Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 14 Oct 2003

Vol. 572 No. 3

Leaders' Questions.

Mr. Kenny

On 15 August 1998 one of the worst atrocities in Irish history occurred in Omagh, when 31 innocent people were bombed and murdered by the Real IRA. On 5 November last year, in replying to questions in the House, the Taoiseach stated clearly that there was no contact between any member of the Government and the Real IRA and that there had been no initiative for contact brought about by his then special adviser, Dr. Martin Mansergh, who is now a Senator.

This is contradicted by a claim in a book to be published which states that a meeting took place between the Taoiseach's special adviser on Northern Ireland, Dr. Mansergh, and the alleged leader of the Real IRA and alleged perpetrator of the Omagh bombing, Mr. Michael McKevitt.

What concerns me is not the integrity of Dr. Mansergh, the Taoiseach or Fr. Alex Reid regarding the matters they were dealing with in relation to Northern Ireland. What concerns me is that the Taoiseach, in answering questions here as head of Government, chose not to confirm to the House whether or not a meeting took place between his special adviser, presumably with his imprimatur, and the leader of the Real IRA. I do not want to get into the business of saying, in the words of a newspaper article, that the Taoiseach lied to the House or that he misled the House. I would like the Taoiseach to have the opportunity to set the record straight, if it needs to be set straight, and to let us know whether or not a meeting took place between his special adviser and the leader of the Real IRA; if it did take place, whether it was with his imprimatur; and why, in essence, the Taoiseach did not see fit to inform the House of that fact when he answered questions on 5 November last.

The Taoiseach

I thank Deputy Kenny for the way he has framed this and the opportunity he has given me to deal with this matter.

I made clear in a Dáil statement of 5 November last, and also in a more extensive statement that I distributed the same day on this issue, that my special adviser at the time, Dr. Mansergh, did have contact with the 32 County Sovereignty Movement in 1998 some weeks before the Omagh atrocity with a view to persuading the Real IRA to cease their activities after the overwhelming ratification of the Good Friday Agreement by the people of Ireland. I also said that following the Omagh atrocity, Fr. Alex Reid was in discussions with that organisation with a view to bringing about the ceasefire on its part, which was eventually announced in early September 1998. I said that in this period Fr. Reid maintained contact with Dr. Mansergh on the issue.

Following the announcement of the ceasefire in September 1998, the Government strongly communicated the message that the Real IRA should not only maintain its ceasefire but should disband and cease to exist by the end of the year. That message would also have been communicated and reinforced directly by Dr. Mansergh in a follow-up meeting during Christmas week in 1998 at the request of the movement in response to his earlier contact at a time when the Real IRA ceasefire had been in existence for three months. Regrettably, the Real IRA did not heed this message and subsequently resumed its activities. It should also be made clear, as Deputy Kenny said, that everything Dr. Mansergh and Fr. Reid did during this period was designed to bring about a Real IRA ceasefire and a definitive end to its activities.

I accept Deputy Kenny's comment that the position is not clear from the record. I did not say that Dr. Mansergh met Mr. McKevitt during Christmas 1998. Deputy Kenny has obviously read the record. I am sure he will accept that I was talking at that stage about a deal that was meant to have been done prior to the ceasefire in which Dr. Mansergh and Fr. Reid were involved. I did mention the other events, but I accept that I did not go into all of the activities.

I want to repeat what I said in the Dáil last November. I said no deal was done by the Government either directly or indirectly with the Real IRA in return for a ceasefire or in the context of seeking its disbandment at the end of 1998. At all times it would have been made clear, as it was in my public statement in response to the ceasefire, that the law would take its course regarding the atrocities for which the Real IRA was responsible, and the sustained and successful action of the authorities here against the Real IRA provides ample evidence of that. I confirm that while I was talking at that time last year about what happened in the events leading up to the ceasefire in September 1998, I referred to some of the activities, but I accept that I did not refer to this one.

Dr. Mansergh put a report of that meeting into the records of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Department of the Taoiseach. In no way was Dr. Mansergh acting in a secret way. I accept it would have been better if I had mentioned that at the time, but I do so now. I reiterate that it was done with my imprimatur and the reason it was done during Christmas week was that at that stage the organisation had been on ceasefire for three months. We felt it was worth trying to convince it not only to stay on ceasefire, which was not an issue at that time, but to disband.

