Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:1 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach his Department’s legislative priorities for the remainder of the 29th Dáil; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28242/06]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Legislative Programme.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:2 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach his Department’s legislative programme for the current Dáil session; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28322/06]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:3 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach his legislative priorities for the current Dáil session. [29212/06]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:4 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach his Department’s legislative priorities for the remainder of the 29th Dáil; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30666/06]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:5 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach his Department’s legislative responsibilities for the remainder of the 29th Dáil; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30785/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.
My Department has one item of legislation on the A list, the statute law revision Bill, which will be published this session. The Bill will continue the process of modernising the Statute Book by repealing over 3,000 ancient statutes dating from between 1200 and 6 December 1922 that are now redundant or obsolete. The Bill will also positively retain in the region of 1,350 statutes from the same period, as they are not proposed for repeal at present. Ultimately, it is the intention that all legislation predating the foundation of the State should be repealed. Where we need to keep the provisions of any pre-1922 legislation, it is intended that they will be re-enacted in a more modern form.
Are we likely to see any legislation to prepare for a referendum between now and the general election?
There are two issues, one of which concerns Northern Ireland. As I stated last week on the Order of Business, that appears more likely to go to an election than a referendum. It is still in abeyance and will be until the legislation is finalised in two weeks' time.
On the second issue, the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, will be involved in discussions with the parties regarding the rights of children under the Constitution.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. He assured us on a number of occasions that there would not be a referendum. What brought about the change of heart?
When asked questions of this nature, I always state that nothing is ever agreed until the Cabinet is prepared to make a decision. It will not have the status of agreement until then.
On the question of children, in the summer, the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, informed the UN that we were examining the possibility of legislative change. That was on the cards.
Does the Taoiseach envisage that legislation will be required, on foot of the St. Andrews Agreement or, in the worst case scenario, as a result of a need to move to the so-called plan B, in the context of the two Governments' role in bringing forward greater all-Ireland integration? If such legislation falls under the remit of other Departments, will the Taoiseach's Department have a co-ordinating role in respect of it?
Will the further statute law revision Bill being worked on in the Taoiseach's Department, which is a follow up to the 2005 Act, complete the process or will further legislation be required in respect of other obsolete Acts that may not be included in the tranche currently under consideration?
As previously stated in respect of the St. Andrews Agreement, the Attorney General wishes to wait to examine the legislation, when it emerges in its final form, before declaring his position on constitutional and other issues. The deadline is set for two weeks from Friday next, so there should be something shortly thereafter. Legislative issues could well arise but they will probably not be dealt with by my Department. However, I will have a co-ordinating role in respect of them. We will wait and see what emerges.
On the statute law revision Bill, there have already been four restatements of legislation in the areas of consumer law, defence, tourist traffic and succession. Earlier in the year, the Government gave approval for the Law Reform Commission to commence a programme of restatement and established the restatement steering group, which is made up of representatives of the commission and the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Council and which is chaired by my Department. In May, we announced a public consultation process to obtain the views of members of the public on areas in which the law should be restated, as a priority. There will, therefore, be restatement in other areas. The consultation process to which I refer has concluded and the restatement steering group will consider the submissions it has received and will soon agree rolling out a programme of further restatements.
While the group will have amended various statutes, deleted those from pre-1922 that are redundant or listed in a positive fashion the 1,350 to which I referred earlier, it believes that the latter should be transformed, on a restatement basis, into more modern legislation. It is not that these Acts are redundant — they are not — but many of them are written in old language and are not easily available. Many of them are only available in bound volumes.
It makes much more sense that over a period of time — the changes cannot be made simultaneously — they would be updated, on a restatement basis, in more modern legislation. That process has already started. I do not know how many years it would take but, obviously, whenever a particular aspect of the law is touched on, any of these old Acts should be restated in modern legislation. That is the way they hope to update it.
I wish to ask the Taoiseach a question on his commitment, or promise, to bring forward legislation on the Kenny report. I am not sure which Department he envisages that relates to but, as he made the promise, I will ask him to adjudicate on that aspect and perhaps give us more information on when it might become a reality.
