That was never done, but, sadly, a former Member of the House, now Lord Kilclooney, said on television and in Stormont that the bomb was an IRA bomb. He said that there was no question that the bombing was a
Protestant paramilitary operation. After that, a terrible, scurrilous article appeared in The Guardian, which had clearly been briefed by the Army, confirming the account in the situation reporta secret document that was never referred to as the sourceand repeating the calumny that those innocent people out for a drink were an IRA team. In fact, the people who claimed responsibilitythe Empire Loyalists who phoned upsaid that they bombed the bar because IRA commanders and units met there, but they knew that to be a lie. Did their operating commander think that they had bombed the Gem bar, courageous soldiers that they were in the fight against the IRA? That possibly is true, because the report was that the pub that was bombed was an IRA hotbed, when it was in fact an innocent place where ordinary people gathered for a quiet night out.
That calumny ran as the founded story in Ireland until 1977, when Robert Campbell was arrested. I must criticise the historical inquirys report for saying that he was arrested for bombing McGurks bar as a result of intelligence, because he was nothe was arrested because he shot a Protestant. He thought that he was going to shoot a Catholic, but he shot a Protestant; the Catholic men in the van he was targeting, who worked in a quarry, escaped. He was arrested because his own people shopped him for killing one of their own. He then asked for McGurks bar to be taken into account and he admitted his role, saying that what he had done had troubled him ever since. He was a young man at the time of the bombing, but when they arrested him he was a platoon commander in the UVF and had no doubt carried out a number of other crimes in between. He got 20 years, of which he served 16.
For six years, the approach taken in all the police reportsthis is clear from the historical inquiry teams report of the police reportswas to keep trying to turn the evidence to suggest that the Army report was correct. The reports said things such as that the forensics showed there was no doubt that the bomb had been inside the pub. The forensic evidence did not come out until February, but Dr. Hall, who produced it, said that there was no doubt that the bomb had been placed outside the door or adjacent to itnot in the pub at all. However, the police reports still spread the same story, and every single inquiry in the report shows that the police tried to pin the bombing on the people in the bar to show that they had killed themselves and their fellow citizens from the community. That is unforgivable.
Another criticism that I have of the historical inquirys report is that page 9, which discusses the killing of an Army major following the bombing, should not have been included, because it is not relevant. It is as if people are still trying to do the same thingto say that these innocent people were somehow caught up in what happened afterwards, but they had nothing do with it. My uncle Philly and his colleagues and friends had nothing to do with the IRA and other such organisations. If it was not for the Pat Finucane centre, I am not sure whether the historical inquirys team would ever have seen the secret documents that are now in the public domain and in its report.
Why am I raising this issue? My aunt Eileen does not want to see the report, which is why I have it. I am the named person because I have raised a question in the House. She does not want to see the report or to remember what happened; she is very old and does not want the trauma of it all, but she does want the peace of mind that goes with knowing that the House recognises that the things that we did as a nationthe way in which we spread malicious gossip about the people who were killed and tried to make it stickwere wrong.
I do not know whether there can be reconciliation for people such as Patricia Irvine, who wants to know who the man was who got out of the car and placed the bomb. It was not Robert Campbell, but another man who was sitting outside the bar in the back seat. I know that the McLaughlin family are very upset and still accuse people of collusion, and I do not know whether they will ever have reconciliation. However, I am looking for peace and reconciliation.
Mr. Campbell refuses to be interviewed or to give any evidence and says that he wants the right to see his life out in peace and quiet now that he is in his 70s. I do not believe that that man should have that right; he was a coward and he was part of a cowardly team that killed innocent people. He is living here in England, and it behoves him to tell the families who planted the bomb and who his accomplices were. I do not think that he has paid his debt to society.
