The Order of Business today shall be as follows: No. 46, Planning and Development Bill, 1999 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed).
Order of Business.
On the ordering of business in the House generally, on Tuesday the Government asked for statements on Northern Ireland, ruling out any questions which might have probed the Government's position on Northern Ireland. I had assumed, therefore, that the Taoiseach's statement on the subject would be full and frank. It appears that it was not if this morning's Irish Independent is to be believed. It contains a report that the Government is extremely angry about the decision to suspend, but no such sentiment was expressed by the Taoiseach in the House. If the Government is expressing anger then the Taoiseach's position as set out to the House was not full and frank.
If it is the case that the Government is angry about suspension, why did the Taoiseach not mention this in the House on Tuesday? Does the Government believe that resignation would have been preferable to suspension? Is it the Government's position that the suspension was not wrong in principle but that it should not have taken place until 7.30 p.m. and not at 5.30 p.m.? Could the Taoiseach explain the difference two hours would have made?
I have supported, and will continue to support the Taoiseach in regard to this very difficult matter but if the Government requests permission to make statements in the House, the House is entitled to a full and frank explanation of the Government's position. The Government should not pursue a twin track strategy where it says one thing off the record to the press and something entirely different to the House.
The story on the front page of the Irish Independent today citing senior Government sources creates a degree of confusion at a time when all of the parties in this House should be ad idem on our commitment to getting the process back on track and achieving a successful outcome as quickly as possible. I would like the Taoiseach to address and refute the story in today's Irish Independent. The alternative is a serious situation which brings into profile the gap between what the Taoiseach told the House on Tuesday and what was felt by Government officials.
I raised this matter on Wednesday of last week.
The Deputy may not speak until the Chair calls him.
I am not asking to speak, I am asking a brief question.
The Deputy must wait until the Chair calls him. He spoke before the Chair called him.
On Wednesday of last week I raised the legal concerns about the legitimacy of unilateral suspension of the Executive. Will the Taoiseach address those concerns at the earliest opportunity? The Taoiseach indicated that he was concerned and I would like him to elaborate his concerns so we can find out the legality of the current position.
The Chair wishes to clarify the raising of matters on the Order of Business. I pointed out some time ago that the leaders of the main parties would be allowed to comment on a topical issue of the day. I am making a one off exception because of the nature of the subject, Northern Ireland, to allow the Deputy to comment. It is not to be taken as a precedent.
I appreciate that.
(Dublin West): Can I say—
I have not called the Deputy, he should resume his seat. I have called the Taoiseach. There must be order in the House.
(Dublin West): I will make my point later.
The statement I made on Tuesday expressed my position and that of the Government. I do not want to add anything to that. In the House last Thursday I stated the Government's position on suspension in reply to a pertinent question by Deputy Owen. I said that the Government did not support unilateral suspension because it breached the Good Friday Agreement. It happened, however, because of the circumstances. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland acted because he felt the alternative would have created even more difficulties. There is not a row about that.
I understand the difficulties which exist for those trying to report on meetings which they did not attend. Yesterday's meeting with all parties dealt constructively with the future. There were not any recriminations about the events of last Friday. All parties have moved on from that and everyone put their efforts into trying to find a resolution. That is what I will do. I would not alter the position I stated in the House on Tuesday.
Will the Taoiseach seek to ensure that on this sensitive matter Government spokespersons, officials or senior sources do not brief the biggest national newspaper contrary to the facts? In this instance it now transpires there is a false story in that newspaper today, no doubt as a result of the activity of somebody in the State's pay.
In view of the Taoiseach's reply to the previous round of questions, will he categorically state that the story in the front page of today's newspaper is incorrect and that the Government is not at loggerheads with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?
Of course there was a conflict last Friday. My position on this is on the record. However, that was last Friday and yesterday everybody committed themselves to moving on. All the parties – the two Governments, Sinn Féin, the UUP and the SDLP, which has never been involved in this debate and which has been constructive throughout, as I said here yesterday morning – and all in this House know that recriminations and arguments over what has happened will never resolve anything and it never has.
Off the record as well as behind the briefing and in front of the briefing.
I have no difficulty with that. The briefing note which was used yesterday is reflected in articles today, but other matters are not reflected. I wish I had control over these matters but unfortunately I do not.