Mr. Kenny

I am glad the Taoiseach has taken the opportunity to clarify the information he gave to the Dáil on 5 November last. This is one of the central issues to which he referred in Killarney last weekend when he spoke about commitment, responsibility and leadership. I am not impugning the integrity of Dr. Mansergh, but I would have thought this would have been relevant information because it sends out a signal to the families of the victims of the worst bombing atrocity in Irish history, that at a time when they were pursuing their course of justice, without any great help from either Government, the special adviser to the Taoiseach on Northern Ireland, had a face to face meeting with the alleged leader of the Real IRA and the alleged perpetrator of this bombing.

With respect to the Taoiseach and his office, it seems that the lack of information and clarity from some of the replies given by him as head of Government diminishes the authority of his office. Deputy Rabbitte has been pursuing questions on an another matter. We get a formula of words which lead to a public perception that the full truth is not being told. I would like the Taoiseach to repeat that his special adviser at the time, Dr. Mansergh, met with Mr. McKevitt and that he regrets not putting that on the record. I hope this will set a new standard for full and comprehensive answers and truth in line with the standards set last weekend for commitment, responsibility and leadership.

The Taoiseach

I do not want to take any great issue with this. I could give interesting insights if I wanted about special advisers meeting people on ceasefires and not on ceasefires, but that is not my form in dealing with Northern Ireland. I do not think we or Deputy Kenny should go down that road.

Mr. Allen

Is that a threat?

Mr. Rabbitte

Perhaps the Taoiseach should ask the Leader of the Seanad, Senator O'Rourke, about 1996 and 1997.

The Taoiseach

Deputy Kenny asked me about two particular issues last year. One issue concerned whether a deal had been done prior to the Real IRA going on ceasefire. The question, in response to which I gave a full answer, was raised over a two week period. I was also asked about issues relating to cars and vehicles in response to which I also gave a full statement. I also circulated a comprehensive statement. I did not read out the full statement in the House because I had only two minutes to reply, but that statement is also in the public domain.

I accept that I did not go into the period of the ceasefire. At that stage, I was dealing with one set of issues. It would have been better if I had addressed the matter, but there was no question of trying to cover up the official note, which was on the records of the Department of the Taoiseach and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. As I stated at the end of that note – I think I also said this in the House – lest there be any confusion, there is contact between the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform about prisoners and other matters with the Real IRA, and that continues on prisoners' issues, although not with my advisers.

There is ongoing contact with other groups, both loyalist and republican. That contact started in 1998 and has continued through the lifetime of successive Governments.

Mr. Rabbitte

One area on which the Taoiseach has not been prepared to correct the record relates to the questions that surround the negotiation of the indemnity deed with the religious congregations. Rather than answering questions about why he was prepared to put the taxpayer at risk for an unlimited liability and cap the liability of the religious congregations, he has said he was the first Taoiseach to make an apology and the State was prepared to pay the Bill irrespective of whether the religious ever contributed a penny. The Taoiseach refuses to answer questions about why the Attorney General and his staff were excluded at a critical time. He also refuses to say why the terms of the indemnity were never debated in this House. He further refuses to say why normal Cabinet procedures were not followed. He refuses to say why records were not kept of the critical meetings. In all of these instances, he retreats behind the shelter of saying that he was prepared, in the name of the State, to foot the entire bill for the cost of redress for survivors.

In that event, how does the Taoiseach reconcile his generosity with the decision of the Department of Health and Children to pull the plug on the One in Four organisation? How can the same Government that is so generous-minded and open-handed with taxpayers' money have caused redundancy notices to be issued to the staff of One in Four? How can the Taoiseach reconcile that when his most senior adviser was involved in the setting up of that organisation in Ireland, knew it was necessary, knew that a therapeutic dimension was always at its core and that – because it was reported to him – it was relayed to the principal in that organisation that if he did not behave and not criticise the Government during the collapse of the Laffoy commission by the Government, he was in danger of biting the hand that fed him? What action did the Taoiseach take on that? How does he reconcile the collapse of that organisation with his stated good intentions to fund the entire cost of this neglect by the Catholic Church and State for generations?

The Taoiseach

Deputy Rabbitte continues to suggest that the issues relating to the religious congregations were not properly dealt with by Government. They came properly before Government. There were many meetings. Comments have been made several times about the meetings which the Attorney General did not attend. I outlined those circumstances, noting that the Minister of the day and the Secretary General of the Department were at those meetings. I noted that the issue came before Government in the draft deal in January 2002 and that it was negotiated over the period and finalised in the summer of 2002. I have given the references and dates on previous occasions and it should not be necessary to go through them all the time.