The Secretary of State is here and he said in answer to a question that I asked on 25 June that he personally was sorry for the things that had happened and for the distortions of the truth, but I want slightly more than that. We are clearly talking about a Government-sponsored, defence-sponsored method of operation, and books have been written about it. To suggest that these innocent people did this to themselves, their colleagues, their friends and their families is unforgivable, and the Government must be prepared to apologise publicly. I am disappointed that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is not replying to this debate. He may have the weight to be able to do what needs to be done. If he does not, I will be coming back to ask someone else further up the tree for an apology on behalf of the people who were killed at McGurks bar.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Paul Goggins):
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) on his success in obtaining this debate. It is an important topic for him not only because of the wider public interest but also, as he explained, because a member of his familyPhillip Garry, about whom he has spoken so affectionatelywas killed in the indiscriminate and callous bombing of McGurks bar in 1971, so I want to express at the outset my deepest sympathy to my hon. Friend and members of his wider family circle. I am also conscious that 14 other peopleincluding a 13-year-old child, James Francis Cromiewere killed and 16 were injured. Thirty seven years on, the pain remains real for their families and friends, too. My hon. Friend spoke about the trauma that people still feel. This bombing
was, until the terrible bombing in Omagh in August 1998, the largest civilian loss of life in a single incident during the years of the troubles.
We are discussing tonight one of 363 reports produced so far by Northern Irelands Historical Enquiries Team. Established in 2005, the HET is part of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, but it is operationally independent and staffed by a mix of people, including former detectives from outside Northern Ireland. Just last week, in its latest report, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee expressed themselves
impressed by the personal commitment, sensitivity and professionalism of the Chief Constable, the Director of HET and the other staff involved in HET.
The HET is tasked with reviewing all 3,268 deaths that occurred as a result of the troubles between 1968 and 1998, with the twofold aim of striving to bring a measure of resolution to families and ensuring that all investigative and evidential opportunities are subject to thorough and exhaustive examination. Its approach is family centred and in its review of the McGurks bar bombing, the HET has attempted to answer more than 50 questions from family members. To carry out this work effectively, the HET has developed a five-phase process that includes the collection, assessment and review of all relevant and available material followed by focused reinvestigation and resolution. In this review as in others, the HET accessed witness statements, forensic reports, the original police case papers and intelligence information.
Every one of the deaths that occurred during the troubles is a tragedy, but each case is also unique and families will have different views and perspectives and different questions and issues of concern. Following the McGurks bar bombing, the hurt and grief felt by all those directly affected and, indeed, by the wider community was intensified by the inaccurate commentary and reporting that it was the result of a so-called IRA own goal.
In summary, the HET reached the following conclusions. The bomb was located inside McGurks bar within a small, enclosed entrance area off Great Georges street, but outside the public bar area where the victims and survivors were mainly located. The original target, as my hon. Friend mentioned, was probably the Gem bar rather than McGurks.
The Ulster Volunteer Force was responsible for the bombing and in 1978 Robert James Campbell pleaded guilty to 15 counts of murder and was given a life sentence. The HET found no evidence of collusion by the police or security services with the UVF and confirmed that the Royal Ulster Constabulary allocated substantial resources to the original investigation in 1971. Its assessment, however, was that those carrying out the investigation may have attributed more significance to the potential involvement of republican paramilitaries than the balance of evidence supported.
The HET's report also documents in some detail the media reports of the bombing. It includes the transcript of an interview with an eight-year-old boy, Joseph McClory, who gave a very clear account of how he saw a man place the bomb in the porch of the pub. Even so, there was speculation that one or more of those inside the pub might have been responsible. As my hon. Friend said, the HET report includes a copy of a Ministry of Defence document statingthis is a direct quotation from the document
the forensic evidence now available shows quite clearly that five of the victims were killed by blastindicating that the explosion must have been inside the bar, and raising a very strong presumption that it was caused by the accidental detonation of a bomb being carried by one of the customersas has seemed likely all along.
the evidence of the forensic experts supports the theory that the explosion took place within the confines of the walls of the building.
is in retreat and nothing could aid it better at this time if it could inflame Catholic opinion as a result of what occurred at the weekend.
to think twice before they accept the type of propaganda that is being fed to them about this incident.
When it came in February 1972, the conclusion of the forensic scientist Dr. Robert Alan Hall was rather different. He concluded that the combined findings, including the pathology reports, did not support the theory that a bomb had exploded close to a group of people within the confines of the bar area, and that the explosion had in fact
occurred at or about the entrance door from the porch leading off Great George's Street.