I have not read the story in the Irish Independent so I cannot comment. Will the Taoiseach agree that the progress made so far on Northern Ireland has arisen because of the close co-operation with the British Government and that any future progress will depend on such co-operation and that everything should be done to maintain and, if possible, increase it? Will he make available publicly and to the House as precise a record as possible on what happened last Friday in terms of the times messages were delivered and when the Governments and others became aware of certain developments?
Can we not look forward?
That clarity is very important.
It must be positive.
While I would have no difficulty in doing what the Deputy asks, it would not help the debate.
Clarity always helps in the long run.
While I understand the Deputy's concerns, it would create enormous difficulties, which is not the way to proceed. Yesterday I stated that we agreed three fundamental principles on 25 June and that these were carried into the Mitchell review and emerged from that review to appear intact in the final report of the review dated 18 November. It is worth while for us all to work on them because they are relevant again in view of the suspension last week. They provide that we work towards getting devolved government through an inclusive Executive, dealing with the issue of decommissioning and that we work to the independent commission. When Senator Mitchell finalised his report he wrote in one of the final paragraphs that this could only be done if there was an inclusive Executive and that the arms issue could only be dealt with on the basis of the full implementation of the Agreement. He said that would have to be done in an inclusive way with all the parties playing their part by the mechanism of collective responsibility.
From what I heard yesterday I can advise the House that I believe that is still the best way to address this issue. From the parties I met yesterday and the smaller parties the Minister for Foreign Affairs met during the week, I believe there is a willingness and an intention to proceed on that basis. If we continue on that path we can work our way out of this. I do not see any other way.
I share the Taoiseach's hope in that regard. When is the public likely to be given the opportunity to read the IRA message to General de Chastelain, which was the basis of paragraph 7 of his second report?
That is a matter for General de Chastelain. The document was given to my officials in Belfast at 4.30 a.m. and was passed on to me to study and to give on a confidential basis to Prime Minister Blair, which I did. I do not know who else within the British Government system saw it.
It was given to the Taoiseach's officials in the middle of the night at 4.30 a.m. Is that correct?
Yes.
That is the kind of information I was looking for.
It was in the newspapers.
There are a lot of things in the newspapers.
I call Deputy Jim Higgins, who I presume has a comment on the same subject.
(Dublin West): It is on a matter of procedure. I submitted a question to the Taoiseach on Tuesday.
A brief comment, Deputy.
(Dublin West): It is a brief comment, Sir. You wrote to me ruling out the question—
We cannot pursue that matter now. The Deputy should resume his seat if he has no comment on what is under discussion. I call Deputy Howlin on the Order of Business.
With regard to promised legislation, I have two questions for the Taoiseach in the justice area. On the Courts and Court Officers Bill and the appointment of members of the Judiciary, when will the Bill be presented to the House? In the aftermath of the Sheedy case are there legislative proposals to make the Judiciary more accountable, either in the method of appointment or subsequently?
With regard to the comments made in the Supreme Court on the Coroners Acts, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform established a working group on this matter in December 1998. While I understand the matter has been under discussion by previous Ministers, when will the report of the review and legislative amendments be introduced?
The Courts and Court Officers Bill will be published this session. I recently mentioned that the All-Party Committee on the Constitution submitted an excellent report last November which proposes reform of the Judiciary, including the system of appointment and other relevant matters. The report is being examined by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The Hamilton report is nearing completion within the courts system and both reports will be reflected in whatever changes are proposed.
The Coroners Bill arises from suggestions and proposals made in 1993 which were examined and included in a review group of 1998. I understand the deliberations of that group are nearing completion. Mr. Justice Keane's remarks yesterday to the effect that changes to the coroners legislation will be required is accepted. At issue is the need to work out the best recommendations that can be made. A report is due shortly.
Last week the Taoiseach agreed with me that he accepted the proposal by the all-party committee on the need to set up a judicial council to look at the conduct of judges, which was made in the light of the Sheedy affair. In view of the outrageous conduct yesterday of a judge in Kanturk District Court, would he agree that there is an urgent need to establish such a council?
The Deputy should refrain from commenting on the proceedings of the courts.
Will the Taoiseach confirm that legislation to establish a judicial council to review the conduct of judges will be introduced as soon as possible?
The matter is under consideration.
