Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:2 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the contacts, if any, he has had with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, on the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement since 1 June 2000. [16493/00]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Northern Ireland Issues.
John Bruton
Question:3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in London with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, on Wednesday, 7 June 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16625/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:4 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and any conclusions reached at his meeting in London on 7 June with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16626/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:5 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting on 8 June 2000 with members of the family of a person (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16693/00]
John Bruton
Question:6 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in Dublin on 8 June 2000 with members of the family of a person (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16729/00]
John Bruton
Question:7 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the official engagements and meetings he had on his recent visit to London; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16730/00]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:8 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the family of a person (details supplied) on 8 June 2000. [16750/00]
Joe Higgins
Question:9 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair. [16775/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 9, inclusive, together.
I met Prime Minister Blair in London on Wednesday evening last, 7 June. We discussed a range of recent developments in Northern Ireland, including the re-establishment of the Executive and the other institutions and the recently published Police Bill. In this latter regard, the Prime Minister is very much aware of our concerns and those of the Nationalist parties and community generally. Our overriding objective must be to have a police service that is representative of both communities and is accepted across all of Northern Ireland.
The Prime Minister and I also discussed arrangements for plenary meetings of the British-Irish Council and the North-South Ministerial Council. I took the opportunity to raise the cases of Pat Finucane and Robert Hamill.
On Thursday last, 8 June, I met members of the family of Robert Hamill, who died in May 1997 from injuries sustained in a brutal sectarian attack in Portadown. The family members were accompanied by their solicitor, Mr. Barra McGrory, and the director of the committee on the administration of justice, Mr. Martin O'Brien. The Hamill family briefed me on recent developments in the case, including the decision of the Belfast coroner not to hold an inquest into Robert Hamill's death. They expressed the view that only a public independent judicial inquiry could now resolve the issues surrounding the case.
I was very pleased to have the opportunity to meet the Hamill family. The Government has followed this case closely over the past three years. Very serious and unanswered questions have been raised about the role of individual police officers at the time of the attack and the detailed reports we received add to our concerns in this regard. This case is a matter of urgent public interest and the issues of concern involved must be satisfactorily addressed in a manner which will command the confidence of the community. In all the circumstances, I believe that it should be the subject of an independent judicial public inquiry.
I share completely the Taoiseach's concerns about the circumstances of Robert Hamill's death and the apparent inaction of the Royal Ulster Constabulary on the occasion. Will the Taoiseach indicate what reasons were given by the coroner for being unwilling to undertake an inquest into this case? One would have expected an inquest would be appropriate in a case of this kind.
As Deputy Bruton is probably aware, the coroner issued a very detailed report in this case, which is rather unusual. He makes it clear in the report that he is very dissatisfied with the position in which he finds himself. Mr. Barra McGrory has kept me informed of his discussions with the coroner on this case over quite a long period and he has since made most of that information public.
The coroner has raised a number of issues. Any fair interpretation of his report would lead one to conclude that the reason he is not stating any more is that he believes that if he draws the people into it whom he could draw into it, they would be subject to dangerous intimidation within their communities.
From whom and from which community?
I think we can make the assumption.
From people who are opposed to the ceasefire on the loyalist side?
And maybe people who are not. The coroner finds himself in a position where he obviously has a substantive amount of the information but cannot use it.
Surely this says some disquieting things about the state of law and order in Northern Ireland in certain areas where people feel they cannot give truthful evidence at an inquest about the death of a fellow citizen. Does the Taoiseach propose to take any other approach in this matter in addition to seeking a full public inquiry, which could take a very long time? Are there other steps he could usefully take with the Executive or the Secretary of State to move this forward as this type of situation has a deeply damaging effect on both communities?
I agree with the Deputy. We tried with Barra McGrory, whom you will agree is a very fine member of the legal profession in Northern Ireland, to find ways around it. I would prefer not to say any more. I am at an advantage in that I have read the report of the director of the committee of the administration of justice but I have been asked not to make it public. However, I have been asked to assist in getting a copy of that report to both the British Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. I think we will wait for some time until they examine it. It is deeply disturbing and certainly not helpful on policing issues generally.
I have two questions for the Taoiseach. Does the Taoiseach still hope to be in a position to recommend to young Nationalists and republicans in Northern Ireland that they join the new police force when the Bill, in its amended form, as discussed by him and the British Prime Minister, passes through the Houses of Parliament in Westminster? My second question relates to the murder of Mr. Hamill. Has the Taoiseach raised with the relevant authorities, including the British Prime Minister, the possibility of an inquiry being undertaken with the help of protection for witnesses and the anonymity of witnesses being ensured as has been the case in a number of other circumstances? Did the coroner, Mr. Leckey, make this decision on his own or did he have political guidance, which is extraordinary for a coroner, when he arrived at this political judgment?