I appreciate the level of latitude the Ceann Comhairle has afforded on this question because we are dealing procedurally with legislation which predates the Act of Union, technically going back to the days of flogging and slavery, and of hanging, drawing and quartering people.
The report came after the Act of Union.
We are going right back to the Dark Ages.
Some want to go back again.
That did not give any protection anyway.
In Iraq, it might be right up to date. I appreciate the Ceann Comhairle's latitude. It indicates a reality.
Ask a simple question and allow the Taoiseach to answer.
Does the Taoiseach expect any recommendations on the legislation, which we are dealing with in order, that he will find relevant to modern legislation?
Is the Deputy referring to the 1,350 Acts?
Does he expect to learn anything from them or is he just abolishing them?
The rest are abolished, except for the 1,350 Acts.
The Brehon laws could be in force.
Parts of them could still be in there. Some of the Acts date back to 1200.
The other matter, not the full process of the Kenny report but the land zoning issue, is being looked at in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
It needs more than being looked at.
The Bill is being drafted.
I was interested in the Taoiseach's comment on the referendum that he proposed at the weekend, where some of his Ministers obviously got a little carried away, including my good friend, the Minister, Deputy Roche, who is beside him and who went into orbit like a cloud of CO2 emissions.
The Taoiseach stated that the comment he made about a proposed referendum on children has no status other than comment until the Cabinet agrees it. There are not many members of the Cabinet who will disagree with the Taoiseach and the vast majority of political representatives accept the principle of what is involved. However, he has pre-empted the committee, which has not yet reported on this, although it produced a 90-page report today. Is it his judgment that the possibility of a referendum on the Northern Ireland question is receding because Dr. Paisley may want an election immediately after the St. Andrew's business is concluded successfully?
Does he believe that such a referendum might not take place and that there would be a referendum on an agreed wording in respect of the protection of children's rights, on which at least there would be significant support, some time before a general election — which would be followed by a divisive campaign on how the country should be run? Perhaps that is the Taoiseach's assertion of good politics. Why did he choose to announce that a referendum would be likely to take place, given that the committee has not even reported on the matter and the Minister appointed has not yet consulted with any Opposition personnel on whatever proposed wording might exist? Second, in the event of referenda taking place, we have raised on a number of occasions the issue of consideration being given to recognition in the Constitution of the official Irish sign language, which is different from sign language in England. A small but significant number of people use it and it is important to them that it should be considered as well.
Third — I doubt the Taoiseach will pre-empt the report in this case — the Cabinet has received back from committee the report dealing with assisted human reproduction. Is he likely to make a statement on having an adjudication on that? When will the Cabinet consider that report, which was referred back to it by the committee some time ago?
I wish to clarify two issues. Deputy Rabbitte asked why I did not say on previous occasions that that issue was pending and I replied that the Cabinet had not cleared it. However, the Cabinet has done so now. Second, it is not pre-empting the committee, which is examining the criminal law aspects. The suggestion, which is not just mine as it has been uttered on other occasions over the past 14 years, is this is a far broader issue, which should examine maltreatment, the care of children, the treatment of children within the homes and a range of other issues. I said I would say nothing on the committee until it had reported.
On the substantive issue, to the best of my knowledge, the first time this came up was when Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness raised it in the Kilkenny case. Subsequently, the Constitution review group, which reported in 1996, gave us guidelines on what we should do. The issue then came up in the two reports in Europe and the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, has raised it a number of times over the past two or three years, including this year, when he said we would deal with that aspect.
I was careful the other day not to pre-empt the House or other interested parties because we must come to an agreed wording, which is not simple. I launched the report of the group that examined this on behalf of the Oireachtas last January. I stayed there some hours that night, as perhaps did the Deputy, because all the interested groups were present. There are plenty of different, diverging views on this issue and, therefore, it will not automatically be easy to agree the wording. However, I have asked the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, to work on consultation about the wording immediately. I do not want to comment on a date because we must get the agreed wording first.
Official Engagements.
