Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Jun 2003

Vol. 568 No. 2

Leaders' Questions.

I wish to raise a matter that goes to the heart of our democracy. This House is the forum where the Government responds to the people's representatives. Two years ago a young man died in a night club incident in Cork. Despite two investigations by the Director of Public Prosecutions, no charges have been brought.

This young man's father is on hunger strike outside the gates of Leinster House. Yesterday evening, after four weeks of attempting to raise the matter, Deputy Bernard Allen was given permission by the Ceann Comhairle to raise it in the House. The reply was given by the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Callely, who said that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was unavoidably absent. It later transpired that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was present in the Dáil bar and chose not to come into the Chamber to respond to the sensitive and important matter raised by Deputy Allen concerning the death of a young man.

This is not the first time this has happened with this Government which is the most arrogant Government we have had in the past 30 years. The Taoiseach is not in the House on Thursdays, the Minister for Finance and his Ministers of State were at Cheltenham when the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act 2003 was going through the House. We have health publications being leaked to journalists and public relations personnel training the Minister to respond to difficult issues that might arise.

I ask the Taoiseach to outline the reasons why the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform chose not to be here last night. I would like the Taoiseach to give a lead on this and to give instructions that where possible on sensitive matters such as this, Ministers come to the House and answer questions from the representatives of the people when they are given time in this House. I ask the Taoiseach to instruct the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to go and speak to Mr. Moynihan outside the gates of Leinster House, to bring him into his Department and to explain to him why justice has not been done in this case and what he intends to do to ensure that some charge is brought against somebody in respect of the death of a young man two years ago. This represents contemptuous treatment of the House and the people, and it goes right to the essence of our democracy. The Taoiseach, as leader of the Government, should see to it that his Ministers respond to questions on behalf of the people in the House.

It is my policy that Ministers attend here for questions—

(Interruptions).

Do as I say, not as I do.

They do attend the House on a daily basis, both to deal with legislation and during Question Time. I wish to respond, if I may, without interruption, to the questions asked by Deputy Kenny.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform spent more than two hours in the Dáil Chamber yesterday on the business of the House, and he was notified that two matters relating to his Department had been selected for the Adjournment. When the Minister left the Chamber at 7 o'clock, he attended to some other meetings. He had a prior engagement scheduled at the time of the Adjournment and requested Minister of State, Deputy Callely, to take the Adjournment on his behalf. The Minister had cleared the content of replies to the issues raised and ensured that the Minister of State was adequately briefed on them.

Subsequently, the Minister's engagement was cancelled but he did not change the arrangement because he was quite confident that he had both cleared the replies and adequately briefed the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, who took the Adjournment matters. That was accepted by Deputy Allen in the House last night. The record of the House shows that Minister of State, Deputy Callely, stated that he was standing in on the Adjournment for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

It is a matter of some regret that the Minister was not informed of Mr. Moynihan's request for a meeting with him last night or that Mr. Moynihan was in the precincts of the House. The Minister was not aware of that. He was made aware of it late last night and he met Mr. Moynihan this morning and had a detailed discussion with him. Of course, there is no point in me going back over the contents of the case and the DPP's directions. That was dealt with in the House last night. I know that the loss of the life of young Adrian Moynihan was a tragedy for his family and is of great regret to the House.

The completed Garda investigation file was forwarded by the State Solicitor to the Director of Public Prosecutions on 2 July 2001 for a decision as to what prosecution, if any, should be instituted. The DPP issued directions on 9 January 2002 that no prosecution should be instituted. The circumstances of Adrian Moynihan's death were subsequently the subject of an inquest which returned a verdict of death by misadventure. The House would be aware that the purpose of the inquest was to establish the facts surrounding the death and those facts are on the public record. The inquiry produced findings on the identification of the deceased and the date and place of the death. All of the other details were put on the record last night by the Minister of State, Deputy Callely. Of course, the DPP's judgment is independent in these matters.

