Vol. 446 No. 1
1 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he raised the matter of the Australian position on the Indonesian occupation of East Timor and human rights abuses by Indonesian forces when he met the Australian Prime Minister; the response, if any, received to any such representation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [539/94]
2 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement in relation to his visits abroad during September; the countries visited; and the purpose of the trip in each case. [540/94]
3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his recent visit to the USA; the people he met with; and the nature of his business there. [609/94]
4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his recent visit to New Zealand; the people he met and the nature of his discussions there. [611/94]
5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Australia; the people he met and the nature of his discussions there. [612/94]
6 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the people with whom he has had recent discussions in the United States in relation to Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [614/94]
7 Mr. Flanagan asked the Taoiseach the extent of his talks with the Prime Minister of Australia on the political situation in East Timor. [693/94]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 7 inclusive, together.
I undertook very successful official visits abroad from 14 to 29 September, visiting consecutively Hong Kong, Australia and New Zealand. As is the case with all previous visits of this kind, I sought to promote and advance the two priority objectives of the Government.
First, this trip coincided with the recent and ongoing developments of an historic nature towards peace in Northern Ireland. It was particularly appropriate, therefore, that, in the course of my visits, I sought on every suitable occasion to inform our many and influential friends of the present position with regard to the peace process. Similarly, our emigrants had a very natural and keen interest in developments here at home, particularly in Northern Ireland. I, therefore, made a very special effort to address that interest throughout my visits.
I was very heartened by the enormous interest shown and by the support demonstrated for our efforts to consolidate peace, and to work towards an agreed political settlement founded on consent and respect for difference. A huge and informed reservoir of goodwill exists at all levels in Hong Kong, Australia and New Zealand for all our efforts in that regard, and I feel privileged to have had the opportunity at this time to channel that goodwill towards meaningful and constructive effect.
Second, I sought in direct contact with leading political and business people to promote increased investment into Ireland, increased inward tourism, increased exports and, on that basis, increased job creation. My efforts in that regard were, of course, greatly facilitated by the new era of peace. I have no doubt that, as a result, the task of selling Ireland as a location for inward investment will be made easier. Indeed, my visits suggest strongly to me that a whole new perception is now developing in the minds of many people with regard to Ireland as a holiday destination and a secure investment location. In terms of promoting the peace process, inward investment and increased job creation here, my visits were extremely successful.
On Northern Ireland, I briefed the Governor of Hong Kong, Mr. Chris Patten, on the Government's approach and response to the recent IRA ceasefire announcement. We had a most constructive discussion on Northern Ireland, recognising that, at the outset, the peace process has been well founded on constructive and friendly relations between the Irish and British Governments.
My discussions with the governor also included a briefing by him on the current political and economic situation in Hong Kong and developments towards its handover to China in 1997. He stressed the intention of the British Government that all arrangements in that regard would proceed smoothly.
While in Australia, I had discussions with Prime Minister Keating, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Alexander Downer, the Western Australia State Premier, Mr. Richard Court, the premier of Victoria, Mr. Jeff Kennett, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition there, Mr. Dimitrios Dolos, the Premier of New South Wales. Mr. John Fahey and the Australia/Ireland Parliamentary Group. These meetings with the leading people in Australia's political life focused principally on Northern Ireland and Irish-Australian relations in the economic and trade spheres.
In my discussions with Prime Minister Keating, I briefed him fully on recent developments in the peace process, on the efforts being made to consolidate it, and on the progress being made by the Irish and British Governments to agree a joint framework document that would constitute our shared understanding on the broad outlines of a settlement. The Prime Minister expressed a strong desire to assist in a meaningful way our efforts towards an agreed political accommodation in an environment of peace. Recognising that economic rejuvenation in deprived areas is a fundamental part of the peace process, he pledged seven million Australian dollars to the International Fund for Ireland over the next five years. The Government is deeply appreciative of this tangible expression of support and I was most pleased that the decision received a warm welcome from the Opposition Leader there, Mr. Alexander Downer, who has also been very supportive of the fund since its inception. Prime Minister Keating shares the strong desire of many Australians that the momentum towards an agreed settlement in an atmosphere of peace must be sustained. He, like President Clinton, wishes to promote agreement between the divided people of Ireland in a spirit of constructive friendship and genuine affection for both Nationalists and Unionists.
My principal public engagement in Canberra was an address to the National Press Club which was followed by a lengthy question and answer session. These were carried live on nationwide television. I very much welcomed that opportunity to speak directly to members of the Australian media on developments in Ireland. Much of my address and the subsequent questioning related to Northern Ireland. I dealt in considerable detail with the peace process and on our efforts to achieve political agreement between the two traditions here.