On the first question, the Bill is in committee this week in Westminster. Through all the meetings we have had we have made known our concerns about the importance of ensuring that in the end the police service is representative of both communities and accepted across all of Northern Ireland. I do not think we will get all the amendments we wish, following our representations and those of the SDLP, Sinn Féin, the Catholic Church and many community and cultural bodies. I hope the central and important ones will be accepted. If the amendments about partnerships are accepted I would passionately like to be positive, because in this one has to be positive or negative, there is no in between. We have to be positive.
Right.
That view is certainly shared by the SDLP who want to be in that position. We have had our meetings. In fairness to the Secretary of State and the British Prime Minister we have had a good audience in explaining in enormous detail the cases and the arguments. I hope the case is taken on board. On the second question, as I understand it Mr. Leckey's report is his own. I know from Barra McGrory that he spent quite a good deal of time reflecting on this issue. He also highlighted that he can go no further on it. His report in itself gives a clear indication of what he thinks about this case. In regard to the protection system, unfortunately I do not think that would carry much weight in the circumstances. Given the dangers, it may not be wise and safe to use it. As Deputy Bruton and Deputy Quinn have said, there is a long delay in these issues. One does not have to study in detail the files or the facts relating to the Pat Finucance case, the Robert Hamill case and the Rosemary Nelson case to be aware of the similarities and the bottom line.
It does not inspire confidence.
I am afraid, without being unduly critical, those are the facts. I hope the British Government will look not just at the evidence of the coroner but at the compelling facts in the CAJ's report.
(Dublin West): Will the Taoiseach agree that it establishes a dangerous and disturbing precedent that a proper investigation into a crime such as the appalling murder of Robert Hamill could be stymied for fear of intimidation by forces close to those who carried out the crime? Will he agree that in Northern Ireland, where horrific incidents like this take place, the same precedent could be used for not holding a proper investigation into a whole range of disturbing and brutal attacks?
That is right.
(Dublin West): I am sure we all accept that the safety of innocent parties, or maybe not so innocent parties, who would be vulnerable to reprisals will have to be taken into account and one would have to be sensitive about that. Will he agree that a means will have to be found to take care of that while ensuring we come to the truth about the matter of the tragedy on the night in question? Will the Taoiseach agree that members of the RUC were prominently on location and by all accounts deliberately failed to intervene and that a searching inquiry into their role on the night would not now be carried out because of the difficulty raised about witnesses? Did the Taoiseach raise this matter at his most recent meeting with the Prime Minister Mr. Blair and, if so, did the Prime Minister express a view as to how the matter could be dealt with?
There are three points here. I raised the issue and have also raised it previously. These are very serious matters. Deputies will appreciate that I know most of the facts from the coroner's point of view and I know most of the allegations but the only way they can be resolved at this stage is by a full independent tribunal. I cannot do it. If it was just a matter of intimidation—
It is very cumbersome. That is a long-term way of dealing with the problem.
A proper inquest is what is required sooner rather than later.
It is.
It would have to be a proper one.
The difficulty for the coroner is that he felt he could not bring his—
The same difficulty would apply for a public inquiry.
It could well. Certainly the legal teams believe they will have an opportunity then to put the full facts which they have, the contents of the CAJ report and the evidence they have into the public domain. The coroner could not do that because, as anyone who reads his report will see, it was not just a question of intimidation but the safety of the individuals.
Will that problem not arise in the public inquiry?
In the public inquiry, the legal team of Barra McGrory and others will be able to put the facts of this case. The difficulty they have and the coroner had is that it is not just a matter of what allegedly happened. There is no doubt that Robert Hamill was killed but the allegations about who did what and who was there on the night remain allegations. It goes further than that and is about what happened after that night.
I intended to ask the same question as Deputy Higgins on precedent. Does the Taoiseach agree that in terms of confidence building, it is difficult to think of a case other than the Hamill case in which some movement towards justice would be more valuable in terms of the relationship of the community with the RUC and law and order? Does he agree that the precedent being created here is so serious that if the coroner cannot hold an inquest, it is up to the British Government to devise a satisfactory substitute? They have previously found ways around road-blocks which have been put in the way usually, and unfortunately, to create the impression that justice was not the objective. Does the Taoiseach agree it is essential to find some way around this roadblock?
The Taoiseach was asked by Deputy Quinn about advising republicans and Nationalists to join the new police service. Does he agree this is the acid test? Anything else could make this exercise not worth a candle. This point of view should be constantly emphasised to the British Government. As someone who spoke at the meeting across the road with Les Rogers of the Police Federation, who impressed everyone who attended, does the Taoiseach agree that the contrast between the tone of what he said at that meeting is so different from what he said at the meeting of the Police Federation yesterday, it is a matter of some concern?
