Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 11 May 2004

Vol. 585 No. 2

Leaders’ Questions.

Mr. Kenny

We have reached a sad state of affairs when we cannot accept the truthfulness of answers given by the Taoiseach in the House. It is in that context that I ask my question. I will first remind the House of the Taoiseach's words here on 10 February 1999.

I have continually and unambiguously made clear since Good Friday. . . . .1998 that any reference by the Sinn Féin negotiators regarding the release of the late Jerry McCabe's murderers could not be considered . . . . . At no time was anyone given any comfort about these people and neither will they be.

Since he uttered these words, the Taoiseach has answered questions on the peace process virtually on a monthly basis and he has never once mentioned this issue as being one of the sticking points in the negotiations. When he specifically reported on those negotiations of last October, it was not mentioned even though Sinn Féin is today claiming that these releases were part of the agreed sequence of events and statements. In doing this secret, dirty deal with the IRA, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform have callously broken their word to the people and have betrayed the McCabe family.

People should remember that Detective Garda Jerry McCabe was serving democracy and his country when he was brutally murdered by violent thugs who only avoided 40 year sentences for capital murder by intimidating key trial witnesses. If we cannot believe what the Taoiseach has been telling us in this House for the past five years, why should we believe him now? I ask the Taoiseach to put away the script prepared by the spin doctors and to give an honest answer to the following question. When did his Government abandon its solemn promise of putting this concession on the table? Will he confirm Gerry Adams's claim today that the release of these killers was part of the deal agreed last October which was halted at the last minute by David Trimble? Was this part of the October deal — yes or no?

The Taoiseach

The full implementation of all aspects of the Good Friday Agreement has not been achieved to date. What became apparent to the two Governments as time went on was that the agreement was unlikely to ever reach full implementation unless certain issues were settled, some going beyond the terms of the agreement. It was from this that the concept of "acts of completion" emerged. What was envisaged in "acts of completion" was nothing short of a definitive settlement of the Northern question involving as one of its central elements the complete end to all forms of paramilitary activity.

What emerged by April 2003 was a complex set of understandings involving a range of elements, which would emerge as a sequence of agreed statements and supporting actions, some by Governments, some by Sinn Féin, some by the IRA and some by Unionists. This came very close to realisation in March 2003 but ultimately failed, as did a subsequent attempted settlement last October, essentially involving the same range of elements.

The Governments are now engaged in fresh efforts to bring a definitive end to the Northern conflict, yet we are again seeking to find a way in which an outcome involving essentially the same elements could be achieved. It is no secret that the range of elements to which I refer include matters such as the stability of the inclusive institutions, the ending of paramilitarism in all its forms, the decommissioning of all illegally held arms, the issue of demilitarisation, policing and human rights.

While it is unhelpful to the process of negotiation — indeed, any negotiation — to single out any single element and try to deal with it outside the only context in which it has relevance, one element has been brought into the public domain, the question of releasing the IRA prisoners in Castlerea. The issue of the possible releases of those prisoners has been consistently raised by Sinn Féin, in the same way as the question has arisen about how to handle those who may be responsible for paramilitary crimes committed before the Good Friday Agreement, and those who remained on the run, the so-called OTRs.

Questions were raised in the House about this issue as far back as March last year when I said that the Government was considering how to deal with these issues. The case of OTRs and that of the Castlerea prisoners are not unrelated — neither is covered by the Good Friday Agreement. Our goal last spring and in October, as I have said, was to clear the way on all outstanding issues, including the republican movement finally and definitively making an historic move away from violence. We did not achieve the outcome we were working for at that time. Because of this, the question of the release of these prisoners — or, indeed, resolving the OTR and other issues like demilitarisation, all of which were elements of the sequence — could not be pursued. These issues, therefore, remain on the agenda. Sinn Féin has made it clear that it is unable to convince the IRA leadership to take the necessary steps without the situation of the Castlerea prisoners being resolved.

Let me be clear that, for its part, the Government can consider the early release of these prisoners only in the context where the achievement of all other acts of completion, as set out, was assured. This means assurance of the complete ending of paramilitarism by the IRA, and decommissioning. This is something that we have been trying to achieve through intense engagement over the past two years and more. It is a goal for which successive Irish Governments have been striving since the foundation of the State, and it remains our goal.

