John Bruton
Question:1 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the engagements he undertook on his recent trip to New York; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23328/99]
Ceisteanna–Questions. Oral Answers. - Official Engagements.
John Bruton
Question:2 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the Ireland America Economic Advisory Board; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23329/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:3 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his recent visit to the United States and, in particular, his meetings with Governor Pataki and Mayor Giuliani. [23387/99]
Joe Higgins
Question:4 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visit to the United States. [23439/99]
John Bruton
Question:5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visit to New York from 11 to 13 November 1999. [23599/99]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:6 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visit to New York. [23672/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, together.
During my recent visit to New York, I had very useful meetings with both Mayor Giuliani and the Governor of New York, George Pataki. I also met with the heads of the following Irish State agencies in Ireland House – IDA Ireland, Enterprise Ireland, SFADCo, CIE Tours, Aer Lingus and Bord Fáilte. I outlined for them current Government objectives and priorities in the promotion of our economic interests abroad and the heads of the State agencies briefed me on their current operations and perspectives. I hosted a breakfast meeting for members of the Ireland America Economic Advisory Board on Friday, 12 November. We had a successful meeting during which we discussed economic developments in Ireland and necessary policy measures to ensure that our rapid growth can be sustained. In the course of my visit, I addressed the Irish Business Organisation and the National Committee on American Foreign Policy, each of which were attended by approximately 200 people. I also gave a number of press briefings and radio and television interviews. During my visit, I took the opportunity to emphasise the need to move forward on foot of the basis emerging in Senator Mitchell's review of the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement.
Is the Taoiseach aware that when I was Taoiseach I attended a party fundraiser in New York, but on that occasion the Fine Gael Party paid for my travel and subsistence and there was no charge on the State? Why, given that precedent established by his predecessor, did the Taoiseach decide to attend a Fianna Fáil fundraiser in New York at public expense—
That is not true.
—and construct a series of events around that solely for the purpose of justifying use of the public purse to fund his travel and subsistence when attending a Fianna Fáil fundraiser?
I resent Deputy Bruton's remarks.
I expected the Taoiseach would.
I did not take invitations I received from the Governor of New York when he visited Ireland last August to build up around a Fianna Fáil fundraiser, nor those from the Mayor of New York. The main invitation was to attend the American Committee on Foreign Policy, which was attended by the ex-Secretary of State Mo Mowlam, John Hume, David Trimble, Ian Paisley, Lord Alderdice, David Ervine and Gary McMichael. The committee asked me to address it as I have now been Taoiseach for two and a half years. I took up that invitation and also met the other organisations I have mentioned.
Approximately two weeks before that, some business people in New York said they would host a small fundraiser. Fianna Fáil has not held a fundraiser in New York since 1996 and approximately 24 people attended. Apart from party members, there were 13 people who might have made a subscription. I met Fianna Fáil committee members – approximately 50 people – for approximately 45 minutes, but that was not part of the fundraising function. Perhaps Deputy Bruton, in his time as Taoiseach, went to America to do Fine Gael business exclusively, but I did not. When I spoke about this in the House recently, I thought Deputy Bruton mentioned that there was a precedent for a Taoiseach attending functions to make a contribution to the cost, but when I checked the record—
I did not. I did no party business.
I do not know if that is the case.
It is the case. I did not mix public and party business.
When I am at home I work very long days.
Shaking hands.
What is wrong with that?
If I work 16 or 17 hours and spend two hours of my downtime doing a fundraiser for my party, drinking in a bar or walking the streets, is that wrong?
Shaking hands.
That is why he is so popular.
There are one million votes to go, while the country goes to ruin.
We must have an orderly Question Time.
The Taoiseach is wrong to mix party and public business and he is doing himself, his country and his party a disservice by doing so. If he wants to do party business in New York, he should fund that separately through party sources. He has made a mistake in mixing the two activities in the way he has done. He is not doing a service to himself and he is not even being fair to himself in doing so. He may have agreed to these arrangements in a moment of inattention, but they were a mistake. Is it not the case that the Taoiseach indicated to Deputy Owen on a number of occasions when she raised the matter that if there was a party element to any public trip the Taoiseach took, the party would make a contribution towards the public cost of the trip? Despite the fact that this is the second occasion on which the Taoiseach, while on a public trip abroad, has done party fundraising, why has he not made the required contribution? It is a contribution he suggested he would make.