As always, I agree with Deputy Currie on the policing issue. Getting the policing Bill right and the amendments in place will be a major part of the process. The importance of this has been emphasised by Deputy Currie and others who take a close interest in the matter. We can then go ahead and urge confidence in it.
I have no more to say on the Robert Hamill case, other than that having read the report, listened to Barra McGrory, met the Hamill family and discussed the matter with the British Government and having had many opportunities to listen to those involved, the circumstances surrounding the murders of Robert Hamill and Pat Finucane, which is a similar case, are profoundly disturbing. The case for a public inquiry in these instances is compelling. There is no other way of dealing with it. We have reached the end of the road as far as the overall process is concerned. The coroner has been very helpful and has done far more than he normally would for a report like this. His difficulty is clear. If we want to see confidence in justice and the rule of law work, a full independent tribunal of inquiry is the only way to deal with the issue.
What plans are there for the meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council? What is the expected frequency of its meetings? On a related matter, regarding the Taoiseach's meeting with Prime Minister Tony Blair, has he discussed with him the prospects of British entry to the euro, given that North-South arrangements are adversely affected by the fact that the Border is one of the few currency borders in western Europe? There are clear issues of national interest to be considered. Obviously, there are some advantages to us if Britain stays out because we can attract investment which might otherwise go to England but there are also considerable disadvantages because of Northern Ireland staying out of the euro. What does the Taoiseach think is best for Irish interests in terms of the likely British decision?
The various North-South sectoral formats are up and running once again. Nine meetings are scheduled before the Northern Ireland authorities take their break early in July. It has not been decided when a full meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council will take place and whether it will be in July or September. However, all the sectoral meetings will take place before the break or towards the end of July.
I did not discuss the other matter at last week's meeting but I did on previous occasions. It has always been my view that it is better if everyone, including the British Government, joins the euro – hopefully the Greeks and Danes will also join. This will assist the stability of the euro. I have no reason to change that view. Whatever the British Prime Minister says formally or informally is the same as he has told me, that if he is Prime Minister in the new administration, he intends to hold a referendum on joining the euro. That still seemed to be his view in his meeting with Prime Minister Aznar this week.
Does the Taoiseach agree it will be difficult to promote the level of trade which should be taking place between Newry and Dundalk if a currency risk is involved, while there is no currency risk involved in trade between Newry and London or Dundalk and France? The existence of a currency risk is one of the great inhibitors of trade. The British Government should realise that isolating themselves as a currency island in a large sea constituted by the euro is not in its national interest or the European national interest. There is a convergence of interests here and not the artificial division of interests promoted by ill-informed debate in the United Kingdom.
I agree with that. I have said for a long time that they should at least experiment, perhaps using the North, which I accept was not too realistic. When assessments of EMU were carried out in the approach to Maastricht almost a decade ago, currency risk was shown to be the biggest cost barrier to trade in Europe. The cost of currency and exchange is a prohibition against trade and co-operation in many ways. Trade between Dublin and Belfast is only about one third of what it would be if the two cities were located elsewhere in Europe. Anything which is a barrier against trade is not good. The debate in the United Kingdom will continue for some time before a final decision is made.
A Cheann Comhairle, I ask you to note that I tabled a question on Northern Ireland for today, seeking a progress report on the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, but for some reason it was regarded as repetitious which, considering the number of questions of a similar nature, was strange. Does the Taoiseach accept that unless there is a proper, full investigation into Robert Hamill's death, the implementation of the policing Bill will face a huge hurdle and the acceptability of the police force will be difficult to achieve? Did the Taoiseach raise the question of what the British Prime Minister felt about that matter? Did the British Prime Minister update the Taoiseach on the British view of amendments from various Northern Ireland parties to the policing Bill during their meeting?
Was the problem relating to symbols and flags discussed? Will the Taoiseach take into account that a three stranded approach might provide some breakthrough in the logjam over that matter, in that strands one, two and three could have different interpretations of where the flags and emblems issue might lie? Was that matter raised and dealt with in any depth with the British Prime Minister?
I have already answered the Deputy's question on Robert Hamill's death. In regard to policing, we went through all the amendments, proposals and suggestions that have been put to us by various parties and our conclusions, including which ones I think are more important. They are all important but there are degrees of importance. The policing board, the partnership board, the involvement of the community, the prospect of being able to have inquiries, investigations and look back and the transparency between the NIO security sections and the police authority are the most fundamental ones because they are the long lasting issues.
We discussed the issue of flags, symbols and emblems. There was a debate on that in the Executive last week. An attempt is being made by the Executive – I do not know how it will work out but I wish it well – to try to resolve some of these issues about flag flying days and so on. If agreement could be reached on some of these issues within the precincts of the Executive, that would be the best way to handle it.