John Bruton
Question:1 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting in Dublin with the East Timorese leader, Mr. Xanana Gusmao; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19526/99]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Ministerial Meetings.
John Bruton
Question:2 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the recent letter he has received from President Clinton. [19527/99]
John Bruton
Question:3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the preparatory meetings he will have in Ireland before travelling to Kosovo in November 1999; the schedule of events he will undertake there; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19528/99]
John Bruton
Question:4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach when the Ministers and Secretaries Group last met; the plans, if any, it has for meetings between now and the end of 1999; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19530/99]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:5 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the leader of the East Timorese people, Mr. Xanana Gusmao; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19642/99]
John Bruton
Question:6 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the number of times the Cabinet Committee on European Affairs has met in 1999; the number of meetings planned before the end of 1999; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19701/99]
John Bruton
Question:7 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the preparatory meetings he will have in Ireland before he visits Hungary and Slovenia in early November 1999; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19702/99]
John Bruton
Question:8 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the preparatory meetings he will have in Ireland before he attends the OSCE Summit on 18 and 19 November 1999 in Istanbul; if he has received an agenda for the summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19703/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:9 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting on 4 October 1999 with the East Timor leader, Mr. Xanana Gusmao. [19755/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 9, inclusive, together.
The Ministers and Secretaries general group last met on 8 December last year. The Government established a Cabinet Committee on Agenda 2000 at the beginning of January, which I chaired. This was supported by an expert technical group, which I also chaired, and which met nine times in the run up to the conclusion of the Agenda 2000 negotiations in Berlin in March. In May, following the completion of the Agenda 2000 negotiations, the Cabinet Committee on European Affairs was established. It has met twice, most recently on Tuesday, 12 October, in preparation for the Tampere European Council and will meet again in mid-November and early-December. It will meet as required as key issues arise on the EU agenda and in preparation for European Councils.
In advance of my visit to Hungary, Slovenia and Kosovo, on 29 October I will meet the relevant officials from my Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs and members of the Defence Forces who are responsible for the visit. My Department has been in constant contact with the relevant Government Departments, embassies and the Defence Forces in relation to my visit for a number of months. While in Kosovo, I intend visiting the Irish Contingent in KFOR and I hope to meet senior representatives from KFOR, the UN and the OSCE.
I met the East Timorese leaders Mr. Xanana Gusmao and Mr. José Ramos Horta at Government Buildings on 4 October 1999. During our meeting Mr. Gusmao expressed appreciation for Ireland's support during the recent electoral process, for subsequent actions within the EU and at the United Nations and, in particular, for the convening of the recent special session of the UN Commission for Human Rights. With the Irish Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva in the chair, that session adopted a resolution which will allow a meaningful investigation of human rights violations to be carried out. The UN Secretary General has since asked the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mrs. Mary Robinson, to proceed at once with the establishment of a commission of inquiry and for it to report by the end of this year.
Mr. Gusmao drew attention, in particular, to the plight of displaced persons who wish to return to East Timor but who are being prevented from doing so. He wants the international community to do more to help these people to return as this would speed the reconstruction and repopulation of the towns and villages of East Timor. He also pointed out that it would ultimately save the international community money to have the displaced people back in their own communities. Mr. Gusmao asked me to keep the issue of East Timor to the forefront of the international agenda. To this end, I wrote to President Clinton on 7 October. President Clinton had written to me on 4 October and in this letter he stated that Ireland's voice had played an important role in mobilising the international community in the wake of the recent tragic events and he thanked me for the leading role which Ireland had played in supporting the people of East Timor during the current crisis.
I will attend the Summit of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE, which will take place in Istanbul on 18 and 19 November. Preparations for the summit are ongoing. A review conference, covering a wide range of activities within the OSCE, was recently adjourned in Vienna and will resume in Istanbul on 8 November. A preparatory conference which will address issues for the summit in a detailed manner will commence in Istanbul on 11 November. Ireland is liaising closely with EU partners and with the wider OSCE membership in preparation for the summit. I have also availed of bilateral meetings to discuss OSCE issues, most recently during my visit last month to Russia.
While a definitive agenda has not yet been finalised for the summit, the main issues for discussion are likely to be: the possible adoption of a charter on European security for the 21st century; adoption of a political declaration covering a number of ongoing conflicts in the OSCE area, for example, in the western Balkans; and enhancing the role of the OSCE in the promotion of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
On a point of order, it is normally the case that a group of questions are taken together with the agreement of the House. That agreement was not sought by the Taoiseach. He has also grouped three diverse—
That is not a matter for the House.