I have already answered the last part of that question, but I do not believe I have created a precedent. I did not check the records of Deputy Bruton's activities for his party, but I can if he wants. Maybe he remembers them.
I was very careful about it.
Maybe he will correct me, but I know on one occasion he did so. If Deputy Bruton is saying that within or outside the country one should never mix party occasions, the same precedent would apply to going to Cork or Limerick as America or Britain. It would mean never mixing activities. I would have my doubts that Deputy Bruton has never gone on official trips and mixed them with party business. I am sure he did, and the same applies if one goes to Cork and attends a function with a party element. It is the same thing.
I undertook no fundraisers and this was a small event. Because I was publicised as going, the organisers arranged a small function attended by 13 people who might have made a subscription. I even went to another formal function afterwards. It is not a precedent, it happened with several of my predecessors, if not Deputy Bruton, though I did not check his records. The reason I raised the matter of a contribution is that I thought that if a Taoiseach attended a party function while abroad, a contribution would have to be made. However, I checked back and such a contribution was never made.
I never asked Fine Gael to make a contribution because I never mixed party business with public business when abroad. I did a fundraiser in New York and the entire cost of my travel and subsistence was met by Fine Gael. There was not any public element in that. The Taoiseach on the other hand, for a second time, went to New York for a Fianna Fáil fundraiser while his travel was paid for by the State.
No, no.
No, the Deputy is twisting it.
The Deputy should confine himself to the subject of the question.
The only problem with that is, I had not been in New York as Taoiseach before.
Is it not the case that the Taoiseach said he would make a donation of party funds towards the cost of the trip? Is the Taoiseach saying that a contribution will not now be made, however small, from Fianna Fáil funds towards the cost of this trip which was for the purpose of enabling the Taoiseach inter alia to attend a Fianna Fáil fundraiser at public expense?
I resent what the Deputy is saying. Let us be blunt about this. Deputy Bruton is accusing me of setting up an appointment with the Governor of New York and Mayor Giuliani, with taking up an invitation of the international—
The Taoiseach knows what I am saying.
Come on, Deputy Bruton. I am tired of the Deputy going around the Houses playing dirty politics. We will face this down now.
The king of it is speaking now.
The Deputy is trying to say that I organised these things to go to a small Fianna Fáil fundraiser. If he believes that, he is not the person I thought he was.
These meetings are organised very easily.
They are not easily organised.
They are.
They are not.
They are and I know it.
We cannot have argument on Question Time. Supplementary questions cannot be argumentative.
The Taoiseach was killing two birds with the one slate.
And for free too.
In the course of the Taoiseach's visit to New York on official business with both the Governor and the Mayor of New York, did he discuss the problem of undocumented Irish nationals living in New York and seeking work there? Did he express the hope that they would not ever have the misfortune of having to apply to the equivalent of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform?
Supplementary questions should not be argumentative. They should seek information.
I discussed the issue. There are still a number of undocumented Irish people in New York and Mayor Giuliani has been most helpful. He campaigned successfully on this issue and I thanked him for it. We discussed how it would work out in future. He explained his policy and said he regretted that the number of qualified and trained Irish people now going there had dwindled so much. There is a major labour shortfall in New York which has become a substantive problem. They are looking across all sectors for people to work there and it was the Mayor's view that the more who were Irish, the better. He out lined what he is endeavouring to do and I thanked him for that.
In light of the experience of Governor Pataki and Mayor Giuliani in receiving what might otherwise be described as illegal immigrants, euphemistically known as the "undocumented", has the Taoiseach considered that some of their experience in dealing with people who wished to improve their lives might be transferred and conveyed to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform? Has he considered an educational programme or some type of personnel exchange which would enable us, who do not have experience dealing with economic immigrants, to learn from the experience of the United States? Was that issue discussed in the course of his meeting?
