Chairman: We have received and read the submission. Time is passing and we would appreciate it if Ms Urwin could summarise.

Ms Urwin: I will try to wrap up. I am almost finished. We were surprised that some information was not included in the Barron report. It was inexplicably excluded. Justice for the Forgotten sourced two important photographs from the archives of The Irish Times, one of which was taken at the scene of the bombing in Dundalk and another taken at the scene in Castleblaney. The Dundalk picture was taken on the night of the bombing and the Castleblaney picture was probably taken the day after the explosion. Both photographs depict members of the Garda Síochána examining fragments of the bomb mechanisms.

We invited Lieutenant Colonel Nigel Wilde to provide us with technical opinions on the photographs in his capacity as an ordnance and photographic expert. The two important points about the photographs are that police officers were handling significant evidence without wearing gloves; and the presence of parts of a TPU, a timing and power unit for the bomb, which were not passed on as forensic evidence to either Dr. Donovan or Mr. Hall. According to Mr. Justice Barron, the remains of the TPU at Dundalk were found by Inspector McCabe and handed over to Detective Garda Thomas Foley of the Garda Technical Bureau, who examined them for fingerprints with negative results. However, if they had been handled, the fingerprints would have been obliterated.

I will not speak further about that but I will briefly mention the Dublin Airport bombing. Mr. Justice Barron does not make any link between the bombing and an earlier incident at Dublin Airport in which the son of a leading UVF member was detained. Two young loyalists were arrested at Dublin Airport on 10 September 1975 and charged with loitering with intent to commit a felony. They were held and questioned in the Bridewell Garda station and brought to court.
A source gave us the information that he was living on St. Lawrence Road in Clontarf at the time. He was on the run from the North and using an alias. He was arrested in what he described as a sweep of the general area in the aftermath of the murder of Garda Michael Reynolds in St. Anne's Park in Raheny on 11 September 1975. He was in the Bridewell station for questioning at the same time as the two loyalists and was asked for his opinion on what they might have been doing at the airport. He told gardaí that he believed they were probably going to blow up the airport and may have been on a scouting mission. He further claims that a couple of days after the Dublin Airport bombing, he was walking along the Clontarf Road when two detectives pulled up in a car beside him and one told him that he had been right.

The UDA claimed responsibility for the bombing but Mr. Justice Barron stated that there was intelligence information suggesting that members of the UVF might have been involved. One of the two loyalists is included in the list of lost lives. He was murdered by the IRA in June 1988. He was shown to have been a member of the UVF and had been given four life sentences on the evidence of supergrass, Joe Bennett, but had been released on appeal. We are not in a position to say whether there was a link between the two events, but the question is whether gardaí made a link and did they seek to have the loyalists questioned in the aftermath.

I will not deal with the Barronrath Bridge issue, but I will mention the case for a public tribunal of inquiry. Previously, we have found the sub-committee to be impervious to calls for public inquiries to be established in the cases examined by Mr. Justice Barron. Despite the recommendation that the UK Government set up a public inquiry in its jurisdiction into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, we know with absolute certainty that it will not set up any such inquiry.

We believe that because the sub-committee now has stronger evidence of collusion, it is vital that it take the opportunity to recommend the establishment of a public tribunal of inquiry into all aspects of the atrocities committed in this period of the 1970s through cross-Border incursions into the State. The Government should establish the inquiry and call on the British Government to co-operate fully. The exact mechanism through which this might be done has already been devised for the Smithwick inquiry. One need only look to the opening statement of Mr. Justice Peter Smithwick in the Breen and Buchanan tribunal of inquiry set up under the 1921 Act to see how this might be done.
We will leave the sub-committee's members with the words of Deputy McDowell, the current Tánaiste and then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, to Dáil Éireann on 23 March 2005 when he established the tribunal into the Breen and Buchanan murders. He stated:

"I must tell the House that I considered going down the road of a commission of inquiry but I found it did not match up to the criteria laid down by Judge Cory. The form of public inquiry proposed and its proposed terms of reference constitute the most open, potentially expansive and powerful form of inquiry available under our law here or anywhere else to ensure that the full truth emerges. We owe it to the families of the late Chief Superintendent Breen and Superintendent Buchanan, the people of Northern Ireland and the people of this State, given the concerns raised about organs of this State."