I know it is not a matter for the House but it is a matter for order. The Taoiseach has grouped three diverse subjects together in a manner which belittles his office and I respectfully suggest that—
The Chair has no function in this matter.
I accept that. Linking the OSCE, Slovenia and Hungary and East Timor is a flagrant abuse of Taoiseach's Question Time.
The Chair has no function in this matter.
I support Deputy Quinn's remarks. The Taoiseach was ill advised. Does he favour the continuance of economic sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia? Does he favour making the lifting of those sanctions contingent on a change of government in that country?
I favour it. Until there is movement in respect of the Government in Yugoslavia, we are unlikely to return to a situation where real political progress will be made.
Does the Taoiseach see that there is a considerable precedent involved in the international community stating that it will impose sanctions on a country unless it changes its head of government? Does he regard that as consistent with the long held views of his party in respect of national sovereignty?
The basis of the international community's policy is that it will not deal with somebody who does not purport to follow democratic policies and who is involved in committing major atrocities against people.
On that basis, how can the Government maintain relations with China?
If we could concentrate on the country in respect of which questions are being asked—
I am asking that question.
—we have supported—
The level of consistency is dreadful.
Our policy is consistent.
Fianna Fáil has never governed—
The Taoiseach without interruption.
Members cannot seriously believe that we support Milosevic's policies because we do not.
(Interruptions.)
Will the Taoiseach address a serious question which goes to the heart of whether we have an ethics based or a power based foreign policy?
Indeed it does.
The Taoiseach is saying that he supports continued sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia until it rids itself of a particular individual who was, in some fashion or other, elected to the job he holds. I was not an observer at the election but I understand it was at least as fair as that by which Mr. Haughey maintained his continued power within Fianna Fáil.
That is an outrageous comparison.
It is a very fair comparison.
It is outrageous.
Will the Taoiseach reconsider this matter in view of the damage it is doing to neighbouring Balkan countries? It must be borne in mind that the Danube navigation has been closed off as a result of the sanctions and this will have seriously deleterious effects on the economies of other countries dependent on that navigation, which is not a good development from the point of view of the reconstruction of south-eastern Europe. Will the Taoiseach bear in mind that one of the results of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia was the knocking out of the central heating system in Belgrade, one result of which will be that people who had no part in deciding to launch ethnic cleansing will probably freeze to death this winter? People will die from the residual effects of NATO bombing which, apparently, the Taoiseach is effectively supporting through his continued support for continued sanctions against the people of Yugoslavia.
I am not sure what policy objective the Deputy is pursuing.
That is for me to work out, not the Taoiseach.
It is, but I will state my position. Mr. Milosevic and his regime perpetrated serious atrocities on his own people. Because of those atrocities the international community had to act. We have seen those actions throughout this year. The object of the sanctions is to ensure that if a stability pact, backed by substantial resources, is to be put in place it will be done on the basis that human rights and dignity will be maintained. That is the position of the international community. I heard in Russia the very strong position of the Russian and Serbian people. One hundred and fifty thousand people are in an extremely difficult position and I am sure the problem of assistance to these people will be an issue at the forthcoming OSCE meeting. Dialogue on the question of assistance is taking place between a number of heads of state, including those of Russia and the United States.
Why should the ordinary people of Yugoslavia be made to suffer, with the support of the Government of Ireland, for the crimes of their leadership and of individual militia men? Surely that is not justice?
Deputy Bruton knows that in all conflicts such as this it is the ordinary people who suffer.
The war is over.
The war and the difficulties related to it and the underlying difficulties are far from moved away. I heard that at the European Council last week.
The war is won. This is vengeance and it is not consistent with Fianna Fáil's traditions to support it.
Can the Taoiseach assure the House that Irish taxpayers' money, through the IMF and the World Bank, will not be used to finance the forced transmigration policy of the Indonesian government against the East Timorese people? Will he instruct the Minister for Finance to get a written agreement from the IMF and the World Bank on this?
The Deputy should submit a question to the Minister for Finance on IMF matters. The Government has already allocated money to assist the East Timorese people. This has been done through direct aid, through European funding and through the Rangers' participation in the security operation. Our aid is direct to East Timor. I hope aid will not be given by anybody else in a way that would affect the East Timorese people.