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:6 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet sub-committee on drugs and social inclusion last met; and when the next meeting is scheduled. [28244/06]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:7 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number of meetings scheduled for the Cabinet sub-committee on drugs and social inclusion for the remainder of 2006. [28319/06]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:8 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet sub-committee on drugs and social inclusion last met. [29231/06]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:9 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet sub-committee on drugs and social inclusion last met; and when the next meeting will take place. [30654/06]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:10 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet sub-committee on drugs and social inclusion last met; and when the sub-committee will hold its next meeting.. [30786/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 10, inclusive, together.
The Cabinet committee on social inclusion and children last met on 11 October 2006. The Cabinet committee will have its next meeting on 15 November 2006, with a further meeting scheduled in December. As I have outlined to the House on a number of occasions, Cabinet committees are an integral part of the Cabinet process. Questions as to the business conducted at Cabinet or Cabinet committee meetings have never been allowed in the House on the grounds that they are internal to Government. The reasons for this approach are founded on sound policy principles and the need to avoid infringing the constitutional protection of Cabinet confidentiality.
The most recent CSO figures for the third quarter showed a huge increase in the number of drug offences recorded. Drug dealing offences were up by 25%——
Has the Deputy an appropriate question arising out of these questions, which are purely statistical?
I do, Sir.
The Deputy's question asks when the sub-committee last met and when the next meeting will take place.
The Taoiseach told me that it met on 11 October and will next meet on 15 November. What supplementary question does the Ceann Comhairle suggest I ask?
Previously, the Chair suggested that these questions should be submitted for written answer. The Chair is in a difficult position because, while the Deputy might like more meetings, no supplementary questions arise.
The Ceann Comhairle is not responsible for the Taoiseach's answer.
Regarding this serious matter, is the Taoiseach prepared to say whether new measures are likely to be——
As the Deputy knows, these committees are clearly an integral part of the Cabinet process. They are confidential and what is discussed therein is not appropriate to these questions, which are in accordance with Standing Orders. We cannot have a debate on the issue, but there is nothing to stop the Deputy tabling questions to the line Minister.
Recently in my home village, €15 million in——
The Deputy is going outside Standing Orders.
I am not.
I would prefer if the Deputy did not continue to try to circumvent what has been a rule of the Chair in this House for as long as I can remember.
There is no such circumvention. One needs an answer.
I will put the question another way. Does the Taoiseach agree that the Cabinet sub-committee on drugs and social inclusion should meet earlier than 15 November having regard to the seizure of drugs——
Hear, hear.
——with a value of €15 million in Clondalkin and to the alarming fact that the seizure seems to have had no impact on the availability of heroin and other drugs in this city?
The Deputy has made his point.
In the context of the CSO figures on the worsening drug situation, does the Taoiseach consider that there is a compelling case to bring forward the date of the meeting?
I will abide by the Ceann Comhairle's ruling in these questions. I will bring the Deputy's question to the attention of the sub-committee. For the information of the House, the details of the sub-committee's operations may be asked of the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern.
Regarding the social inclusion dimension of the matter, have specific proposals relating to money lenders been made by the Minister for Social and Family Affairs?
Those sub-committees are confidential. If the Deputy has a question to ask the line Minister, he should submit it. This matter does not arise out of these questions.
If we could——
As my predecessors and I have pointed out numerous times, these questions should be submitted for written answers because they do not allow for debate.
The Ceann Comhairle must accept that if we are to live within the strictures as he interprets them, there is no point in attending the House.
The Deputy does not live within strictures interpreted by me, he lives within the strictures of the questions. Cabinet confidentiality applies to the sub-committees, which is a constitutional requirement and has nothing to do with the Chair. The Chair is not determining the strictures.
The Ceann Comhairle seems to be ruling that the answer to the question is that the Cabinet sub-committee met on 11 October and will next meet on 15 November and no more. We can all go home.
That was the question asked by the Deputy and that is the reason I suggest a written question be tabled. I do not see the sense in having the Chair intervene in oral questions so often every day.
It wastes the Taoiseach's time.
The Ceann Comhairle must accept that he must leave the Opposition with some little prerogative to table whatever question we believe——
The Chair cannot circumvent precedent. It is a requirement of the Chair to ensure that we do not breach Cabinet confidentiality in answering these questions. There are other ways for the Deputy to raise these questions with the line Minister.