Mr. Kenny

The Taoiseach's reply is a disgrace. He knows that the early release of the convicted killers of Jerry McCabe was outside the conditions of the Good Friday Agreement. Does the Taoiseach seriously expect us to believe that this concession is the main blocking point to the final implementation of the Good Friday Agreement? If that is the case, why has he never reported that single issue to this House? It is clear that this secret deal was done with the IRA, and the Taoiseach's recent promise to consult the McCabe family is completely and utterly hypocritical. Surely he has read the letter from the Minister for zero tolerance, Deputy O'Donoghue to Mrs. Ann McCabe and his subsequent statement to the Dáil in which he said "I wonder how many different ways we have to say no for these people to get the message that those involved will not have the benefit of the early release terms of the British-Irish Agreement."

Mr. McDowell

That is true.

Mr. Kenny

Despite his newly-manufactured decisive image, the Taoiseach has lost the plot. The Provisional IRA now believes that it will get whatever it demands in return for the fulfilment of its commitments. Fine Gael rejects this concession being put on the table by the Government. It offends ordinary decent people throughout the land. Where is the Taoiseach's moral strength now? Where is his moral defence of standing for those who stand up for democracy? Is it not a fact that the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform have been blackmailed by the IRA into putting this concession on the table? He expects us to believe that it is the last single remaining obstacle to a peaceful Ireland but this U-turn is a step too far. Will he tell Sinn Féin that the Irish people will not accept it?

Deputies

Hear, hear.

The Taoiseach

It is our view that the release of the prisoners in Castlerea does not come under the Good Friday Agreement. That was reflected in the Criminal Justice (Release of Prisoners) Act 1998. It is not the only issue on the agenda. I would not like anybody in this House or outside it to believe, as a result of this debate, that it is a single issue. There is an enormous range of issues, including demilitarisation, prisoners, OTRs and fundamental human rights. If we had been successful in obtaining the framework we set out in March last year, there would have been a whole sequence of events concerning a whole range of issues, some of which have been mentioned. If we ever want an end to the IRA, which is what I want, we will have to be brave and take some pain to get some gain. If we want to take a purist view that we will end paramilitarism in all its forms, that will not be done by taking one point and dealing with it in isolation. I will be as tough as is necessary against Sinn Féin and the IRA but if we can get a complete set of agreements we will do so.

We had also decided how we would discuss this with the Garda bodies, the McCabe family and Ben O'Sullivan's family. There was no question of the Government making or announcing a deal without consultation with those families.

Ms O. Mitchell

What about the Dáil?

The Taoiseach

We will continue as best we can to bring finality to this agreement. While it may suit some people in the House, we are still a long way from that, but we continue to try because it is the right thing to do.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

The Taoiseach's word is worthless.

Mr. Rabbitte

I wanted to raise with the Taoiseach his silence on, and the absence of reference on the websites of his Department, the Department of Foreign Affairs or the EU Presidency to the shocking violations of international humanitarian law in Iraq that we see in newspapers and on television. However, having just heard the Taoiseach's comments it is important to go back to the murder of Detective Jerry McCabe. Do I understand the Taoiseach to have told Deputy Kenny that this was not the only issue? He said there is an enormous range of outstanding issues to be dealt with. Was the release of those who murdered Jerry McCabe being used as a concession for a single act of decommissioning last October? It was not at all the act of completion that we were led to believe, even in the secondary explanation by the Government.

The choreography went wrong in October because we did not know the extent or scale of the act of decommissioning that took place. Is the Taoiseach now saying, however, that the release of those who murdered Jerry McCabe was intruded in return for that single act of decommissioning? I cannot understand how he can reconcile that with the letter to Mrs. McCabe from the former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, which appears in today's Irish Examiner, and states: “I hope that what I said at the meeting provided you with assurance that there is no question of granting early release to those concerned, either under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement or, for that matter, on any other basis either.”

Mr. McGinley

That was yesterday.