The issue of peace in Northern Ireland and the role which Australians can play towards its consolidation were at the heart of major speeches I made to the Irish Club in Perth, at a dinner hosted by Prime Minister Keating in Canberra, and in my address to the Australian-Ireland Fund Dinner.
While in New Zealand, I also availed of every suitable occasion to promote the peace process and an agreed political accommodation. In my discussions with Prime Minister Jim Bolger, the issue of Northern Ireland featured prominently. He showed a strong personal interest in recent developments and assured me of his Government's desire to assist our efforts. To this end, he announced a further contribution of three-hundred thousand New Zealand dollars to the International Fund for Ireland. This is New Zealand's third contribution to the fund. I expressed the Government's deep gratitude for this additional gesture of support, serving to demonstrate yet again the very real commitment of the international community to progress the peace process. Prime Minister Bolger expressed the hope, now realised, that the IRA ceasefire announcement would be followed by a complete cessation of violence on all sides, thus facilitating quicker and more effective progress on political issues. I held discussions with the Acting Leader of the Opposition there, Mr. David Caygill. He, too, demonstrated great interest in the peace process and shares all our hopes that an agreed political settlement will be achieved soon. I also paid a courtesy call on the Governor General, Dame Catherine Tizard.
As I have already stated, the second priority of my visits to Hong Kong, Australia and New Zealand focused on increased job creation here, by promoting Ireland as a location for investment in the manufacturing and services areas, particularly tourism. Throughout my visits, I sought, whenever appropriate, to encourage expansion of our excellent bilateral relations in the economic and trade spheres.
While in Hong Kong, I had meetings with a number of prospective investors here. Owing to strong international competition for such investment, the names of the companies must remain confidential. I also addressed the Curragh Club, comprising a group of Irish business and professional people for which the Irish Trade Board provides a secretariat. My speech centred on the investment opportunities offered by Ireland in the context of our geographical location, our highly-skilled workforce, our strong macro-economic performance and our membership of the EU, the ERM and the European Monetary Union.
My visit to Australia comprised 23 engagements in Perth, Canberra, Melbourne and Sydney. Most of these were of an economic or trade nature. My principal engagements in Perth included an address to the Irish-Australian Business Association and to the Irish Club there.
My meeting with Prime Minister Keating in Canberra naturally focused on economic issues as well as Northern Ireland, particularly on our bilateral relations in the trade and services areas. He expressed the view that Australia's geographical position relative to the Asia-Pacific area and Ireland's location as a gateway to Europe constitute powerful reasons for improvement in our bilateral relationship. The Prime Minister referred to Australia's significant investment in Ireland. I drew his attention to the principal macro-economic indicators here, placing special emphasis on our corporate tax rate being guaranteed to the year 2010. In response, he underlined Australia's success in attracting European investment from companies wishing to capitalise on the development potential of the Pacific Rim and in that regard, Australia holds unique opportunities for Irish firms seeking to expand their overseas operation to that region.
The Prime Minister provided an update on the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation, APEC. Australia, like Ireland, has a strong interest in a liberal world trading system and to that end, the Prime Minister views the early ratification of GATT as highly desirable. Apart from APEC's commitment to developing and strengthening the open, multilateral trading system, it was clear from my discussions that the Australian Government regards it as a unifying force in a region beset with historical and economic divisions. In that context, our discussions also covered European Union matters.
I raised with the Prime Minister the present situation in East Timor, recognising that public opinion on this issue is particularly strong in Ireland. Prime Minister Keating assured me that the Australian Government is using its influence with the Indonesian Government to effect positive change, particularly in relation to a reduction in troop levels and to expand access to East Timor for human rights organisations and the international media.
In my address to the National Press Club in Canberra, I placed special emphasis on Ireland's advantages as a location for overseas companies, particularly on the large number of tax and other incentives available to companies who wish to locate their European operations here for exporting to the Single European Market.
I addressed the Irish-Australian Chamber of Commerce in Melbourne on a similar theme. While in Sydney, I spoke at a luncheon hosted by Bord Fáilte and An Bord Tráchtála, placing special emphasis on the unique attractions of Ireland as a holiday destination.
While in New Zealand, my meeting with Prime Minister Bolger covered economic and trade matters, as well as Northern Ireland. He stressed the importance of building "people-links" between our respective countries, drawing a comparison with existing links between New Zealand and Malaysia. We, therefore, agreed to examine the possibility of developing bilateral working holiday arrangements, with a view to enhancing even further the very warm bilateral relationship which exists at present. The Prime Minister referred to the opportunity for greater investment and trade between Ireland and New Zealand by virtue of our respective memberships of the EU and APEC.