I understand that this morning, Mr. Moynihan asked the Minister to look at matters connected with the Garda investigation and how this happened. I also understand the Minister gave Mr. Moynihan an undertaking that he would speak to the Garda authorities on the matter. The Minister is not present in the House because he is attending a meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. I spoke to his office a short time ago. The Minister said he will return to Mr. Moynihan with the details when he has spoken to the Garda authorities.

I have said this matter goes to the heart of our democracy. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform presented his script to the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Callely, but when he realised he would be in the precinct of the House he should have had the courage to take the debate as his office had prepared the script for the Minister of State.

This young man died in a nightclub incident two years ago. The Deputy State Pathologist said he died because of the way he was held down. I understand he was bitten on the arm and handcuffed while he was dead. Other details have been put on the public record. I am concerned that a number of those who wished to give evidence in the case were not called to do so. I am glad to hear the Taoiseach indicate that this morning, the Minister spoke to Mr. Moynihan outside the Dáil and assured him that he would have the matter re-investigated.

I do not wish to interfere with the independence of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, but I understand the Attorney General is entitled to discuss the facts of a case and the reasons no prosecution was taken. Perhaps that should be done. Does this case not provide ample evidence that after six years of the Taoiseach's leadership of the Government, problems experienced by the victims of crime have not been resolved? People are entitled to thorough explanations, the truth and justice. Will the Taoiseach issue instructions and ensure that Ministers answer questions when necessary, provide full information on ongoing cases and that Mr. Moynihan's case is re-examined until such time as everyone can see that, in the interests of democracy, justice is not only done but is seen to be done? I never again wish to raise a case concerning a Minister who was within the precincts of the House but refused to answer legitimate questions raised in the House by any Member.

It is a regular feature of the House that, at times, Ministers will substitute for their colleagues for different reasons. Ministers could be in Europe or attending committees.

Not in the bar.

In this case the Minister cleared the statement prepared for the Minister of State, Deputy Callely.

The Taoiseach should ask the Minister to attend the House to apologise.

Allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.

I will not be drawn on that issue because I do not consider it would be a good practice for the House to go down that road.

The Minister's behaviour was not good practice.

The Minister wishes to clarify that, as was indicated last night, there is no conflict between the coroner for Cork city and the Director of Public Prosecutions. He also indicated that he had been informed on the basis of evidence given at the inquest into the death of the late Adrian Moynihan, the Deputy State Pathologist, Dr. Marie Cassidy, altered her disposition in relation to the case of Mr. Moynihan's death. In light of this and in accordance with the law, the coroner adjourned the inquest to allow the Garda the opportunity to consult with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to the new evidence. The Minister was informed by the Garda authorities that the file was resubmitted to the DPP on 16 December 2002 for further consideration and on 24 January 2003, following a full review of the file, the DPP confirmed that his original decision should stand.

Deputy Kenny said I indicated that the case was being re-opened. It is not. It moved on to the second issue and the DPP examined the new evidence and then closed the case.

Why were all the witnesses not called to give evidence?

Allow the Taoiseach to continue.

I cannot interfere with that. Mr. Moynihan today asked that the Minister should look at particular aspects of the Garda investigation. I have no right, authority, nor do I wish to give the impression that I am in any way asking the DPP to look at or re-examine this case because I have no authority to do that and I am not asking him to do so.

Where was the Minister last night?

It is bound to be a matter of concern to the House when the Taoiseach indicates it is his policy to require Ministers to attend the House to answer questions. In recent years, Cabinet Ministers have scarcely answered one in 20 Adjournment debate matters. I was present on one recent occasion when the same Minister of State took the four Adjournment debate matters. He did not know anything about at least three of them, nor could he be expected to.

According to news reports, the Standards in Public Office Commission will today publish the declarations under the spending limits in force at the last general election. The well advertised and promoted view is that a number of Members will have exceeded the spending limits. The suggestion is that they will be mostly Ministers. I do not know if that is the case. Will the Taoiseach use this as an excuse to further increase spending limits at elections? When Deputy Noel Dempsey was the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, and in keeping with his policy for looking after the disadvantaged, he raised the spending limits by 50% just before the general election. Will that be repeated following whatever announcement is made today?