As regards the One in Four group, since May 2002 the Department of Health and Children has provided funding to all the relevant organisations. The Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, has stated that there should be counselling arrangements and he assisted from the outset in the establishment of those arrangements.

The One in Four organisation was provided with funding of €633,000. Some €208,000 of this was made available to its UK-based operation to deal with calls related to clerical abuse. This year, €425,000 was granted to One in Four in Ireland. The money was paid over before the end of the summer. Some €302,000 of this grant relates to staff salaries, pensions, expenses and training, while the remainder relates to the costs of premises and volunteers. This level of funding was agreed at a meeting on 25 March this year.

As regards counselling costs, information was sought from One in Four regarding the service it intended to provide. The organisation agreed to forward this information but it was never received by the Department of Health and Children. There was never any agreement in place to fund counselling provided by One in Four. It was the subject of negotiations which dated from the meeting of 25 March.

The Department of Health and Children provides counselling for all adults who suffered abuse through the national counselling service. It also provides funding for private counselling for those resident in institutions who do not want to use the State services. I provided those figures in this House recently. Mr. O'Gorman contacted, and had a number of meetings on different issues with, my programme manager. They made contact on 15 September. Deputy Kenny raised this issue earlier. Mr. O'Gorman was critical of the officials of the Department of Health and Children. My programme manager listened to his complaints and discussed the matter with the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin. A meeting was arranged for later this week, as I understand it. That is the position with One in Four. This issue was one aspect of the business of One in Four. Its other services had been funded for the year. The only issue in dispute related to its counselling service.

Mr. Rabbitte

The Taoiseach again recites the details which differ each time one raises the questions. One merely has to read the record of the House.

How can the Taoiseach reconcile what he has said in the past with pulling the plug on the One in Four organisation? There was a detailed meeting with the officials on 25 March, the proceedings of which were furnished to the Department of Health and Children by Mr. Colm O'Gorman, and copied to the Taoiseach's Department on 27 March. There was never any issue taken with any line in that record of that meeting. When the Taoiseach then gets himself into trouble with collapsing the Laffoy commission, and when Colm O'Gorman makes public remarks, it is relayed to Mr. O'Gorman that he had better keep quiet – or else. He is now in a situation where he has had to put €73,000 of the money awarded to him into the organisation to keep it alive.

The Taoiseach will recall that one of the central recommendations of the Finlay report was that an independent counselling service was necessary. That is what is now being collapsed. In addition, the same Minister is terminating contracts of psychotherapists in the State service whose contracts are now running out. This is the Government that was so open-handed through Deputy Michael Woods, which is now undermining both the State service, through the national counselling service, and the One in Four organisation. This is the commitment of the State to dealing with this problem, with the Taoiseach boasting so much about his apology.

The Taoiseach

The Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, has been stating to me again what has been stated outside the House. The Minister, his Department and the officials involved reject all of the allegations made about them regarding this matter. They have put €17 million into the national counselling service. At the meeting on 25 March the level of funding was agreed for all of One in Four's services except its counselling service.

I repeat what the Department has told me. As regards counselling costs, information about the service it intended to provide was sought from One in Four. The organisation agreed to forward this information but it was never received by the Department. There was never any agreement in place to fund that counselling service and it remained subject to negotiation. That is the factual position. The national counselling service is a very good one. To date, €17 million has been spent on it.

Mr. Martin

Far more than Deputy Rabbitte's party spent.

Mr. Rabbitte

Why then is the Taoiseach cutting staff numbers?

The Taoiseach

The service is in place. It is up and running. It has been funded and is continuing. Those who do not want to use it have access to private services. In cases where people had conscientious objections to using that service because of the trauma they have been through the State provided private counselling services. The meeting between Mr. O'Gorman and the Department's officials has been arranged and he can pursue the issues. There is a difference in what has been presented as facts. I can only tell Deputy Rabbitte that all of the people concerned advise me that what has been stated is factually incorrect.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

On 1 October, the Taoiseach stated in the Dáil that he had had a meeting with the president of Shell, one of the largest multinational oil, gas and energy companies in the world. What was the purpose of that meeting, when did it take place and who was present? The Taoiseach stated, and again made reference to it this afternoon, that in the course of that meeting he discussed the Corrib gas project. Was that the reason for the meeting? Does the Taoiseach believe that, as a Head of Government, it is appropriate for him to discuss with the president of Shell a proposition that is still going through the planning process? Would he agree that it is inappropriate for him to discuss a planning application that has yet to be determined at another level within this jurisdiction? Would he accept that it is even more inappropriate for him to meet the president of Shell and discuss proposed legislation which does not even appear as yet in the programme of proposed legislation that the Government issued to this Chamber following the summer recess? This legislation has not been discussed either in this House or by any Oireachtas committee.