The following day in the Seanad, he stated:

"Regardless of the identities of the victims, the families should not be placed in some hierarchy of sympathy. Everybody is equally entitled to whatever rights can be vindicated under the Constitution and to the greatest extent possible, by an inquiry of this kind."

If the murders of the two RUC officers deserve such an inquiry because of a single allegation of Garda collusion, which they certainly do, the victims of these atrocities, where there is greater evidence of collusion by the British security forces, deserve no less.

Chairman: I thank Ms Urwin.

Deputy F. McGrath: In the interests of time and procedure, I will ask questions that our guests should bank, as they will be addressed to both Ms Urwin and Mr. Ó Dúlacháin. I welcome Justice for the Forgotten and commend it on its excellent research, work and support for the families and survivors that have suffered due to the different incidents.

Ms Urwin stated that collusion was rife, but when people speak about it, many are under the impression that it occurred because the security forces wanted to take out a military force on the other side. However, upon reading page 2, paragraph 3 of our guest's significant report, there is a broader political agenda for collusion. I refer to Mr. Colin Wallace's letters, in which he states that the sectarian killings that took place at the end of 1974 were designed to destroy Mr. Merlyn Rees's attempts to negotiate a ceasefire and that targets were identified by both sides by intelligence and the special branch. That is very serious and significant information. Is Mr. Ó Dúlacháin suggesting that collusion was a broader issue involving more than just military or conflict factors? Was a broader political agenda at work?

My second question relates to section 5. Ms Urwin referred to the Patrick Livingstone incident and the case of the two young people with paramilitary connections who were caught when obviously casing Dublin Airport. Are the witnesses suggesting this is another incident that was not investigated properly by the gardaí involved, given that they met the gentlemen later and commented on it?

With regard to collusion, Mr. Ó Dúlacháin makes the point that ten times more powerful evidence is available now compared to what was available when we began the debate about the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. Can he provide one practical, sensible example that sums up all the evidence from Justice for the Forgotten?

With regard to whether collusion was low level or whether it was known to the higher authorities, is Justice for the Forgotten suggesting it goes right to the top? Mr. Ó Dúlacháin raised fundamental questions on the identity of known subversives in Armagh in 1974, who formed a powerful and dangerous group. If they were so well known, why does Mr. Ó Dúlacháin believe nothing happened on the ground with regard to them? We have heard of the obstruction by the security forces with regard to evidence. Can he provide an example of this?

Ms Urwin referred to direct collusion with regard to the Miami Showband killings and she referred specifically to a white Ford Escort car. She stated that special branch knew about the car owner, who was linked to other bombings. Is Ms Urwin suggesting that, at best, this is appalling police work and, at worst, state-sanctioned murder? Does she agree with this interpretation? When one considers the evidence and the summary of the report, which is very comprehensive, I am amazed nothing has happened in regard to these issues.
The members of the special patrol group in County Armagh were involved in murder and mayhem. The only reason they stopped was because they were contemplating an attack on a primary school. This was more than a military agenda. Do the witnesses agree that the agenda was to terrorise the whole Northern minority community? Do they agree it was not just a case of trying to attack violent republicans?

On the broader issue of public inquiries, are Justice for the Forgotten and the families suggesting we cannot demand a public inquiry of the British authorities if we are not prepared to hold a public inquiry in our jurisdiction?
Ms Urwin raised the important question of the .38 Star pistol which belonged to the UDR member who was also involved in the UVF. This pistol had a long history in both security and loyalist circles. Is Ms Urwin suggesting not enough attention is being paid to the information on this pistol, which jumps out when one reads the report?

Mr. Ó Dúlacháin stated that the Irish Government was yielding or conceding to the British Government of the time. Will he expand on that? Is he suggesting the Irish authorities rolled over under pressure from the British?
What is Mr. Ó Dúlacháin's point with regard to the Dundalk and Castleblaney photographs? Is he suggesting gross incompetence or something more sinister with regard to the photograph of the garda holding the part of the bomb and timer?

In conclusion, is Justice for the Forgotten's bottom line that collusion took place but the only measure which will resolve the issue is a full public inquiry?

Chairman: I am not sure if that was questioning or a speech but I am sure Mr. Ó Dúlacháin and Ms Urwin will respond.