I did not discuss that issue. However, I discussed it a number of times in New York because I was asked about it. I told those who asked that the position in this country was reversed from what it was a short time ago. As a matter of information, which is not directly relevant to the question, I spoke to a number of Irish civil servants who worked on that area in America—
Coping with our illegals.
—coping with our illegals, for information on how best to manage it. That was a useful discussion.
I call Deputy Bruton.
Any chance of transferring them to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to avoid the shambles?
The Taoiseach will accept that it is normal practice for heads of Government, during visits to other countries, not to involve themselves in the domestic politics of the countries concerned. Does the Taoiseach think it was wise of him to meet one of the Senate candidates for the state of New York, Mayor Giuliani, and not the other candidate who happens to be well placed to influence current administration policy by virtue of her relationship with the President of the United States? Does the Taoiseach think it was particularly clever to meet one candidate rather than another?
He is more than a candidate, he is the Mayor.
Second, with regard to the Ireland America Economic Advisory Board which the Taoiseach met, were any of the people involved in that also involved in the telecommunications industry? If so, does he think they would have been impressed by what happened here last Friday when the telecommunications system collapsed? Returning to the original topic, did any of the people who attended the Ireland America Economic Advisory Board attend the other private function the Taoiseach attended during his so called down time?
I met Mayor Giuliani in his capacity as Mayor of New York, not in any other capacity. There was no other declared candidate whom I could have met. However, in case I missed out, I went to Istanbul last week at taxpayers' expense and sat for a considerable length of time with the candidate the Deputy has in mind. The score is even.
The Taoiseach failed to get us the television coverage.
I thought the Deputy was a GAA man. I thought he still followed the ban.
I do. I voted for it.
Thankfully, it did not affect the Deputy. Mick McCarthy would be proud of him.
With regard to the second issue, some of the people on the advisory board would have telecommunications backgrounds. Unfortunately, I met them a week before the issue arose here so I could not discuss it with them. It is a sign of our relative wealth and sophistication that there can be such a crisis as a result of mobile phones going down. Needless to say, I hope it does not happen too often.
If I were in the Taoiseach's shoes, I would not view it that way.
Deputy Bruton, the matter was fully discussed.
This is not a sign of success, it is a sign of failure.
I call Deputy Joe Higgins.
Did the people who attended the down time meeting with the Taoiseach also attend the Ireland America Economic Advisory Board meeting and was there was a conflict of interest involved?
The Deputy is aware from his term as Taoiseach that the membership of the economic advisory board is not made public. He recently requested the full list and I forwarded it to him.
I have it here.
The Deputy also knows who attended the other function. The person who organised my function is the same person who organised the Deputy's functions.
I call Deputy Higgins.
We paid for ours. Fianna Fáil did not pay for theirs.
(Dublin West): I thank the Ceann Comhairle for letting me speak after 20 minutes. Deputy Bruton was only short of asking what the Taoiseach had for breakfast in New York. As well as discussing the problem of young Irish people who are in the United States illegally with the Mayor of New York, did the Taoiseach meet and have discussions with any Afro-American or Latino American leaders? If so, did he learn anything that might help him to educate the bigotry out of certain members of his party, such as Deputy Callely? Did he consider himself fortunate that Deputy Callely's unfortunate remarks were made after—
The Deputy should not introduce arguments in his supplementary questions.
(Dublin West):—the Taoiseach left New York rather than before as they would be a source of serious embarrassment?
Did the Taoiseach also meet any representatives of Monsanto or of the genetic engineering lobby or multinationals in the United States as he did last year? They lobbied him so successfully then that he directed the Department of the Environment and Local Government on how to vote at an EU meeting. That permitted a favourable vote for the GMO lobby from the United States. Did the Taoiseach meet on this occasion with this lobby and, if so, what was the nature of the discussions?
The answer to all the Deputy's questions is ‘no'.
Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin.
A Cheann Comhairle—
I pointed out yesterday that I must take supplementary questions from Deputies who tabled questions before I take supplementary questions from other Deputies.
(Mayo): I have a final, brief supplementary. When the Taoiseach and other leaders from this country go to the United States, especially in the present circumstances, does the Taoiseach consider it would be useful if they were to engage in dialogue with leaders of minority groups in the United States, such as Afro-Americans, Latin Americans and other peoples, about their experience of a multicultural society?