The Taoiseach's response does not address the core of my question. The East Timorese solidarity campaign in Ireland reports that more than 200,000 East Timorese people have been forced out and are held in concentration camps and that they are being exterminated and exiled. A budget of $27 million has been allocated for this by Indonesia. If the Taoiseach cannot answer my question, will he assist me in directing it to the Minister for Finance? Will the Taoiseach press the IMF and the World Bank to ensure financial aid to Indonesia is not used to fund genocide?
To gain support for IMF policy, the Deputy should put down a question. The Deputy knows the United States Administration has clearly laid down views, which have been supported by other IMF countries, regarding Indonesian involvement in any further violence against the East Timorese and has effectively threatened to stop resources if there is such involvement. That does not apply if there is no further action.
With reference to my earlier point of order, three separate sets of questions have been answered by the Taoiseach. I know you, Sir, have no responsibility for the grouping of questions, but I give notice that I would like to ask, separately, three sets of related questions because the Taoiseach has linked them. The first question relates to East Timor and I shall concentrate on it before returning to the other two. Does the Taoiseach agree the assembly yesterday recognised the independence of East Timor and annulled a decision of 1978 in relation to annexation and that East Timor is now an independent territory which sadly lacks the infrastructure to turn its territory into an independent state? Bearing in mind the difficulties we had in 1921 and 1922, we should empathise with that reality. Given the extraordinary empathy the Irish people have displayed with East Timor over many years, is the Taoiseach prepared to add that country to the list of priority countries for bilateral aid and institute a programme of solidarity engaging all the agencies – APSO and others – to enable the East Timorese people, and particularly the president designate, Xanana Gusmao, to turn that piece of territory into an independent nation state? Is the Taoiseach further prepared to provide the necessary resources, of which we are no longer short, to make that aspiration a reality?
We have announced a contribution of resources to the international agencies and some of these have already been allocated. The amount of money is not enormous but it is very helpful. The EU aid programme which we support has allocated approximately 5 million euros. We are also contributing to INTERFET. Deputy Quinn rightly points out that there are other major infrastructural issues, as Xanana Gusmao explained to me, which will require an enormous contribution to resolve. How this will be done is not clear yet but the world community will have to give assistance.
It is a matter for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to decide how overseas development aid is allocated and I will not make decisions for him. The Department of Foreign Affairs moves very swiftly and will be keen to continue to assist.
I suspect the Taoiseach was distracted and prevented from hearing my question. With due respect, I will repeat it. I did not ask if we are meeting our obligations with regard to international contributions or the European Union. I asked the Taoiseach if he will initiate a process to add the country now formally recognised as independent, East Timor, to the list of countries for priority treatment under our bilateral aid agreement. That is a decision for the Government of which the Taoiseach is still the leader. Will the Taoiseach mobilise Irish agencies who have manifested themselves to support East Timor to transfer their anger into constructive energy and, led by people such as Tom Hyland through APSO and other agencies, to deliver such a programme? Will the Taoiseach suggest – presumably he still has influence on his Minister for Finance – that a specific new financial programme for East Timor be put in place? We speak of a country of approximately 500,000 people, less than the population of Dublin city. I repeat my questions lest the Taoiseach did not hear them. Will East Timor be added to the list of countries for bilateral aid? Will the Taoiseach mobilise Irish agencies to deliver that aid in all its manifestations, above and beyond what they have already done? Between now and budget day, will the Taoiseach make an explicit allocation of budget surpluses to provide for the reconstruction of the social and physical infrastructure of that country?
Perhaps the Deputy did not hear my reply. His question is one for the Department of Foreign Affairs. I am not responsible for overseas development aid in the House. I am not responsible for adding countries to the list for bilateral aid.
I raise a point of order. If the Taoiseach is not responsible for overseas aid he should not accept questions on the subject.
If that happened, the Deputy would have something else to say.
I note what the Deputy said but I am not prepared to range across foreign affairs, justice and every other question that is asked. The order in which the questions are taken has been practised in the House since the year dot and I have no involvement in it.
It is not.
These questions relate to the Department of Foreign affairs and I have no further reply on them.
A Cheann Comhairle—
The Deputy must be brief. We cannot continue in this vein.
With due respect, I will not be brief. The Taoiseach has totally—
I have allowed the Deputy plenty of latitude and other Deputies are offering.
Deputy Quinn takes priority.
The Deputy should be brief.
If I received brief replies to my suc cinct questions, I would be very expeditious in dealing with parliamentary business.
The Deputy must obey the Chair. He cannot overrule the Chair. The Chair is ruling that the Deputy has an opportunity to ask a brief supplementary question. Other Deputies are offering.