On 27 October 2002, Ireland on Sunday reported that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, will scrap legislation which places spending limits on politicians during elections. According to the report, the Minister slammed the arrangements for the general election as “nonsensical and meaningless” and pointed out that politicians could spend what they wanted in the run-up to an election while having to account for every cent during a three-week campaign.

The Deputy's two minutes are concluded.

The Minister is correct. Fianna Fáil, in particular, spent enormous amounts of money before the dissolution of the Dáil.

As did the Labour Party.

We can show the Deputy the evidence.

Allow Deputy Rabbitte to conclude without interruption.

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is right to say that in that period politicians and Ministers spent what they liked.

What about Fianna Fáil's spending?

Deputy Connaughton, I ask you to allow Deputy Rabbitte to make his point without interruption.

Will the Taoiseach indicate if the Government intends to introduce the Minister's promised legislation before the next local, European or general elections?

I understand the report by the Standards in Public Office Commission is due to be published shortly. It may show that during the last general election, there was inadvertent overspending by some outgoing Members who used Oireachtas facilities during the campaign. This followed the outcome of a High Court case, the judgment of which was delivered on the afternoon of the 16 May 2002. I believe it would be accepted that outgoing Members from all parties acted in good faith in terms of the use of the facilities provided by the Oireachtas since at the time that was excluded from the Act. That was acknowledged in a press release by the commission last December, when all parties and individuals were completing their forms. The standards commission said it had decided it would be inappropriate to refer a file to the Director of Public Prosecutions where, specifically as a result of the judgment, it found that an overspend had occurred at the general election.

The standards commission went on to explain why it had reached that decision. It said it had regard to the fact that the original High Court judgment was delivered on the afternoon of 16 May 2002, the last day of campaigning in the election. Prior to that date, agents and candidates were entitled to assume that the rules of spending were set out in the relevant legislation and reflected the guidelines published by the commission. The commission has also decided that if an overspend occurred specifically as a result of the judgment, it would not recommend to the Minister for Finance that the amount of the overspend should be deducted from the reimbursement of election expenses payable to the candidate from the Exchequer. Those statements were made last year and that is the context in which this matter should be considered. I recall that in this House last year people were concerned about the workings of the legislation. I am not certain if the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, has moved on very much in his review of that because he has been dealing with many other issues. I am sure he will return to that issue eventually.

I asked the Taoiseach only one question. Is he bringing in legislation to raise the spending limits? I do not want him—

The Deputy made a number of accusations as well.

Would the Ceann Comhairle ask the Minister for Defence to be quiet?

(Interruptions).

Allow Deputy Rabbitte speak without interruption.

I do not want the Taoiseach muttering about concerns in the House about the operation of the law. That is not the issue. The issue is a straightforward one regarding spending limits at election time, and the Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government's reported public statements. The public will not know that it is only following the dissolution of the Dáil that spending limits are monitored by the Public Offices Commission and reports must be made. Prior to the dissolution of the Dáil all the money a party has can be spent, and was spent most dramatically by Fianna Fáil.

It is in the newspaper articles.

In the constituency I represent the party was deluged by spending running up to the dissolution of the Dáil. For example, I recall the civic holiday of St. Patrick's day when the route of the parade in my constituency was postered by one Fianna Fáil candidate. That was only one example of the spend that took place and the 50% increase in limit prior to the election brought in by the then Minister, Deputy Dempsey, provided for Fianna Fáil to spend £944,000 more in the election that was held this time last year.

I do not want the Taoiseach to tell us what the flaws are in the operation of the present legislation, or the difficulties with the bureaucracy and how ludicrous some aspects of it may be, or whatever. This is a simple, straightforward question to the Taoiseach. The Minister, Deputy Cullen, whom I happen to note by coincidence was the highest beneficiary of declared contributions, has promised to raise the ceiling. The Taoiseach is the leader of the Government. Is he going to bring in legislation to raise the spending limits during elections or not?