I have no difficulty with that. If opportunities arise to meet such groups here or in America, I will certainly meet them.
(Mayo): The Taoiseach should seek them out.
During the course of the Taoiseach's recent visit to New York did he learn of or is he in a position to report on progress with the implementation of the Walsh visa scheme for people in the Border counties and the Six Counties? Does he share my concern and the concern of many people at the award of the contract for the administration of this scheme to the Lexicon company, a subsidiary of Northrup Grummen, a major US arms manufacturer?
I discussed the Walsh visa scheme with a number of people, a number of Irish groups and a number of Irish representatives at the functions I attended and it was also raised in media briefings. It is a good scheme that is keenly supported by the Irish groups. I do not have great knowledge of the companies to which the Deputy referred.
Does Deputy Ó Caoláin know the company? Maybe his party knows about it. Maybe it had a bad experience.
I have details of the scheme, if the Deputy wishes to have that information, but I am not sure what the connection is between this seemingly excellent scheme and the company to which the Deputy referred. I am not aware of it.
I have a final, brief supplementary.
The Deputy must be brief.
I thank the Taoiseach for his remarks on the first part of my question, but will he indicate the start-up date for the application procedure for the 4,000 people who will qualify in the first year of the Walsh scheme? As he indicated that he is not aware of the awarding of the contract by the US Administration to the Lexicon company, I ask that he familiarise himself with the detail of that and, if he shares my concern at this decision, to make appropriate representations.
It is a contract awarded by the American administration. I will examine the matter. Maybe the company has a military connection, but I am not sure how that will affect the scheme other than their assessment of it. I have a detailed briefing of the scheme, but I am not aware of the details of the company involved.
The Taoiseach named a list of events he attended and a list of groups he met during his visit to the United States, and he said those meetings were satisfactory. Is an action plan developed when he returns home or what happens the proposals made to him at those meetings?
An advisory group in this regard has been in existence for most of the decade. On this occasion, the IDA invited separate companies along and those companies put forward suggestions on a number of areas in which the economic consular is assisting them on particular projects with which the IDA is dealing. I had better not give the details of those projects as one of them is a major scheme being followed up by the IDA. If the Deputy wants a confidential briefing on this, I can give him that, but this is sensitive information as other countries are also chasing this business. This project is not in the e-commerce area, although much of the discussions related to e-commerce matters. There are a number of new members on the advisory group, who have expertise in this area. They were recommended by present members of the economic advisory group and by the Irish ambassador.
When the Taoiseach visited New York, did he meet emigrant groups and discuss the fact that a sizeable percentage of the emigrant population there is living in poverty and has poor education? In light of the economic climate here, did he discuss the possibility of increasing funding to those organisations?
I did. I had a follow up meeting to a meeting the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, had a few weeks ago and the funding issues were raised. Those groups put certain proposals to me, which are probably similar to those to which the Deputy is referring.
Arising from an earlier response from the Taoiseach when he indicated that he hoped that what happened last Friday, the scandalous breakdown of our telecommunications systems—
We had a 20 minute discussion on this matter on the Adjournment last night and it is out of order to have a rehash of that discussion now.
The Taoiseach indicated that he hoped this would not happen again. What is the basis for his hope in that regard? Has any step been taken by the Taoiseach or the Minister for Public Enterprise, who is now prompting him, to deal with this matter?
The Minister gave almost a ten minute reply on this matter last night.
I was here last night and so was Deputy Yates.
I am sure the Minister was but she is not doing her job. This should not have happened.
I will allow the Deputy to raise this matter on condition that he will be brief.
I am not in charge of Eircom any more. That fact must have missed the Deputy. He should wake up.
We must move on to Questions Nos. 7 to 12.