The Taoiseach has chosen to answer questions relating to the meeting he had with Xanana Gusmao. He, or somebody on his behalf, grouped two other sets of unrelated questions with them, to which I wish to return. I am talking about the question—
The Deputy is engaging in repetition.
I asked a specific question and Deputy Ahern, I understand, is still Taoiseach. I asked him if he would consider, propose or undertake three matters, and I will repeat them again—
Repetition is not in order.
Perhaps I will restate them. Maybe he did not understand them the first time.
On a point of order, a Cheann Comhairle, there are many important questions but the Deputy continues to repeat himself. He asked if I would report on my recent meeting in Dublin with East Timor leader, Xanana Gusmao, and I gave him my reply.
The Taoiseach did not.
I answered supplementary questions but I am not answering questions on foreign affairs today. The questions about ODA and agencies, such as APSO and others, come under the remit of the Department of Foreign Affairs.
They do not. The question of adding a new country to the bilateral—
We cannot continue in this vein.
If you allowed me to make the point, Sir, you might allow me to ask a question.
I have allowed the Deputy to make many points and we cannot carry on like this.
The Taoiseach is evasive. Adding a bilateral country to the list of bilateral countries involves a Cabinet decision and as far as I know Deputy Ahern is still Taoiseach.
Cabinet decisions are not made on the floor of this House.
I know that. I am asking the Taoiseach whether he will consider proposing such a matter.
I informed the Deputy five minutes ago that I would consider the points he made.
The Taoiseach did not.
He did.
He did not.
Will it happen before the millennium?
This cannot continue. I call Deputy Gormley.
My question relates to the Taoiseach's visit to Kosovo. Is he aware that the UN has appealed to NATO to give immediate information on the use of depleted uranium weapons in Kosovo? Will he raise this issue during his visit because these weapons are responsible for birth defects and terrible abnormalities? It is an important issue.
Yes, I will take the opportunity when I visit to meet the UN KFOR group and OSCE personnel to raise that issue.
Will the Taoiseach visit other parts of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and, if not, why not?
My opportunity to visit was arranged by the Defence Forces and KFOR. I will attend whenever time permits. I have no difficulty—
I appeal to the Taoiseach to interest himself in the humanitarian situation in Serbia, which arises from a combination of bombing and sanctions. I do not expect him to be briefed necessarily on every aspect of this problem when he comes into the House for Question Time, but will he agree to investigate the situation because this winter could be serious for people living in that part of the world as a result of actions taken by the west? Such results may not have been intended but they are real. When he visits there will he inform himself as to exactly what are the humanitarian prospects of the Serbs? In this country which is opposed to racism, we should not blame the entire Serb population for the actions of a number of Serb militia.
We never did.
We should not tell the Serbs who should be their Head of Government because that is a matter for them, not the Irish, French, Germans or Americans.
If my itinerary allows, I will undertake as much of that task as I can. When I met Prime Minister Putin in Russia some weeks ago, he gave me a detailed account and assessment of the plight of 150,000 Serbs and the difficulties that have arisen because of the infrastructural damage to essential supplies of water, heating and other utilities in that region. I reported back to the President of the European Council, Mr. Lipponen, a number of weeks ago during a meeting in Dublin, which was part of the European Presidency. The Russian authorities have pursued this issue with other countries, especially America. The international community must make decisions. However, there is no doubt that there is hardship which has resulted not just from sanctions. Many other underlying difficulties arose from the war earlier this year.
I call Deputy Finucane.
On a point of order, a Cheann Comhairle, I said that I wished to raise three sets of questions and I was—
I will return to the Deputy.
Thank you.
Does the Taoiseach think that sanctions should apply to medicines? On 21 August a Minister of State stated on the "Saturday View" radio programme that sanctions should not apply to medicines.
That remains the position. A list of items have been excluded, which includes more than medicines.
Question No. 7 refers to Slovenia and Hungary. Does the Government have plans to extend the residential representation which Ireland has in three of the six first rank applicant countries for membership of the EU, namely, Slovenia, Estonia and Cyprus? When the Taoiseach visits Slovenia, will he be in a position to inform the authorities in Ljubljana that Ireland will meet their request for a residential embassy in order to consolidate the links and relationships that exist between Ireland and Slovenia? Slovenia will soon be a full member of the EU as it is the most compliant of the six applicant countries in terms of the Maastricht criteria. Will he outline a positive and constructive position to this request, which will be the first he will receive when he visits?