The Deputy will never get an answer to that.

The Deputy does not want me to mumble the way he has been mumbling. There is no legislation listed but the Minister has said outside that we should look at it. It is entirely unreasonable that a wealthy TD from his or her own resources, and there are plenty of them in this House—

What about a millionaire?

—could spend a fortune of his or her own money right up to the campaign whereas another individual who has little or no money has to fight a campaign during the three weeks. That is the present system. The system at the moment is designed to make sure that in the years ahead this House will be full of millionaires and that is a bad system.

Is that in the plans?

Entirely unreasonable.

What about the poor independents?

Now we know where the money went.

Where does the Taoiseach go—

First, a Cheann Comhairle, can you take the letter from Deputy John Gormley to you about the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform not being in the Chamber and act on it immediately?

I presume that is the Deputy's question.

It is not.

The Deputy is not entitled to raise two questions on Leader's Questions.

I am asking the Taoiseach a particular question but it relates to you as well, a Cheann Comhairle. My colleague, Deputy Gormley, tabled a matter on the Adjournment dealing with justice, and the Minister's constituency and he should have been here for that as well.

The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Ahern, was heard yesterday on the radio describing how the Government legal action over Sellafield was akin to taking on the might of the British Empire. Does the Taoiseach accept that for many years, Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats members, when they were in Fianna Fáil, were helping the British Empire to promote nuclear power? Mr. Dessie O'Malley wanted to build a nuclear power station at Carnsore and Mr. Albert Reynolds wanted to give money to the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield, and succeeded as he was chairing ECOFIN at the time and gave Thorpe the wherewithal to build with a large financial aid package.

The Deputy should not be that hard on Deputy Cuffe.

It is cleaner than fossil fuels.

In that regard I welcome the Government change in policy from the original Fianna Fáil policy but is the Government resigned to being defeated, which seems to be the Minister's view, in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea case, and the awaited outcome of the OSPAR case? If the Government is taking that view is it prepared to appeal and strengthen the case of the Stop Thorpe Alliance Dundalk group in County Louth which has been promised financial aid in the Fianna Fáil manifesto, and the programme for government previously, but has not enjoyed fulfilment of the promise, which is not unusual.

The background to this is that the oral hearings, as I promised some time ago, are taking place and this is the second of two international legal cases we are taking against the United Kingdom regarding Sellafield and the MOX plant. It began yesterday in the Hague. The case is being brought under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the oral proceedings in the case which concerned access to documents took place last October under the OSPAR Convention. The Government has put in a great deal of time and effort building a legal team, a technical team and a scientific team to fight this case. We have used international experts and others to try to assemble our case. The hearings will proceed for the next three weeks from 10-27 June and take place before a five member tribunal.

Our concerns centre on the pollution arising from the discharge of radioactive waste from the MOX plant and its associated facilities, including Thorpe in the Irish sea. I thank Deputy Sargent for his party's support for the Government's effort in this case. These cases have been the most significant legal actions taken by Ireland. They represent the Government's absolute commitment to ensuring that our rights under these international conventions regarding Sellafield and its operations are fully vindicated, and the legal team is led by the Attorney General. I know Deputy Sargent would agree with me that the same solidarity that was shown in Westminster yesterday should be shown here today and that while the case is on we should stand by the legal team and support them as was done yesterday in Britain.

Hear, hear.

Can I take it from the Taoiseach's reply that he is prepared to go the whole way and if necessary to appeal the decision, and leave no stone unturned? That is not the message that came from his Minister and I regret that. On the related matter of protecting us from nuclear pollution in the future does the Taoiseach accept also that the Green Party has co-operated in the national interest in dealing with the Convention on the Future of Europe with the Government line?