Joe Higgins
Question:7 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visit to Turkey. [24283/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:8 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his participation in the OSCE summit of Heads of State and Government on 18 and 19 November 1999 in Istanbul. [24319/99]
John Bruton
Question:9 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visit to Turkey; the official engagements he undertook; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24344/99]
John Bruton
Question:10 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the bilateral meetings or discussions, if any, he had with other Heads of Government when he attended the recent OSCE meeting in Turkey. [24346/99]
John Bruton
Question:11 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the recent OSCE meeting in Turkey; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24347/99]
John Gormley
Question:12 Mr. Gormley asked the Taoiseach the outcome of the OSCE summit in Istanbul. [24489/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 to 12, inclusive, together.
I attended the OSCE summit in Istanbul on 18 and 19 November. A total of 54 states participated in the summit, including almost all European states, as well as the US and Canada. We had very useful discussions on a range of issues, primarily conflict prevention, crisis management and confidence and security building across the OSCE area. These discussions and Ireland's views are reflected in the summit declaration. Copies of my address to the summit, the declaration and the Charter for European Security have been placed in the Library.
One of the most important outcomes of the summit was the agreement and signature of the new OSCE Charter for European Security. The purpose of the new charter is, first, to further develop the basic principles of the OSCE; second, to allow for the formal commitment to these principles by the successor states of the Soviet Union; and, third, the strengthening of the operational role of the OSCE as a regional security organisation under the United Nations Charter.
Importantly, the new charter also sets out a vision of how the OSCE can co-operate with other international organisations and institutions in promoting security and co-operation in Europe. Ireland made a significant contribution to reaching agreement in this area.
Another important development at the summit was the signing of the adapted Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, known as the CFE Treaty. The original CFE Treaty in 1990 was a very significant arms limitation treaty, signed by the members of NATO and the Warsaw Pact. In Istanbul the same signatories recommitted themselves to limiting conventional weapons, taking into account the very wide-ranging changes in European security architecture since 1990. Like other neutral countries in Europe, Ireland is not a signatory of this treaty.
In my address to the summit, I spoke of my recent visit to Kosovo and my first-hand experience of the work of the OSCE on the ground in co-operation with other organisations. I made clear in my address that Ireland regarded as appalling the impact on the civilian population in Chechnya of the current Russian campaign. I called for an immediate halt to that campaign and for talks to begin at once. I stressed the need to guarantee the unhindered delivery of humanitarian aid to the Chechen people. I also used my address to highlight the developments in Northern Ireland and pay tribute to the work of Senator George Mitchell with whom I spoke by telephone and thanked personally while I was in Istanbul.
In addition to addressing the summit, I took the opportunity to hold a series of bilateral discussions with a number of international leaders. I met President Clinton, President Yeltsin of Russia, President Kwasniewski of Poland, Prime Minister Chrétien of Canada, Prime Minister Barak of Israel, Prime Minister Vicktor Orban of Hungary, Prime Minister Drnovsek of Slovenia, EU Commission President Prodi and Prime Minister Bondevik of Norway. I also spoke with a number of my EU colleagues, including Greek Prime Minister Simitis, Prime Minister Rasmussen of Denmark, Prime Minister Wim Kok of the Netherlands and President Ahtisaari of Finland, about the forthcoming EU Council meeting in Helsinki on 10 and 11 December.
(Dublin West): It was reported prominently this morning that there is acute shortage of tents to shelter the suffering people of Turkey as a result of the terrible devastation of successive earthquakes. Does the Taoiseach find it obscene that at the OSCE summit in Turkey he had discussions with participants who spend tens of billions of pounds and dollars each year on arms and armaments?
The Deputy is imparting information, not seeking it. The purpose of question time is to seek information.
It is a question. He wants to know if the Taoiseach finds it obscene.
(Dublin West): It is a crucial question. Did the Taoiseach find it obscene that these weapons of destruction were a major part of the discussions, while a few kilometres away the problems and suffering of the people could be alleviated if the same money was spent on shelter requirements instead of on weapons? Did he have a creepy feeling at his first OSCE meeting mingling with political leaders from that organisation given that the police and military from some of their regimes jail and torture political opponents as a matter of routine?
The Deputy is making a statement rather than asking a question and that is out of order at Question Time. The Deputy has other ways to pursue the matter if he so wishes.
(Dublin West): I do not want to argue with you, a Cheann Comhairle, but the Taoiseach is the representative of the people.