Although we cannot speak for the Ministers who made statements at the time, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are deeply sorry not just for the appalling suffering and loss of life that occurred at McGurks bar, but for the extraordinary additional pain caused to both the immediate families and the wider community by the erroneous suggestions made in the immediate aftermath of the explosion about who was responsible. Such perceptions and preconceived ideas should never have been allowed to cloud the actual evidence. My right hon. Friend said at the weekend that
one of the things politicians have to get much better at is actually taking on their responsibility and saying, I'm sorry.
I can tell my hon. Friendin addition to what I have said about the work of the HETthat the police ombudsman carries responsibility for investigations when a death has been caused by the actions of a police officer, or when there is information that suggests that a police officer may have acted wrongly. Such cases are referred by the HET, and currently total 64. The police ombudsman also investigates cases in which a family, or a representative of a family, makes a complaint about the handling of a case by the police. The ombudsman is currently investigating 57 such cases, and I am aware that one relates directly to the McGurks bar bombing. Although the ombudsmans work and reports are completely independent of the Government, I am informed that a report is expected shortly.
Northern Ireland has moved a long way since the dark days of the troubles. The UVF, which was responsible for the McGurks pub bombing, has put its arms beyond reachon the way, I hope, to full decommissioning. As
the Independent Monitoring Commission has indicated, the Provisional IRA is now firmly committed to the political path, and Sinn Fein is an active partner in policing and in Government. Devolution last May put schools, hospitals and other public services under local control, and I hope that it will soon be possible to hand back policing and justice powers. This weeks announcement by Bombardier about its new investment is a further sign of Northern Ireland's growing prosperity, building on long-term political stability.
However, the murders and conflict that scarred Northern Ireland for 40 years still leave their mark, which is why the work of the Consultative Group on the Past is so important. Trying to find a way of addressing the legacy of Northern Irelands violent past in a way that does not overshadow the future remains one of the greatest challenges. The groups task is to consult widely to see if there is a consensus on how to proceed. Over the past year the group has met with more than 100 organisations, received 245 written submissions and held seven well-attended public meetings. During this process, it heard a wide range of opinions and experiences about the past and what it means for the present. The consultation period closed in January and the group is now reflecting on what it has heard. As part of its reflections, the group has considered the various mechanisms that are currently in place to deal with the past such as the Police Ombudsman, the public inquiries and the work of the HET. Indeed, during this consultation the group met the HET and some of the many families who have been through the HET process. The thoughts that these families have on this process, and all the other mechanisms in place, will be considered in its final report. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are looking forward to receiving that report later in the year. While it is too soon to speculate on what the recommendations will be or how they can best be taken forward, it is important that any recommendations made are workable and capable of commanding widespread public support.
Lord Eames and Denis Bradleythe groups co-chairsdelivered a speech at the end of May reflecting on some of the many issues raised during their consultation. It is helpful that they recognised publicly the differing views that exist, and that a public debate takes place on some of these very difficult issues.
In addition to the work of the Consultative Group on the Past, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee published a helpful report only last week. It contains a number of recommendations on dealing with the past, although it also acknowledges the importance of awaiting the report of the Consultative Group on the Past before making definitive decisions.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP):
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for giving way, and I fully realise why he is addressing some of the wider issues to do with the past in terms of the broader work of the HET and the Consultative Group on the Past. Returning to the particulars of this debate and McGurks bar, however, there is a widespread welcome for the spirit of apology offered by the Secretary of State, but he cannot apologise for everybody else. Does the Minister agree that it would be helpful if the Minister who made the offending and grossly misleading statement in the Stormont Parliament came forward and directly apologised, and will he also
take steps to ensure that the apology that has come from the Government comes directly from the Ministry of Defence as well, because the Army was clearly involved in spreading this disinformation not only through a Minister at the time, but more generally through the media?
I hope that my hon. Friend appreciates that this evening I speak on behalf not only of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself, but of the Government as a whole. As for what others should say or do, that is for them. I cannot speak for them, and neither can my right hon. Friend. I can only say what I
see and report what I have read, and that is on the record. We have made our position completely clear.
The bombing of McGurks bar was an horrific attack, one of too many that occurred in Northern Ireland during the troubles. The core task of the HET is to help those families most directly affected by such tragic events to receive an explanation and have their questions answered. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk and all the families caught up in this case have been able to take some comfort from the extensive review that has been carried out and the firm conclusions reached.