Can he clarify the Government line when it comes to the EURATOM treaty which some pro-nuclear governments want included in the new EU constitution? Does the Government accept that the EURATOM treaty, founded in 1957, is out of date and contrary to the aims for reforming the internal market for electricity, and contrary to the provisions of Article 3.2 requiring the integration of high level environmental protection in all aspects of Union policy areas? Does the Taoiseach have a particular view on how the EURATOM treaty is to be dealt with in the Convention? There are four options, three of which would be acceptable to us: abolition of the treaty, reform of the treaty to take out its pro-nuclear position, or a sunset clause. The only option that is not acceptable is a review of the EURATOM treaty after 2007 a view put by some member states. Which of the options is the Government supporting?

On a point of procedure the second question is entirely different to the first one the Deputy asked.

It is on nuclear safety.

It is the same thing of which Sellafield is a part.

On a point of order, the Deputy asked a question about yesterday's court proceedings which I will answer. If I answer the second one, and I will give a reply to it in two seconds, it is an entirely different question which will change my understanding of the Standing Order that the Leader answers one question. So before I answer the second question I want the Ceann Comhairle to give a ruling because the second question is to do with the European Convention. It is on the EURATOM section of the European convention which is being discussed in Reykjavik and an entirely different question from the first. If, a Cheann Comhairle, you rule it in order, I will answer it now. If you rule it out of order, I will give the Deputy the information. However, I will not answer two questions.

For the benefit of Members, Standing Order 26(a) is quite specific. It states:

At the commencement of Public Business on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, the Ceann Comhairle may permit, at his or her discretion, a brief question not exceeding two minutes from each Leader in Opposition to the Taoiseach about a matter of topical public importance.

It goes on to give the timing arrangements. One question is allowed. I note that this morning two leaders, including Deputy Sargent, tried to introduce the question raised by Deputy Kenny as part of their questions to the Taoiseach. I request that leaders confine themselves to the Standing Order and ask one question on a topical issue to the Taoiseach.

To be helpful to Deputy Sargent, I will give him the document which I have given to the convention on our position regarding EURATOM.

It is not clear if the Taoiseach—

We now move on to questions to the Taoiseach. Ceist Uimh. 1 in ainm an Teachta Enda Kenny.

A Cheann Comhairle, on a point of order regarding Leaders' Questions and the follow-up question put by Deputy Sargent, it is seen—

That is not a point of order. I ask the Deputy to resume his seat when the Chair is on his feet.

Can I make my point of order?

No, the Deputy cannot make a point of order on Leaders' Questions, since he is not the leader of his party. We are now moving on to Taoiseach's Questions. Ceist Uimh. 1 in ainm an Teachta Enda Kenny.

Where does it say that one must be the leader of a party to put a point of order?

The Chair has ruled many times that Leaders' Questions are for leaders.

A point of order is for an elected Member, and I ask—

The Chair has ruled on the matter.

A new ruling.

It is not a new ruling, for the Chair has ruled many times on that matter.

The Ceann Comhairle has never said that a Member must be a leader to ask a point of order.

The Chair has ruled on it.

That is a new ruling.

On a point of order.

I am sorry, but I am not hearing a point of order.

There have been many precedents in this House, for example, when Deputy Stagg, as Labour Party Whip, made points of order on Leaders' Questions about how he has seen procedures not being followed.

No, the Chair has ruled that only leaders may do so.

Are double standards being used in the House? I am asking for a precedent.

I ask the Deputy to withdraw the question about whether double standards are being used in the House.

Does a precedent not exist?

Deputy Boyle, I am asking you to withdraw that remark, or you will have to leave the House.

A Cheann Comhairle, I believe that the precedent exists.

I ask the Deputy to withdraw that question to the Chair.

I will sit down, but I am adamant in my belief that the precedent exists.

Deputy Boyle, I am asking you to withdraw the remark.

I cannot withdraw what I believe to be true.

Then you will leave the House. I ask you to do so.

I leave in protest.

Deputy Boyle withdrew from the Chamber.

Top
Share