Then ask a question and there will be no argument.
(Dublin West): What message did the representative of the people who sat in council with military and political leaders from Europe and beyond its borders give them? Did he eyeball the Turkish representatives, for example, and tell them their human rights record is a disgrace? Did he eyeball the President of the United States and ask him when he would halve his spending on arms? Did he tell him about the obscene waste of arms around the world and about using meetings, such as the OSCE, to sell more arms to Hungary and Kazakhstan?
The Deputy is pursuing this matter by way of statement.
(Dublin West): Did the Taoiseach make a strong statement about those matters?
My statement and the text of the agreement are in the Library. All the 54 leaders who were there expressed their sympathy to, and solidarity with, the people of Turkey since the three earthquakes. Many of the countries have given aid and assistance to the people.
The original members of NATO which signed the statutes and the Warsaw Pact have updated and reiterated their commitment to the limitation of arms. I am sure the Deputy welcomes that.
It was my first OSCE meeting. The OSCE is involved in humanitarian and crisis management issues and it is trying to take conflict out of a substantial part of the world. It is involved in an increasing number of missions, particularly in the new states of the former Soviet Union. It is trying to establish democracy and civic authorities, rather than military groups, and to train police, teachers and administrators. It is also trying to introduce humanitarian aid programmes.
The charter I have laid before the House is not too different from the one agreed in Helsinki 25 years ago or the one agreed in Rome in 1990. However, it gives the large number of new countries, which were not signatories in 1990, the opportunity to sign up to human rights issues. The importance of this for the OSCE is that these countries can be administered and their judicial systems and administrations examined. They must also comply with OSCE standards with which we agree.
(Dublin West): What was said about Turkey and the Kurdish people, for example?
The charter shows it is not an easy job in many countries. There are still great difficulties in many countries and that is why the OSCE's remit is growing. We do not hear about the human rights issues or civil rights difficulties in many countries in which the OSCE is involved. Those are my brief impressions of my first meeting.
The charter adopted by the OSCE summit in Istanbul and to which the Taoiseach referred proposes to establish an operations centre at the OSCE secretariat in Vienna to facilitate effective preparation and the planning of rapid deployment of OSCE field operations, that is, a civic-military type rapid force deployment. Will Ireland have a role to play in this centre? Will Irish troops or personnel be directly involved? Will Irish people be involved in the secretariat in Vienna? Can the Taoiseach give the House any other information on this welcome development?
A number of people already represent different organisations. We have people who are members of the police and other humanitarian groups. This initiative is to try to get more civilians, such as engineers, architects and administrators, involved. The biggest difficulty faced by these countries is trying to establish a civic power. They need approximately 3,000 people to focus on these countries. The OSCE is involved in countries such as Ingushetia and Afghanistan.
Perhaps it might help the Taoiseach if I explain my question. The charter commits itself to establish an operations centre to plan and co-ordinate the activities the Taoiseach was about to describe with which I am reasonably familiar. Will Irish personnel be engaged in the management or the performance of this soon to be established operations centre?
Is the Deputy asking me if Irish people will be in the operations centre or in the field? We are already out in the field.
Perhaps I am not asking the question clearly. The charter proposes to establish a new operations centre to co-ordinate all these activities. There will be a management design function and a control function in that centre. Will there be an Irish involvement at the core of that centre? Does the Taoiseach intend to volunteer personnel on behalf of the Government to be at the core of the operations centre, not out in the field where we already are?
I was not requested to do so. I volunteered to assist in trying to get more civilians. They spelled out the areas where they need technical people and I volunteered assistance in that effort. I was not asked to volunteer people to be at the core of the operations centre, but I would have no difficulty doing that if it helped the operation.
Will the Taoiseach undertake to do that?
Yes. Because of the number of countries involved and the difficulties in them, the military side of these operations is a hopeless exercise if the other side is not done. That is why the OSCE is so important.
Will the Taoiseach join me in condemning the decision of the Russians to refuse the OSCE mission access to Chechnya?