How many more pages are in this reply? What is the point of this?
The Deputy asked the questions. If he wants to know the details he will get them.
The Taoiseach is answering seven questions.
I take back everything I said about Hawaii. The Taoiseach deserves a break.
I am glad. Deputies need a rest before I come back to them.
I am worn out listening to the reply.
(Limerick East): Has the Taoiseach the film rights to that answer?
Order, let us hear the Taoiseach.
The Prime Minister of New Zealand is strongly of the view that many Asian countries offer great market potential for firms wishing to increase exports or expand their overseas operations.
Developments in GATT and NAFTA also featured prominently in our discussions which covered a number of other international issues such as the role of the United Nations and the situation in former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Haiti and Cuba.
Many of my other engagements in New Zealand likewise contained a strong economic and trade dimension. In addition to discussions with some prospective investors here, I gave a large number of media interviews selling Ireland as an overseas investment location and as a tourist destination.
I also paid a very short visit to the United States comprising one day of engagements in New York and Philadelphia on 6 October. While there, I attended the fifth meeting of the Irish-American Economic Advisory Board. My attendance was important having regard to the background of the recent breakthrough on Northern Ireland. Having briefed the board on developments in that regard, our discussions focused principally on matters relating to the proposed US aid package in the context of the new era of peace.
What about Dáil reform?
The Chair takes the view that when Members ask questions they are entitled to maximum information.
The Taoiseach's reply could last for one and a half hours.
If the Deputies want the details they will get them.
Is it in order to read from a script at Question Time?
It is an academy award performance.
We would make more progress if Deputy Carey did not interrupt.
We also reviewed ongoing projects in the financial services, tourism and marketing sector. I attended the annual dinner of the Irish Chamber of Commerce in the United States. My address to about 1,000 business people centred on Ireland's economic performance and the opportunities which that is offering to prospective investors here. I also addressed a convocation ceremony at Saint Joseph's University, Philadelphia, where I was conferred with an honorary degree for public service for my work for peace in Northern Ireland.
No wonder the Taoiseach did not have time to ring Dick.
Tell us about Bondi Beach.
I thought Deputies would find the reply interesting since they had been inquiring about my travels. Ireland enjoys excellent bilateral relations with Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand and the United States. At one level, I believe that my visits have deepened these relationships. Political and public understanding of our efforts towards peace has certainly been enhanced as a result. At another level, economic trade interaction and tourism was promoted and this, in time, will contribute positively to job creation here.
I am very pleased with the outcome of my recent visits. The two priority objectives of this Government — peace in Northern Ireland and increased job creation — have certainly been advanced as a result.
I will call Deputies who are present in the order in which their questions appear on the Order Paper. I call Deputy Bruton whose Questions Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 refer.
How can one answer that?
Not in equal time, please.
I want to ask the Chair for a ruling on whether boring the Opposition to death is a legitimate parliamentary device.
I commented earlier that when Members ask questions the Chair takes the view that they are entitled to maximum information, however long that may take.
I ask the Chair to bear in mind that we have listened for 20 minutes to a singsong monologue from the Taoiseach instead of serious answers to serious questions.
That is outrageous.
I hope he did not give the same soporific impression to his audiences around the world that he has given to the House with this insultingly boring lengthy monologue, reading repetitious information in regard to every meeting he had just to take up time in the House.
The Deputy must ask supplementary questions, please.
Why did the Deputy ask the questions if he did not want to listen to the information?
I asked a relevant question but it has not been answered.
On a point of order, I have listened to nothing but complaints from the Opposition over the last two years about the lack of information given by Ministers and I hope the media are listening.
There was no information given.
Let us not quarrel about that now. Let us have appropriate brief questions.
Like the warning to RTE.
Did the Taoiseach have discussion with potential investors in Hong Kong regarding possible investment in this country in return for passports? What regime did the Taoiseach outline to these investors regarding the issue of passports for investment? Is it the new or old one? What positive change does he see in East Timor as regards the suffering of the people there?
In relation to the first question the answer is "no" so I do not need to talk about regimes. However, I would remark in passing that Deputy Bruton, who made a remarkable condemnation of a scheme availed of by a business owned by my family, rushed in madly a few weeks later, with others who were most outspoken in this House, looking for similar treatment for a company in west Limerick, which was given.
That is not true.
It is.
It is not.
I am sorry if Deputy Bruton did not tell Members of his party but it is true and Deputy McDowell supported Deputy O'Malley in relation to it.