Mr. Rabbitte

I am not saying that a sovereign Government ought not reserve to itself the right to do what it thinks is best in circumstances where the complete departure from violence as a weapon of political advancement is agreed, verified and signed up to. To intrude this as a pawn in negotiations to extract further concessions in the snail's pace progress towards what may or may not be a final settlement in the future is utterly unacceptable, apart from being entirely at variance with what the Taoiseach said in this House and what the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform said to Mrs. McCabe.

The Taoiseach

Perhaps Deputy Rabbitte missed what I said yesterday at the press conference when I comprehensively dealt with the issue of the inhumane treatment of the prisoners in Iraq. I dealt with that yesterday and I do not want to let that point go unanswered.

I did not want to give an impression to Deputy Rabbitte, which I do not think I did, that this was a part of the settlement. There are not many matters left for the Irish Government to deal with, although there are issues regarding "on the runs", OTRs, human rights and equality which we must address in the overall context of agreement. We must be 100% clear, however, that the consideration by Government of releasing the Castlerea five would only be in terms of the end of paramilitarism and a final agreement. It was not an interim position and I assure the House of that. It would only take place in the event of full completion of the condition set out in paragraph 13 of the joint declaration, namely, the end of paramilitarism — "the ending of conflict" was the phrase used — and, as the Deputy knows, those are the words the IRA has difficulty broaching. We did not, however, achieve that.

There are many issues the British Government must address. It stated that within the context of acts of completion, it would bring before Parliament the legislation necessary to resolve outstanding cases on a basis involving judicial process and showing sensitivity to the position of victims. The Irish Government would address similar cases in this jurisdiction. That is set out in the joint declaration. We would only look at any of these issues, however, if there was completion and I hope we will arrive at that position as soon as possible.

We are not at that position. We are further from it than we were when we discussed these issues in April 2003. October was only a mirror of that time because it was in April 2003 that the detailed discussions took place. However, we did not get there. We nearly made it in April 2003 and, in the view of the Irish Government, we did not come as close in October 2003 as a result of a range of issues. If I gave every detail of the negotiations in recent years, such as what was said and thought, we would be unable to negotiate any arrangement. This is not an industrial relations issue. We are trying to end for once and for all the paramilitary violence that has almost ruined this country economically for a quarter of a century. We want an end to the Provisional IRA and the remnants of paramilitarism. It is only in that context that I, the Tánaiste, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform or any of us collectively would go to the McCabe family and say we think this could take place as part of the greater picture.

We would not go if we thought we were only getting a little process along the way. The reason we never did it was because we did not get to where we wanted. We tried and we will continue to try, but that is our position. I do not think we did other than the proper discharge of our duties in trying to bring finality to paramilitary violence in this country.

Mr. McGinley

The Government was willing to play the card.

Mr. Rabbitte

We will come back again to the Iraq question. Answering questions at a press conference is not the same as making a clear statement on the issue. The only statement I read from the Taoiseach stated that he would consider it "a disgrace" if the Opposition were to raise this matter during the Bush visit.

An Ceann Comhairle

I remind the Deputy that only one issue can be raised on Leaders' Questions.

Mr. Rabbitte

I would have thought that the least we could expect would be that the Taoiseach would raise the issue on behalf of all of us when President Bush comes to visit.

An Ceann Comhairle

Standing Order 26 is quite specific. There can be only one issue on a topical question.

Mr. Rabbitte

The Taoiseach will know that for years this House has been scrupulous in its observance of a bipartisan approach and full support for his efforts in respect of the situation in Northern Ireland. The murder of a serving member of the Garda Síochána, however, is a step too far for most Members of this House, be that difficult or not to reconcile with some of the terrible events that have happened in Northern Ireland. Therefore, when the Taoiseach led the people to believe that the killers of Jerry McCabe were outside the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, and when his Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform unequivocally assured his widow in that regard, it is a shock to discover that, in fact, it was a pawn on the chess board in the context of a single act of decommissioning last October.

The period that has elapsed since last October has seen the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform at his most assertive in respect of dealings with the IRA.

Mr. McGinley

It rings hollow now.