I will and I did so last week, which was well reported in the media. In spite of the fact that strong pressure was applied by the largest countries, the United States, Canada, France and Germany, they still declined. The Council of Europe's new human rights leader, Mr. Gil-Robles, is getting access in the next few days but the other delegation from the OSCE was refused. He is being assessed in the next few days but the other delegation from the OSCE was refused.
Does the Taoiseach agree that there is prima facie evidence that war crimes are being committed in Chechnya by the Russians?
That is not clear. I saw a reply to a question put yesterday by Deputy Bruton to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. There are certainly enormous atrocities. I can only reply in the same terms as yesterday. They said there is not substantive evidence of war crimes.
Can the Taoiseach distinguish between what he terms enormous atrocities and war crimes. It seems to me that enormous atrocities are, by definition, war crimes?
Will the Taoiseach join me in condemning those countries who have refused to ratify the international criminal court proposals agreed in Rome which would allow for universal standards to be established as to what constitutes war crimes? This would bring to an end the present situation in which the victors in the war in Yugoslavia are trying the losers. Some of the victors are not parties to the international criminal court and their military personnel are not amenable to the same court to which the losers are being made amenable. Does the Taoiseach agree that we need to have a universal court to try war crimes whether they are committed by those who win wars or those who lose them?
Deputy Bruton knows that there is, in international affairs, a difference between what is humanitarian relief effort and humanitarian attacks on what are considered war crimes.
Can the Taoiseach repeat that sentence? What he has said does not make sense.
I can read the reply which was given to Deputy Bruton yesterday. The Minister for Foreign Affairs stated: "There are serious problems as regards basic requirements such as shelter, nutrition, sanitation and health. I am not aware of any references to war crimes in the context of the statements made by the members of the mission".
The mission was not allowed into Chechnya.
The mission was on the border. The members had discussions with people in the relief agencies, attended the tents, met the leaders of the people who had left, as outlined to Deputy Bruton yesterday. They found no evidence of war crimes. I can give Deputy Bruton no more information than he was given yesterday.
I asked the Taoiseach other questions.
With regard to Kosovo, the full case of what were war crimes is being collected and will eventually go to the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights. The Commissioner, Mary Robinson, will take appropriate action against those who perpetrated those crimes. I support all efforts to assist in doing that.
May I ask the Taoiseach one more question?
The Deputy is going into some detail which would more properly be directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
This really is a matter for the Taoiseach.
The Deputy must be brief.
Neither the United States nor Russia have ratified the Rome Convention establishing an international criminal court. These countries accuse other countries of war crimes but they are not amenable to trial themselves because they have not ratified the convention. Is the Taoiseach willing to do something about this and did he raise the matter at the OSCE summit?
I did not. As Deputy Bruton knows, it would not have made any difference if I had. Fifty three countries put pressure on Russia with no effect. On the humanitarian issue and the issue of war crimes, any measures necessary to bring evidence against those who perpetrate these things should be taken.
Does the Government still regard the OSCE as uniquely placed to develop further "its existing role as a focal point for European security co-operation"? I am quoting from the White Paper on Foreign Policy. Does the Taoiseach agree that bolstering NATO through PfP considerably weakens the role of the OSCE in peace keeping as a focal point of European security co-operation.
What measures did the Government suggest for boosting the paltry budget of the OSCE? In relation to point 29 of the summit declaration which states—
It is not in order for the Deputy to quote.
I am simply trying to be helpful to the Taoiseach.
It is not in order to quote. The Deputy is embarking on imparting information rather than looking for it.
In relation to point 29, what measures will the Government take to promote public awareness of the relationship between economic and environmental problems?
It was agreed that the report should be prepared and discussed by the permanent council and that these should cover both economic and environmental issues. We will make an input to both those areas. We subscribe resources and there was a discussion about further resources which are needed in all international organisations because of their enormous remit and the extension of their roles. If KFOR and other such groups do not get resources they cannot do their job. I spoke to representatives of KFOR two weeks ago and I told the House then that without resources KFOR cannot do its job. Resources are needed in the remaining weeks of this year if OSCE is to carry out its job in Kosovo. OSCE is the agency which can significantly improve and enhance co-operation to move towards crisis management and non-violent ways. It is a more relevant organisation than any other.