That we cannot raise a generic question and hang it on the peg of the question as phrased is absurd and overly restrictive, and makes a nonsense of Taoiseach's questions.
That is one point of view. If the Deputy wishes to introduce a Standing Order to change the position, the Chair will be delighted to implement it.
We face the obstacle course again. Is the Taoiseach in a position, under these rules, to remind us of the membership of the Cabinet sub-committee on drugs and social inclusion? Given the Chair's ruling on this matter and focusing on the social inclusion aspect of the sub-committee's remit, has the need to integrate the new communities in Ireland, which make a valuable contribution on a raft of levels, been a focus of previous meetings or will it be so in the schedule of meetings of the sub-committee?
The sub-committee is made up of the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Minister for Education and Science, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, the Minister for Finance, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Minister for Health and Children and the Minister for Social and Family Affairs. The meetings are also attended by the Minister of State with special responsibility for children, the Minister of State with special responsibility for housing and urban renewal and for drugs strategy and community affairs, the Minister of State with special responsibility for equality, including disability issues, and the Minister of State with special responsibility for labour affairs, including training.
Under the rulings, any of these questions may be asked but they must be put to the line Minister involved. That is not my ruling.
Given that the questions request dates, will the Taoiseach say whether it is or has been considered necessary to convene the Cabinet sub-committee on drugs and social inclusion on an emergency basis? I will make a point in the context of my request for a date. Last night there was an apparent bomb explosion outside a house in Finglas and a pipe bomb attack in Ridgewood in Swords in my constituency. If, as is the suspicion, drugs were involved, should the door not be left open for the sub-committee to meet as the need arises to re-evaluate its response or the Garda response? Can social inclusion, in this case, mean the fear of children being included in such atrocities, which are very often drug-related?
Day-to-day operational issues relating to drugs are dealt with by the Garda Síochána. The Ministers and the sub-committee are involved in co-ordinating various policy issues. The Deputy referred to day-to-day issues, which are dealt with by the Garda Commissioner or the members of the dedicated drugs task force, working with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. They are dealt with on a routine basis, seven days a week every week. Policy issues are discussed in detail by the sub-committee, which meets normally on a monthly basis.
This is hardly normal activity.
I understand the regional drug groups received €500,000 each for their work. When the sub-committee next meets, on the date announced by the Taoiseach, will it discuss reports from the different regional groups as to their capacity to deal with tip-offs? I understand a major supply of ecstasy tablets——
That is outside the terms of the questions. I ruled Deputy Rabbitte out of order and, in fairness, we must be consistent.
Everything is out of order today. I have tabled a number of questions to the relevant line Ministers on the matters in question and have received answers. Does the serious growth in the illegal drug trade throughout the country now warrant the sub-committee meeting on a more regular basis? Can a report be made available to the sub-committee indicating the seriousness of the situation and making recommendations to line Ministers as to what should be done to combat a situation that is getting out of control?
The drugs issue is not a monthly but a daily issue and meetings are always going on with the regional groups outside of the committee structures. The purpose of the meeting is to co-ordinate activity across Departments and agencies on the policy or day to day issues of drugs and deal with questions put down for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform or the Minister of State responsible for dealing with the main drugs issue.
It does not look like that.
Commissions of Inquiry.
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:11 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the action he intends to take arising from the Report of Mr. Justice Barron into the Dundalk bombing; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28248/06]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:12 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he has received the latest report from Mr. Justice Barron; the action to be taken in view of this report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28460/06]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:13 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he has received the latest report from Mr. Justice Barron; the actions to be taken in view of same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30787/06]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:14 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the actions he will take on the basis of Mr. Justice Barron’s report on the Dundalk bombing; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34120/06]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:15 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the actions he will take following the latest report from Mr. Justice Barron. [35924/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11 to 15, inclusive, together.
As Deputies know, I answered extensive questions in the House the week before last on the Commission of Investigation into the Dublin and Monaghan Bombings which is chaired by Mr. Paddy MacEntee SC. As I indicated then, I have now granted a further extension to Mr. MacEntee until 11 December. I published his latest interim report last week. While Mr. MacEntee's work is separate and independent, it stems from the first report of Mr. Justice Barron and it is therefore appropriate that I mention these exchanges in the context of today's questions.