Mr. Rabbitte

Now we find there was a preparedness on the part of the Minister, the Taoiseach and the rest of the Government to use this issue in what seems to be a step that fell a long way short of the final termination of violence in Irish politics that was the objective in the first place.

The Taoiseach

It is unfair that the Deputy can ask a question that I cannot answer. I did not say I would not raise this issue during the Bush visit. I never said that. I will gladly do it. I apologise for being out of order but I cannot let a question be asked and left unanswered.

Mr. M. Higgins

The Taoiseach should issue a statement.

The Taoiseach

I made it clear yesterday. I held a press conference live on CNN last week during which I said it. I cannot do any more.

Mr. M. Higgins

The Taoiseach could issue a statement.

An Ceann Comhairle

In fairness to the leader of his party, Deputy Michael D. Higgins might leave Leaders' Questions to him.

The Taoiseach

On the second issue, the Government has not used this as any part of the negotiation process. We firmly stated that we were prepared to consider this issue only as part of the end position if we reached it. We did not reach it, as we have seen recently from the report of the International Monitoring Commission. We were trying to achieve a position where all the outstanding aspects listed by the British Government, David Trimble, the UUP and other parties were dealt with in a comprehensive agreement and that there would be a sequence and a process dealing with that. We did not achieve that so the issues surrounding any aspect of it — OTRs, demilitarisation, further moves on equality, human rights or the horrendous killing in Adare on 7 June 1996 of Jerry McCabe and the injuring of Ben O'Sullivan — did not arise because we did not arrive at that position.

In terms of an overall total agreement and the end of paramilitarism, we would have considered it. We would have tried to achieve finality in the matter, but it did not happen so that part and any other parts of the agreement, many of which are in the public domain and many of which are not, are still being discussed with all parties. This was of the highest sensitivity, however, and we would not do anything without direct contact between the Government, the widow of Jerry McCabe and the family of Ben O'Sullivan.

Mr. J. Higgins

We do not know if AIB Bank will rename its currency department the "foreign short change desk" but we know that the bank's swindling of its foreign exchange customers of up to €25 million is only the latest in a long saga of scams by many banks to maximise their already bloated profits through dubious means. Why do powerful financial institutions feel, after all the previous scandals, that they can still swindle their customers, let alone levy bank charges on us with impunity?

Is it not the case that under the Taoiseach's seven-year stewardship, he has operated a different law for the economically powerful in society in contrast with how small people are treated? His Government has operated a nauseating double standard by which the economically powerful may occasionally get mild slaps on the wrist, mainly verbal, but are not really held accountable. In the absence of the Taoiseach last week, I asked the Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith, about some of the double standards. The Taoiseach may have heard the Minister found himself severely challenged in the articulation department in response to Opposition questions.

A young person may take possession of a Garda hat and find himself or herself charged with stealing and lodged in jail for many days with the threat of being kept there longer. Major banks stole up to €1 billion from taxation funds, which means it came from health services, hospitals and schools. How many of the 7,000 gardaí mobilised on May Day did the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, ask to knock on the door of the boardroom of a major bank and ask the simple question of who organised the rackets and tax frauds and instructed staff around the country, factoring it into the profits of the bank "going forward", as they like to say in business circles? Is it not the reality that, after seven years of Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats rule, the Ansbacher men and the organisers of the big bank tax frauds have as much chance of being dragged before a court as the poor, stone age men the National Roads Authority is now turning up every second week?

The Taoiseach

The Deputy left out the fact this Government moved from the position under the Consumer Credit Act 1995, whereby credit institutions were required to notify the Director of Consumer Affairs on any charges imposed by them, but the director was not able to do much about it. That responsibility was transferred to the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority which this Government established exactly one year ago, and severe financial penalties are provided for in the Act. As we know, AIB indicated that in the mid-1990s it was charging 1% on non-cash transactions exceeding IR£500,000. It notified the Director of Consumer Affairs that it was charging 0.5%. The error related to a single charge among a large number notified to the Director of Consumer Affairs. It appears AIB noticed its discrepancy two years ago but no action was taken. In April 2004, IFSRA received an anonymous call raising the issue. On 30 April, IFSRA raised the matter with compliance officials in AIB and the matter was raised in the media the following week. Statements have been made. IFSRA has launched an investigation into this matter as it is the relevant authority. It has very strong powers and is actively pursuing the matter with AIB at a senior level. It can impose severe financial penalties.

