Vol. 509 No. 6
17 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance in Finland on 15 and 16 October 1999 at the special European Council on Justice and Home Affairs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21218/99]
18 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the President of the European Commission, Mr. Prodi, when he attended the special European Council on Justice and Home Affairs in Finland on 15 and 16 October 1999; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21219/99]
19 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meetings with other EU Heads of Government when he attended the special European Council on Justice and Home Affairs in Finland on 15 and 16 October 1999; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21220/99]
20 Mr. Naughten asked the Taoiseach the issues discussed at the recent EU summit meeting in Finland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21270/99]
21 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting in Dublin with Dr. Walter Schwimmer, General Secretary of the Council of Europe; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21667/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 17 to 21, inclusive, together.
I attended the Special European Council in Tampere from 15 to 16 October 1999 with my colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Fahey, who deputised for the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The President of the European Commission, Mr. Prodi, also attended the Council.
As I outlined in my comprehensive statement to the Dáil on Thursday, 21 October, the aim of the summit was to address the issues of protection, assistance and access to redress, in both civil and criminal matters. The core agenda had three main elements: a common EU asylum and migration policy; a genuine European area of justice and a Union-wide fight against crime. The summit also addressed the development of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and in this regard the nature of the body to be charged with the formulation of the charter was endorsed.
The body will consist of 62 members drawn from the European Parliament, national parliaments, representatives of Heads of State and Government and a representative of President Prodi. A number of other institutions and representative groups will attend as observers or will be consulted, as will the applicant states. The body will submit the draft charter to the European Council for adoption. The aim of the charter is to bring together, in a single politically binding declaration, all the fundamental rights applicable at Union level to make these rights more visible to the citizens of the Union.
The meeting offered a useful opportunity for leaders to note the ongoing progress on the enlargement process and to consider informally the matters they will discuss at Helsinki next month. I welcomed the latest reports on the applicant states from the Commission and the proposed revised arrangements for the conduct of the negotiations with individual applicants.
The leaders also discussed other issues of an international nature which were current at the time of the summit. This provided an opportunity for the European Council to make known its views on the coup d'etat in Pakistan and rejection by the US Senate of the proposal to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The ongoing resolution of the situation in East Timor and the conflict in Chechnya were also discussed by Heads of State and Government during their working dinner.
I held a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Blair on the eve of the summit at which we reviewed the agenda for Tampere and, of course, the current situation in Northern Ireland and the progress of the review being undertaken by Senator Mitchell. I met with Dr. Walter Schwimmer, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, on 29 October. We discussed Ireland's priorities for our chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which will commence this week when the Minister for Foreign Affairs attends the ministerial session of the Council in Strasbourg.
The political agenda for our Presidency will include the Stability Pact agreed at Sarajevo in July, enlargement of the Council of Europe and the compliance of member states with their commitments and obligations as members of the organisation. We will emphasise the necessity for member states to implement the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. I look forward to Ireland's term of office and believe we can make a positive contribution to the work of the Council.
What did the Swedish Foreign Minister say at the summit about a country which delayed for 16 months before supplying information requested by the Swedish authorities to assist them in an investigation of money laundering by a company which had defrauded a large number of Swedish savers of their money?
The Foreign Minister said nothing in public or in public session. She referred to delays from countries in her contribution at a working lunch. She did not mention any country.
Is it not the case that the Foreign Minister mentioned one country as having delayed especially long and that, even though she had the courtesy not to mention it, the country in question transpired to be Ireland?
We know that is correct.
Is the Taoiseach ashamed of this delay?
There were reasons for the delay. Decisions made between the Swedish authorities and our authorities are the subject matter of questions. Matters regarding the length of the delay and the correspondence involved will emerge in the answers to them.
Does the Taoiseach agree that in this case the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, has proven not to be administering his Department adequately? Does he also agree that if the standards the Minister demanded of his predecessor were to be applied to his case in this instance he would no longer be a Minister?
This is not Question Time for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The 16 months break down as follows. Is it in order to list this even though there are questions down?
Strictly speaking, it is outside the scope of these questions. These are separate questions on the matter.
I have no difficulty with that.
They arose—
It did not; it was mentioned during the lunch.
On a point of order, will the Taoiseach agree that the term "a working lunch" means the activities and discussions that take place are an integral part of the proceedings of the Council?
As the Deputy knows, normally the discussions are of a more private nature than that of a working lunch and are not made known. In this case it was the prime minister of another country who raised these issues with a member of the Irish media.