(Mayo): Yesterday's brutal murder of a retired school teacher in County Galway brings the number of people who have died in violent circumstances in the first seven weeks of the year to 11, which is unprecedented. Will the Taoiseach indicate if the Government has any proposals to introduce legislation to provide for compulsory DNA testing to eliminate or positively identify murder and rape suspects?
It would be more proper to raise that matter by way of a parliamentary question.
(Mayo): I understand that legislation may be pending.
There are changes in DNA testing included in one of the Bills, but the details can be best dealt with by means of a parliamentary question.
More than a year ago it was clear there was a serious problem in terms of nursing shortages. The Minister and the Department made commitments to sort out the problem by putting in place a strategy to deal with the crisis.
We cannot discuss the shortage of nurses on the Order of Business.
It relates to legislation.
The Deputy should ask about promised legislation.
Information has been published today saying the crisis has become much worse. It is scandalous that there are 1,200 nursing vacancies—
The Deputy is making a statement which is quite out of order.
A nursing Bill is promised on the list of forthcoming legislation, but it is not due for publication until the end of the year. In view of the serious crisis—
The Deputy is now being repetitive. The Deputy should just ask a question.
Will the Taoiseach bring forward that Bill to ensure measures can be taken to deal with the crisis, rather than having a long delay by waiting until the end of the year?
What the Bill provides for is not a matter for the Order of Business. We are only concerned with when legislation is due.
The legislation is being prepared. Last year, following a national and local recruitment campaign funded by the Department, the number of applicants increased by 40% over the previous year. This resulted in the largest number of direct entrants to nursing for several years with a total of 1,215 training places being filled. The number of training places for 2000 is 1,500, an enormous increase. I accept the Deputy's congratulations on the Minister's excellent handling of this issue.
It is a disgrace for the Taoiseach to answer in that way.
I call Deputy Alan Shatter.
It is a serious crisis and it is not being dealt with.
We cannot have a discussion on the matter. I have called Deputy Shatter.
It is a serious crisis which is not being dealt with by the Government.
The Deputy should resume her seat. I have called Deputy Shatter.
Let us have some reality about what is happening in our hospitals.
The Deputy is being disorderly. She should allow another Deputy to speak. I ask her to resume her seat. I have pointed out to her that there are other ways in which she can pursue the matter.
Will the Taoiseach acknowledge that there is a need to give greater priority to the nursing Bill than was given it by the previous Minister for Health and Children, whose occupancy of that Department—
The Deputy cannot make statements. He can only ask when the legislation—
I would have concluded by now if the Chair had not interrupted me.
What the Deputy has said so far is not in order.
Will the Taoiseach acknowledge that the failure to publish the nursing Bill – perhaps he will advise the House when it will be published – has contributed to a disastrous and scandalous—
The Deputy is now being disorderly and should resume his seat.
—reduction in the number of nurses? There are more than 1,000 nursing vacancies in the Dublin region.
I call Deputy John Bruton on the Order of Business.
Our hospitals cannot properly function at present.
The Taoiseach, on promised legislation.
Deputy Shatter should look to his own colleagues. Unfortunately, because of the low levels of recruitment when the Deputy's party was in Government, we had to increase figures again.
The Government has been in power for two and a half years.
I call Deputy Bruton.
The hospitals in Dublin are in crisis.
(Interruptions).
I call for order.
Deputy Cowen was a disaster as Minister for Health and Children.
A Government which can increase health spending by 45% and still reduce the effectiveness of the health services by 45% has little to boast about.
Will the Taoiseach clarify a matter he raised earlier as it may lead to further questions? He said that at 4.30 a.m. last Friday he received a copy of the IRA message. Yet 24 hours later the Secretary of State, at the time of the suspension, said he had only just received the message. Will the Taoiseach explain what happened to the message in the 24 hours and—
That is a question for the House of Commons.
—why it took so long for it to be communicated to the Secretary of State?
It is not Question Time, but I wish to restate what I said, namely, that the letter was given to my officials at 4.30 a.m. in Belfast. It was communicated to me some hours later – about 10 o'clock – and I communicated it to the British Prime Minister, which was the only thing I could do. I am not aware of or answerable for what happened within the British system thereafter. Whatever happened, happened, and we had our words and our arguments last Friday. That is over, regardless of what happened. We must now deal with the current situation and I see no point in recriminations.