The Taoiseach must acknowledge that it is strange that the legislation referred to by him on 1 October as the critical infrastructure Bill, and again by Deputy Cullen during his visit to Killarney last week as the national infrastructure Bill, comes in the aftermath of his meeting with the president of Shell. Will the Taoiseach confirm that in the course of that meeting, the president indicated that he was loath to proceed with the project until he had the necessary assurances regarding the planning permission issue? Would the Taoiseach agree that this is yet a further prime example of privileged access to the corridors of power for some regarding planning matters?

Ms Harney

The Deputy has a lot of access to power.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I have clearly brought the Tánaiste to life. The Taoiseach may be good enough to respond.

Ms Harney

The Deputy has had too much access to the corridors of power.

The Taoiseach

It is always the same. At one time one should not meet people and at another time one should. Deputy Ó Caoláin might prefer if I spent my time meeting former paramilitary people rather than presidents of major organisations.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

We are dealing now with planning matters. The Taoiseach should stick to dealing with the question rather than looking for cul de sacs.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Ó Caoláin should behave.

The Taoiseach

It would be highly inappropriate for me not to meet people wishing to legitimately invest their resources in generating projects and activities in this country.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Will the Taoiseach deal with the question?

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Ó Caoláin, you are being disorderly.

The Taoiseach

I will deal with the question now if the Deputy will listen. The president of Shell had to make a decision on behalf of the European board. Accompanied by officials from the Irish and European operations he wanted to know the Government's view of the Corrib project before making a decision on the allocation of further finance. He asked if we were still interested in Shell investing further money in this country. I confirmed that inward investment was welcome. He then asked me, as the national infrastructure Bill had been in the public domain for several weeks, if that Bill would be in place prior to the company's re-application. I explained to him, as I have already outlined to the House on two occasions in reply to Deputy Kenny, that it was unlikely the new Bill would be in place before next summer when it was hoped the company could commence work. I recommended it stay with the normal planning structure. He informed me it would take that information into account. The project was, it believed, a viable and good one but it would have to reconsider the level of investment required. It had other projects in hand at various locations around the world and the matter would go before the European board of Shell for a decision.

I totally reject Deputy Ó Caoláin's view that my meeting international figures of any company is in any way wrong. It has always been our practice to do so. It is entirely appropriate for the Taoiseach or Ministers of the day to meet officials of such companies at properly documented meetings.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

The Taoiseach is seeking to side-track the question. Nobody objects to his meeting the president of Shell.

Mr. M. Smith

We should go to America for the money, then we would not need anyone.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

It is the issue of the matters discussed with Shell while it is seeking planning permission for its project that is inappropriate. Does the decision by An Bord Pleanála on the gas terminal in west Mayo not now prove to have been the correct one given the serious events at Pullathomas, County Mayo, and verification of the disastrous proposals on the stacking of peat where the safest methods for dealing with various difficulties that would arise in terms of the development were clearly not signalled? Is what the Taoiseach is now proposing a fast-tracking of major projects which will deny interested communities and concerned sectors of society the opportunity to properly utilise the planning process?

While we all wish to see faster processing of planning applications, we cannot do so by sacrificing the importance of the system in ensuring the highest standards of safety and health considerations irrespective of the scale of the proposal.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has made his point.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

It is because the Taoiseach regards scale as critical in making the difference that I believe he is heading on a dangerous course.

The Taoiseach

The planning decision on the Corrib field has already been made. Shell and all other companies which I have met are well aware of the planning process in this country. They know it is independent and that they must go through the various stages involved. Companies like Shell which make large scale investments involving millions of euro need to know the timescale involved in the process as the period in offshore work is very limited. They asked questions about the new Bill and current planning laws. They are aware of the process and were not interested in asking me to make representations on their behalf. The process has been a costly one for them. They are not interested in influencing anybody in that regard. For anyone to suggest they were seeking assistance from Government is totally incorrect. Shell has already invested several hundreds of millions of euro here. Its application has been rejected and it must now start again or not bother to go ahead with the project. It is entirely appropriate for me to meet such companies to answer their questions, and I hope that will continue to be the position.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

What did the Taoiseach expect to accrue to the Exchequer?