Does the Taoiseach agree the proceedings of a working lunch are reported back to each national delegation, that there is an official from the Commission present, that notes are taken and that these constitute part of the proceedings of the Council? To suggest otherwise is misleading.
These are matters for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
To clarify the matter, there was no row on this issue that involved Irish Government representatives at the Tampere Summit. The representatives of the Swedish Government did not raise the matter with representatives of the Irish Government at the summit, nor did they raise it with me at any time. The Swedish authorities did not make a complaint to the Irish authorities concerning the matter. This was not a money laundering issue, nor was there any question of freezing an account. The evidence given in the District Court disclosed that there was no money left in the account at the time the request was made. The case involved a gross breach of trust and gross embezzlement concerning a trust or investment company. The request sought information concerning transactions of a Bank of Ireland account in the name of Selrex Corporation in June 1997. The request was received on 22 January 1998 and the information sought was furnished on 11 June, approximately six months later. The processing of the case involved the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Chief State Solicitor's office, including counsel, the Garda Síochána and the District Court. This was a new area of work for all of these bodies and the legislative framework was put into effect less than three years ago. The 16 month period breaks down as follows: one month for a response from Sweden for information needed to meet our statutory requirements; four months for legal advice from the Chief State Solicitor's office and counsel; two months for a reply from the Swedes, through the Department of Foreign Affairs, to information sought by counsel; seven months for the Garda to obtain names of witnesses from the Bank of Ireland – the Garda authorities have been asked to make further inquiries in this matter – one month for approval by the CSSO to arrange a court hearing; one month between the request for court hearings and the case being heard and a report by the EU team of experts in August on Ireland's arrangements concerning these matters.
The Chair wishes to point out that this issue is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Therefore, I cannot allow further cross-examination on the matter.
Given that some of the offices concerned, including the Chief State Solicitor's office, come under the aegis of the Taoiseach and not the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, he does have a ministerial responsibility to the House in the matter. Does the Taoiseach agree what he has just read out is one of the most deplorable litanies of pointless paper-pushing in recent Irish public administration? Does he also agree it is deplorable that an issue that involves the theft of large sums of money from decent Swedish savers should not have been assisted in being brought to a conclusion with greater promptness by the Irish authorities? What action is the Taoiseach taking regarding the delay of four months in furnishing the relevant legal advice and what action is he taking regarding the delay in dealing with the matter in the Chief State Solicitor's office? Is the Taoiseach ashamed of this saga?
Again these are matters which can be more appropriately pursued with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
These are issues that are in the Taoiseach's—
I will allow the Taoiseach to comment.
Incidentally, if the Swedish Prime Minister had really thought that it was a burning issue, the Swedes would have raised it very quickly, as they do in other issues. It is a long delay but there are reasons for it. The August 1999 report of the EU team of experts on Ireland's arrangements for mutual assistance was highly complimentary and recommended some streamlining of procedures. The Deputy asked me if we will follow up on that report and streamline procedures. The recommendations have been accepted and are in the process of being implemented. Prior to this issue being raised, therefore, it was being dealt with. In October of last year, an evaluation report on Ireland by the International Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering was also highly complimentary. I congratulate the agencies of the State on getting such an excellent report from this international body.
Mr. J. Bruton rose.
I hope the Deputy's question is appropriate to this matter.
The Taoiseach will recall that he came into the House reporting on the Tampere Summit and boasted that we had the best record in Europe in regard to dealing with money laundering and that we were giving a lead, yet it transpires that at that very summit upon which he was reporting, a complaint had been made about this deplorable delay in dealing with the request from another country to close a file in regard to the theft of money across international boundaries.
The Chair has made a ruling on the matter.
Will the Taoiseach recant the phrase he used here in the House about Ireland taking a lead when it appears, under his Administration, that we are at the end of the queue in dealing with legitimate requests from other authorities?
I was referring to the evaluation report on Ireland by the International Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, published last autumn, which was highly complimentary. The August 1999 report by the EU team of experts on Ireland's arrangements for mutual assistance was highly complimentary, recommending some streamlining of procedures.
Did they know about this case? Have they been told about this case?
I am sure the case was in the system.
If they had known about this case they would not have written that.
The recommendations have been accepted and the improvement in the system is working. Deputy Bruton will also know that this whole area is new to the systems and to the agencies, and our legislation is less than three years old. While on the face of it this case has been a long time being dealt with, there are legal reasons for that.
Are the reasons acceptable?
The Chair has ruled on the matter. The time for Taoiseach's questions has expired and we must now proceed to priority questions.