That is not true.
I never made representations of any kind to any person and I defy the Taoiseach either to prove it or retract it.
If we proceed in the ordinary way——
Deputy O'Malley told the office of the Minister for Justice that the Deputy supported his application for a passport for people who were prepared to invest money in a firm in west Limerick.
Deputy O'Malley is a citizen, and I have never supported any such application.
The Deputy can deny this or tell Deputy O'Malley he was telling lies. I do not mind what he does.
I made representations to the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs——
I am glad the Deputy admits it.
——to save jobs in west Limerick.
That is what the scheme is about.
There were no jobs saved in C & D Foods.
None was saved but 42 new jobs were created.
How much was paid back to Fóir Teoranta?
If the scheme was applied properly——
What annoys us — the general public should know this — is the double think and double standards engaged in by Deputies Bruton and O'Malley. Maybe he misrepresented——
I do not stand to gain financially from any investment in that company in west Limerick whereas the Taoiseach stands to gain financially. That is the difference.
The people who work in the company will gain financially.
Order, if Members did not personalise——
I do not stand to gain from the investment in the company in west Limerick which was made purely to save jobs——
Jobs are the difference.
Please, Deputies.
——whereas the Taoiseach stands to gain from investment made in return for passports. That is the difference between public service and self service.
Deputy Bruton, I have been on my feet for some time.
That is the difference between this and the other side of the House.
Please, Deputy Bruton——
They serve themselves while we seek to serve the people.
There is no need for this kind of disorder. If Members ceased personalising matters we might make more progress——
I am amazed that this issue has got so deeply under Deputy Bruton's skin. He has been engaging in hypocrisy of the highest order.
He raised——
Deputy Bruton, allow me——
——the representations I made which were legitimate and above board——
Deputy Bruton, you may not interrupt——
——and bear no comparison to the investment in the firm which the Taoiseach owns and benefits from.
Deputy Bruton, I am on my feet.
The Deputy is wrong.
He stands to benefit from it, and I am not wrong.
Deputy Bruton, I must ask you to desist from engaging in this kind of tactic. I have asked that we avoid personalities if we can.
I did not bring personalities into the debate. The Taoiseach did when he referred to me.
Irrespective of that, let us proceed in an orderly fashion.
You interrupted me, Sir, but you did not interrupt him.
I intervened to say——
You did not interrupt the Taoiseach.
——that personalities should not be brought into the debate.
It was the Taoiseach who did so.
The question was above board.
Are there any more relevant questions on this matter?
Deputy Bruton asked a pertinent question, whether the Taoiseach spoke to investors in Hong Kong about citizenship in Ireland. That is a simple question.
That is all I asked.
That question was answered.
The Taoiseach did not answer it; rather he gave out abuse and started——
He said "no".
I call Deputy Gilmore.
He lied about me.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore.
The Taoiseach must be fed plenty of memos and stupid information.
I will not call Deputy Eamon Gilmore a third time.
In regard to the very punishing schedule he read for us — it was certainly punishing to listen to — may I ask the Taoiseach the number, if any, of specific commitments to invest in this country made by people in New Zealand, Australia and Hong Kong?
The chairman of the Beef Tribunal would regard £300,000 as a normal contribution to Fianna Fáil.
Please, Deputy, let us have relevant questions.
At least we got it legally, we did not print it.
We are talking about people who have been more active in recent times — new-found friends and allies.
In relation to the specific discussions in Hong Kong, will the Taoiseach state if the handing over of Hong Kong to China was raised during those discussions and whether, arising from that, there was any discussion on a requirement that passports would be available to investors in Ireland?
I deplore Deputy Gilmore's insinuation that a contribution by the New Zealand Government will be treated in the manner he suggested.
It was the Taoiseach's backbenchers who treated it that way.
I did not.
Most certainly not.
No interruptions, please. Let us listen to the Taoiseach's reply.
It is disgraceful to insult a country which has no obligation to make a contribution but which has made a third contribution. It is entitled to a little more graciousness than the Deputy has shown today.
We will not reach Question No. 13 and we might as well leave.
If we do not reach it today it will be dealt with next week.
Let us hear about Boris.
The Deputy should listen to the leader of his party who said yesterday that foreign travel was important and necessary. Apparently the Deputy does not agree with him.
I did not say anything about foreign travel——
In relation to Hong Kong. I already answered that question in reply to Deputy Bruton but if the Deputy wishes to open up that subject again he should feel free to do so. However, the Ceann Comhairle said that there can be no more discussion on that matter. I obey the Chair but if the Deputy wants to raise the matter again——
The Chair never said any such thing. He asked the Taoiseach to answer the question without personalising matters.
