant. Like all these issues, when one looks at them in hindsight it is easy to ask how investigations could have closed so quickly or, in many cases, how investigations never started due to the sheer pressure of cases at the time. That is an issue we must examine and we are engaged in looking at the consultation paper.
This is injury time.
It is now 3.20 p.m. The Chair has no——
The Ceann Comhairle should have given the Taoiseach a nod.
The Chair has no control over replies.