No Government decision has been made yet about the extension of embassies to that region but the matter is constantly under consideration. By 2003 the first of the applicant countries will join the Union. Slovenia is one of the best prepared and it will be probably between 2003 and 2005 before others join. The EU decisions will have to be considered in regard to Ireland establishing further embassies and strengthening its diplomatic effort. There is unlikely to be a decision before 2000 but it is in our interest to strengthen diplomatic relations in these countries over the next five years.
I understand that no decision has yet been made but when will one be taken? Does he consider it significant that three of the six applicant countries have populations smaller than that of the Republic of Ireland and most of them, if not all, are desirous of a residential embassy presence and access to Ireland's experience of having been a member of the EU for 26 years? When will a decision be made which will bring about the establishment of a residential embassy and related programmes in Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia?
After the Helsinki summit when the formal decision will be taken on which countries will join and approximately when they will join. The discussions last week indicated that it would be between 2003 and 2009. We will have to see where we open embassies. There is a priority list for this year, next year and possibly the year after, which does not include those countries where embassies are to be established. I outlined those in reply to parliamentary questions recently.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the Albanian President said that during the war in Kosovo, Albania had to take Apache attack helicopters because of their PfP commitments? Will the Taoiseach establish during his visit if that was the case and if there are implications for our position?
That was not the reason, for God's sake.
I do not know how that would be established. We are again drifting into questions which are not relevant.
They were there to protect ethnic Albanians.
That is true.
I want an answer.
Arising from questions asked previously, and trying to be constructive, these nine questions refer to a number of meetings the Taoiseach has had. At these meetings, or as a result of them, will he consult the Minister for Foreign Affairs to prepare a position for Ireland in relation to the operation of sanctions? I am not tediously extending a question that was answered earlier but the point that Deputies Bruton and Finucane raised arises in relation to the operation of sanctions. In reply to the question on medical supplies, for example, the Taoiseach stated that it extended beyond medical supplies. The list is restricted in relation to humanitarian need. On foot of the Taoiseach's visit and the meetings which he will attend, will he prepare a review of the operation of sanctions to ensure that the humanitarian need being experienced in the countries mentioned today, and also in Iraq, is not one that cuts across a foreign policy which punishes civilians as a type of collateral damage?
I do not have a copy of that list but I understood it covered extended medical and paramedical items, and essential clothing, children's items and other essential needs. I agree with extending or making that more effective for the purposes of humanitarian aid.
Is it not a short step from that point, to take up the political question of international relations, that the operation of sanctions, usually seen as accompanying or preceding the threat of force, will not succeed the use of force, that is, continue to be visited on a civilian population, the forms of the conflict in a military sense having been over?
That is a matter for the people involved. The situation in Iran and in some other countries has existed for a long time and it is correct that they have not ended the sources of conflict or division and have not resolved any of the problems. Sanctions against humanitarian and medical supplies and other essential services only work against the local population, the ordinary people. It is unfair to use sanctions in that way. I will check what is on the list but I understood that medicines and essential supplies were included on that list.
Will the Taoiseach reflect on the new developments in international relations, expressed by the doctrine of humanitarian military intervention without UN Security Council sanction, as practised in Kosovo by NATO, allied to the decision to arrest people and try them in a foreign country for offences committed in a home country, as was seen the case of the former President of Chile? Is the Taoiseach concerned that, by moving away from the certain doctrine of state sovereignty, which had deficiencies but was certain in its application, we are moving towards the uncertain and subjective doctrine of extra-territorialism, based on the political judgment of whoever happens to be power? We are moving from an area in which there was a measure of predictability in international relations to an area where predictability will be less evident. As head of the Government of a country which fought hard to attain its sovereignty, is the Taoiseach concerned about these developments?
These are the issues which test all countries at almost every meeting. The demands for involvement of countries in the affairs of other regions are enormous – there are requests for military and professional involvement and assistance with financial resources. It is becoming increasingly difficult for the European Council and ECOFIN to follow the policies of the past. Last week Romano Prodi stated that we should seek means to define Europe in a European context. What are its parameters? Where are its priorities and commitments? Should we become involved in Islamic countries? These questions cause concern and create difficulties.
I was asked how consistent and certain Irish policy is. Irish policy is important but, being honest, this is developing beyond our ability in the international community because it is no good saying that we can influence states which we cannot. That would be misleading. Now the demands and pressures from eastern and south-eastern Europe give concern.