I referred Mr. Justice Barron's final report on the bombing of Kay's Tavern in Dundalk in 1976, and other loyalist paramilitary attacks from that period, to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights prior to the end of the last Dáil session. The committee published the report upon receipt. The main focus of the report is the bombing of Kay's Tavern in Dundalk in 1976. Mr. Hugh Watters, aged 60, and Mr. Jack Rooney, aged 62, were both killed in the attack.
The report also makes reference to other attacks by loyalist paramilitaries around that time which the judge deems relevant in order to provide a broader context for his findings. These include the Castleblayney bombs, the Dublin Airport bomb and other bombings in the State. It also includes a number of attacks in Northern Ireland, including the attack on the Miami Showband, the attack on the Rock Bar, Keady, the attack on Donnelly's Bar, Silverbridge, attacks on the Reavey and O'Dowd families in south Armagh and the murders of Sean Farmer and Colm McCartney. It also refers to an explosion and murder at Barronrath Bridge, County Kildare.
I understand the committee held three days of public hearings, ending on 4 October, with interested persons, and is due to send its final report to both Houses by the deadline of 17 November. This final report completes the work of the Independent Commission of Inquiry which was first led by the late Mr. Justice Hamilton and subsequently by Mr. Justice Barron. I am very grateful for their work in trying to help bring justice to the victims of several horrific atrocities.
All of Mr. Justice Barron's reports have now been referred to the joint committee, which has in turn done a commendable job in hearing the evidence, not least of the bereaved, and in reporting promptly and with clear recommendations.
We have acted on the recommendations of the Oireachtas committee to date. On matters that are entirely within the remit of the Government or public bodies within the State, we established the commission of investigation into the 1974 bombings under Mr Paddy MacEntee SC. When that work is complete, we will address the recommendations from the second and third reports, which relate to the 1972 and 1973 bombings and the Ludlow murder. We will consider the recommendations of the report on the bombing of Kay's Tavern when the committee has made its final report.
Where appropriate, action has already been taken by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Garda to recognise and address shortcomings that were identified in the reports to date.
With regard to some very important issues, the co-operation of the British authorities is essential and the Oireachtas committee has recognised this. The Government has been using all appropriate means in its efforts to ensure that co-operation. I have raised the matter with Prime Minister Blair on a number of occasions and contacts with the British Government are ongoing.
I pay tribute to the quality of the work of Mr. Justice Barron. He deserves enormous credit for the detailed report he has published on this occasion. It is in keeping with the painstaking manner in which he has discharged his obligations in terms of the prior reports referred to by the Taoiseach. We ought to consider some way we could appropriately mark his contribution. It has attracted surprisingly little scrutiny outside of the Oireachtas.
I am sure the Taoiseach agrees Mr. Justice Barron's findings are very grave, namely, that a loyalist group based somewhere in mid-Ulster was most likely responsible for this particular outrage, that there is strong circumstantial evidence of collusion with the security forces, that the Garda investigation was inadequate in many respects and that little consideration has ever been shown for the families directly involved. The Taoiseach made a passing reference to the lack of co-operation from the British authorities. Now that we have this report and since its receipt in July has he raised the matter with the British Prime Minister? Does the Taoiseach consider that raising the matter with the British Prime Minister is a waste of time?
Nobody has ever been held responsible for atrocities that were carried out in this jurisdiction, it is suspected, by loyalist paramilitaries. A historic inquiries team has been established in Northern Ireland to open these murder cases where nobody was ever charged. Perhaps the time has come in this jurisdiction for the Government to consider the establishment of a similar team that would reopen old cases which involve loyalist and republican paramilitaries where nobody was charged.
The Deputy has raised a number of points. I agree with him that the reports are excellent. We have had four comprehensive reports ranging from the early work of the late Mr. Justice Liam Hamilton to the work in recent years which has been painstakingly carried out, and has involved huge detail, by Mr. Justice Barron. Mr. Justice Barron who has worked within offices of my Department for many years worked diligently and put in a huge effort on this work. He has co-ordinated his work in so far as it has been possible for us to open up various contacts with the British, to Downing Street, the Secretary of State and the NIO, and to others in the security force to receive assistance. If Mr. Justice Barron was here he would say that at best that has been patchy.