Deputy McDowell should check with Deputy O'Malley about whether he misrepresented his position in regard to a passport deal for west Limerick to the Department of Justice.
I do not understand what the Taoiseach is talking about.
Deputy Bruton can deny to the House that he supported the application because under the old criteria a Fine Gael Deputy from west Limerick——
Answer the question about Hong Kong.
The scheme is either good or it is not. If it is good it is good for everybody and if it is bad it is bad for everybody.
Answer the question about Hong Kong.
There should be no more hypocrisy in the House about this matter.
Are they looking for passports?
I already answered that question: I said "no".
We discussed the handing over of Hong Kong to the Chinese authorities in 1997 and how things would develop up to then and possibly after that.
Does anybody want to visit Ireland?
I call Deputy John Bruton.
These were State visits, I do not know whether Deputy Gilmore understands their purpose.
They were very long State visits and the taxpayers paid for them.
They paid for the Deputy as well.
To prove that I listened to the Taoiseach's long monologue, I want to ask a question arising from it. The Taoiseach met the leader of the opposition in New Zealand but it appears he did not meet any members of the opposition or other political figures in Hong Kong or Australia.
Incorrect.
The Taoiseach did not refer——
If the Deputy wants me to read another ten page reply I will do so.
He said that he met members of the opposition in one country but did not meet any members of the opposition in the other two countries. Will he clarify whether he met any members of the opposition in Hong Kong, particularly as it appears that parliamentary democracy is under threat in the medium term in that country?
I met the governor of Hong Kong, Mr. Chris Patten, and prospective industrialists, one in the financial services sector and one in another area. I met other people in Australia and New Zealand. My Department will give fuller details than I gave today about the people I met.
I asked the Taoiseach about the position in East Timor. No one would expect him to solve the problems in that country, but it appears that the best on offer is that human rights monitors will be allowed into the country to monitor the abuses of human rights. Is that the best we can hope for in regard to East Timor? Has the Government any hope that conventional human and democratic rights will be achieved for the people in this most oppressed part of the world?
I put forward the views as I heard them expressed here, which I believe are representative of the view of Irish people in regard to East Timor. As I said in my reply, the Prime Minister of Australia has made known his view that there should be a reduction in the army presence in East Timor and that human rights should be improved. I do not know what else Deputy Bruton expected me to do in this regard.
May I again ask the Taoiseach if he received a specific commitment from anyone to invest in this country during his sojourn in Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong? Did he inform the Australian Prime Minister that the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs has passed a very strong resolution on East Timor?
I did not refer exactly to the resolution but I represented our views on this matter, which more or less coincide with what Deputy Gilmore would want me to say.
In regard to my visit to Australia and New Zealand, as I said these were primarily State visits and were at the request of the Australian and New Zealand Governments. The total cost of the delegation in Australia and in New Zealand was borne by the host Government. I availed of every opportunity, whether at meetings, in speeches to trade organisations, business organisations, tourism organisations or on national television in both countries, to highlight the success of the Irish economy and the opportunities in Ireland for servicing the European market.
In Australia and New Zealand it was suggested to me that there were plenty of opportunities to service fast developing regions on the Asian Pacific Rim and that there were opportunities for Irish companies to spread their wings into that area. Now that peace has broken out in Ireland, a different message will go out on television screens around the world and undoubtedly the peace dividend will increase bringing more tourists, more investment and expansion of our trade.
The Taoiseach did not get a promise of a single job.
In his reply the Taoiseach said he spoke at length with the various people he met about the peace process and that is understandable. At a lunch hosted for him in Wellington he said that confidence and the durability of the peace process would allow us to deal with the disposal of weapons and the release of prisoners. Does the Taoiseach think we have arrived at that position now and what does he think the British Government should do to consolidate the peace process?
That is a separate question but——
We may be anticipating questions on the Order Paper on certain of the matters referred to by the Deputy.
Will the Taoiseach reply to my question about his speech in Wellington on 27 September?
I have made the position clear as to how I believe the peace process has to be consolidated. I said I looked forward to a ceasefire by the loyalist paramilitaries. We have now got that. The Irish Government will continue to move the peace process ahead. I have already stated that I believe and hope the British Government will move the process forward sooner rather than later and that all the other issues can be dealt with as the process develops.
There are a number of questions appertaining to Northern Ireland on the Order Paper. Let us hope we come to them. May I proceed to Question No. 8 please. I will proceed to deal with priority questions in accordance with the procedures of the House, at 3.30 p.m. sharp.