Ms Burton

On a point of order, there are no penalties.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is no point of order since the question is that of Deputy Joe Higgins. I ask Deputy Burton to resume her seat.

The Taoiseach

AIB today lodged €25 million with the Central Bank on a good-faith basis at the request of IFSRA. We will see where the matter moves from there. However, IFSRA, which has only been in place for a year, has the powers and functions to deal with this matter.

An Ceann Comhairle

I call Deputy Joe Higgins.

Ms Burton

On a point of order.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry, Deputy Burton, but there are no points of order on Leaders' Questions except from the leader who submitted the question. I ask Deputy Burton to resume her seat. She will leave the House if she does not do so.

Mr. J. Higgins

I can get the details any time from IFSRA's report. Why does it happen? I asked the Taoiseach to explain why the climate his Government allows to obtain lets that happen; he did not do so. Big bankers and barristers can rob us with impunity by legal and illegal means but the Taoiseach and his Government stand over their greed. That is the problem. The Taoiseach may wave the odd velvet glove in their direction but there is no iron fist inside it in terms of the consequences they have been asked to carry. Is it any wonder my colleagues have tabled a motion tonight about the mismanagement and misapplication of public funding and the projects that suffer as a result? The Taoiseach could mobilise thousands of gardaí on May Day to protect occupying powers——

An Ceann Comhairle

The two minutes are concluded.

Mr. J. Higgins

——included among his guests who are responsible for mass murder and the organised torture of prisoners. In other words, he gives them the same immunity he gives to big business when it comes to making it really accountable for its actions. He threw a backbencher to the wolves last week because he had no choice, but there was a point to her protestations. She is being scapegoated. She should not have escaped but the others who are responsible behind it all have never been called to account.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy's time is up.

Mr. J. Higgins

It is time the banking system was brought into line. It should be publicly owned and democratically controlled because then, with the significant power it has over our lives——

An Ceann Comhairle

I must ask Deputy Higgins to give way to the Taoiseach. If Members are not happy with the Standing Order they know how to change it.

Mr. J. Higgins

——perhaps it could be applied for the benefit of society rather than swindling it, which the Taoiseach's Government allows it to do.

The Taoiseach

I accept the point that IFSRA is the body and the Irish management services Bill has the penalties.

Mr. R. Bruton

There is no penalty for this offence.

The Taoiseach

The Bill with the penalties is before the House. I accept the point. The new Bill is the Irish management services Bill.

Mr. R. Bruton

It has no penalties.

Ms Harney

The new Bill.

The Taoiseach

We set up IFSRA to deal with consumer aspects of these issues. The necessary powers are in the Irish management services Bill to deal with these issues.

Mr. J. Higgins

I do not want to——

The Taoiseach

The Deputy asked me——

Mr. J. Higgins

The Taoiseach must answer the question. Why do they feel they can continually do this? Is it any wonder when they have the Taoiseach in charge of the country?

An Ceann Comhairle

I ask Deputy Joe Higgins to resume his seat. He had his opportunity and his one minute. He shall resume his seat when the Chair is on his feet.

The Taoiseach

The Deputy asked me why the DPP does not take action. The DPP is independent of the Government. That is the answer to the Deputy's question. The Prosecution of Offences Act 1974 makes the DPP independent. He receives this case and deals with it on that basis.

Mr. J. Higgins

What is the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform——

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry, Deputy Higgins. If the Taoiseach addressed his remarks through the Chair we might be able to control the Deputy.

The Taoiseach

The new legislation deals with a wide range of issues. In addition to the penalty provisions, there will be significant extra powers for IFSRA regarding requiring financial statements from institutions and evidence of compliance with legislation, known as compliance statements, which IFSRA may also require to be signed off by auditors. The Bill also provides for a financial services ombudsman scheme. There are existing schemes for credit institutions and the insurance industry. The Bill will provide for a single scheme with a more comprehensive remit and for the first time a statutory framework for this service. The legislation therefore includes powers.