For that reason we have continued on his work and recommendations on a number of fronts. We established the Commission of Investigation into the Dublin-Monaghan bombings in 1974 under Mr. Patrick MacEntee. Following much effort and work, we have opened up new information for him with the security forces, which he has diligently followed during the past 18 months or so. As I mentioned previously, there are legal aspects about what he can and cannot do, but that matter is under discussion. He has now completed his investigative and preparatory work and will report on it.
Some issues in the second and third reports are being examined. The Oireachtas joint committee recommends that the Government consider extending the terms of reference of the order establishing the commission of investigation to include some of these issues. On completion of Mr. MacEntee's final report we intend to return to those issues. As I said previously, Mr. MacEntee has made it clear he does not want to engage in that exercise. If we follow that through for the 1972 and 1973 bombings, we will have to get another person to work on it. In regard to the recommendations made in the report on the murder of Seamus Ludlow, some of these are similar to recommendations in a previous report. We would be in a better position to review and address all these recommendations when the current commission of investigation has completed its work. Specific recommendations from the Ludlow report have already been acted on and, with regard to the point made by Deputy Rabbitte on following up cases, the Garda has established a unit to work on some of the historical cases. It has used all the mechanisms available to it to liaise with the PSNI in respect of the investigation into the murder of Seamus Ludlow.
The Garda Commissioner has appointed a dedicated team of gardaí to re-examine the case in a proactive manner and to determine whether there is any possibility of bringing any or all of the four suspects to justice. In that particular case, it is clear that Mr. Justice Barron has pinpointed who he believes were responsible for the murder. I have been advised by the Garda authorities that, as recommended by the Oireachtas joint committee, the reinvestigation of the murder of Seamus Ludlow is at an advanced stage and is under the direction of a Garda superintendent. Liaison will be established and maintained with the historical inquiries team in Northern Ireland and the family has been kept fully informed of the investigations. Officials of my Department have also been following up cases and met representatives of the Miami Showband families and Justice for the Forgotten. I have also met a number of these groups.
These reports should be debated in the House. The appropriate time to do that, subject to the Oireachtas committee's opinion, is probably when it completes its work on the fourth report. I understand it will then put together its conclusions in respect of the four reports. That would be an appropriate time, although we could debate it at an earlier stage if that is considered necessary.
Mr. Justice Barron has highlighted and brought to a detailed position what went on during those times in respect of all the cases he investigated. He has brought to light as much evidence as he was able to collect from all the records available in official and Garda files, as well as from other files he acquired both inside and outside the State. While it perhaps does not solve everything, we are in a much better position now than we were when we set about this task several years ago.
A number of other cases were also examined but it would take me a long time to mention them all. In approximately 20 cases, we now have significant details regarding evidence which we previously did not have. It is just a historical question at this stage because of the circumstances of the time and the nature of the Garda investigations of these cases. I have discussed this at length with the families and, while they always ask me to explain it, there is not much point trying to explain more than 30 years later.
The reality, which some of the families can never understand, is that three months after the Dublin-Monaghan bombings, which represented the biggest single atrocity of the Troubles until the Omagh atrocity in 1998, the official files closed. There is no point making criticisms or going on about it because that is what happened and I have faithfully, in countless meetings with the relatives, explained the position. They were different times, with different circumstances and difficulties. The families do not understand that and believe it was because of collusion and a cover-up. I think it was just the way it was in those days. Although 30 people were killed and more than 100 were injured, the entire investigation ceased after three months. However, that is what happened.
The Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and I have spent long hours trying to explain this to the families. They interpret the matter differently. I do not think there was any malice on our part; it just reflected the circumstances of the time. All we can do now is investigate the cases as completely as possible.
That concludes Taoiseach's questions.
I ask the Taoiseach——
Sorry, Deputy, it is 3.15 p.m. and there are other Deputies who cannot be facilitated.