Pinochet was an international terrorist.
I appreciate what the Taoiseach has said about the geographic reach of our concerns. In terms of international law, would the Taoiseach agree that the previous doctrine of state sovereignty had legal certainty? There was no intervention in the sovereign territory of another country and it was not possible to arrest the citizens of another country for offences committed in their own country and try them overseas, other than on very clearly defined bases. Does the Taoiseach agree that we are moving away from that certainty in the interests of ostensibly humanitarian concerns?
Pinochet was a mass murderer and a torturer.
I am trying to deal with this across the board. Does the Taoiseach agree that there is a consideration that if we have elastic rules of international law, it leaves room for arbitrary decision making outside the law and that will mean that only power will count? Whatever was wrong with extradition treaties which could not be implemented, resulting in war criminals not being tried, and whatever was wrong with things being done within a sovereign state, at least there was a measure of certainty in the past. We are now moving into an area in which certainty is absent. That is inherently dangerous.
In the normal course of events that is so. We have experience of a significant international figure entering this State some years ago who's presence raised questions of international law.
He was a Mexican financier and fraudster.
It is difficult. In terms of international crime, particularly drug-related crime, however, this is an area which will grow and grow. If one looks at extradition law as it currently is, there are obvious difficulties. The Germans will not extradite their own citizens while other countries will not co-operate in any extradition processes. In the new effort for European security, the European Community – I want to only comment on the European Community – is seeking equity in the system, a level playing field, similar standards and that countries co-operate as members of the Community. I do not want to get into the argument about international figures who are currently the source of debate in other countries.
The Taoiseach is likely to have one prime minister on the run.
In the course of the meeting between the Taoiseach and the East Timorese leader, Mr. Xanana Gusmao, was the election of a new president in Indonesia, the implications for East Timor and, in particular, the implications for the safety of foreign personnel – peacekeepers and peace enforcers – discussed? If so, what was the view of Mr. Gusmao and the Taoiseach on that, particularly in light of the decision yesterday to elect Mr. Gus Dur as the new president despite his support for Megawati?
We briefly discussed the Indonesian situation. Mr. Gusmao expressed some views but I would like to state them. He gave me his general views about what he thought, but nothing of great significance. That was not his concern. He had strong views that the international force and the safety of peacekeepers and other agencies should remain, in the long-term, under Australian control. He was very concerned and asked us to state wherever we could – I have done so – that it should not go back to an Asian leadership of the UN force. He felt it absolutely imperative that the Australians maintain the leadership not only for an extension of the four month period but into the future. That was his major concern for this period.
Has he any concerns for the safety of peacekeepers, including Irish peacekeepers, consequent on the election of Mr. Gus Dur as president and the potential election, tomorrow, of the head of the Indonesian military, General Wiranto, as vice-president?
That will have to be monitored closely between the forces on the ground. No particular issues were brought to our attention yesterday or today. Our rangers arrive there this weekend and, of course, there is total commitment to maintaining the situation. It is difficult enough and anything that makes it more difficult will be of major concern.
I have allowed a more than generous number of supplementaries on these nine questions. I remind the House that the Chair has the sole ruling on the number of supplementaries. Some Members seem to have the impression they can ask as many as they wish. They can ask only as many as the Chair permits. I find it necessary to remind the House of that ruling under Standing Order 41.
Old friends are best.
In response to that direction, which I unreservedly accept, may I ask you, Sir, in an area for which you have no responsibility, to suggest to the various Ministers who answer questions that if they choose not to group diverse questions together they would not provoke diverse—
The Chair has absolutely no control over that.
I, Sir—
The Deputy has made that point.
In response to your suggestion, which we accept, I suggest that you, Sir, or your office might communicate in a non-adversarial manner to all Government Ministers—
What the Deputy is saying is on the record.
—that grouping diverse questions provokes—
Under the rulings, I take the view that I should respond to practically every supplementary question, regardless of what it is about. On Taoiseach's question time this ranges from A to Z and back.
It is good for the Taoiseach's general knowledge.
It is.
It builds the Taoiseach's general knowledge.
You take a liberal view of these things, a Cheann Comhairle – all your predecessors did not – and I think it is good for Question Time. It could also be the other way round in that the Taoiseach could be very restrictive about what he or she could answer. That is a view I do not take.
The Chair does his best to accommodate all Members but still finds it necessary to remind Members that the number and relevance of supplementaries are the sole judgment of the Chair. That concludes the Taoiseach's questions for today.