Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 May 2004

Vol. 585 No. 3

Leaders’ Questions.

Mr. Kenny

Perhaps I might revisit a matter discussed yesterday. It is perfectly clear that, when the Irish people voted on the Good Friday Agreement, they did so on the clear understanding that the killers of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe would not be covered by the early release provisions and that they would never benefit from them, instead serving their time. Assurances were given to the nation and the Dáil by the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform that those killers could never benefit from the early release provisions. Clear and unambiguous statements were made by all three.

Over last weekend and yesterday, the Taoiseach and Ministers clearly shifted their position. The Taoiseach now talks about early release being considered if the achievement of acts of completion were assured. The Tánaiste says that early release would be considered only after the IRA had been disbanded and all paramilitary and criminal activities stopped. However, the leader of Sinn Féin, Mr. Gerry Adams, who was party to those discussions, says that the killers involved, who pumped 12 bullets into the body of Detective Garda McCabe, would be walking the streets if the October deal had been agreed, with a single act of decommissioning. That has caused revulsion among the ordinary, decent citizens of this land.

My question to the Taoiseach on behalf of the people is whom are we to believe. It should be much easier to believe the Taoiseach of our country rather than have to find out what has been going on behind our backs from the leader of the Sinn Féin Party, which has known links to the Provisional IRA. Was that deal on the table last October and if those events had come to a satisfactory conclusion, would those killers now be walking our streets?

The Taoiseach

I will revisit just some of the points I made yesterday. I said that what we wanted and needed to achieve was still the same, the complete ending of IRA paramilitarism, decommissioning, the ending of the IRA, acts of absolute completion and the end of the conflict. Those are the issues we have been negotiating for the past two years or so. At the time of the Good Friday Agreement the cases were still pending and people had not been charged. However, we said that the McCabe killers would not be included under the Good Friday Agreement, neither are they. That was over six years ago and we did not release the prisoners under that scheme. Had that been the case, they would have been set free in 1998 or 1999, as all the prisoners in Northern Ireland were. That question answers itself, they were not released.

What was being considered was the context in which the possible release of the killers of Jerry McCabe might arise. It was to happen only in the context of acts of total completion, as I have said — that term means arms decommissioning and an end to all forms of paramilitarism by the IRA, which means that the IRA will have moved definitively away from violence to the end position. I made that clear in the debate in the House last year when I said that there was no doubt about the object or purpose of the IRA and Sinn Féin statements on 21 October. We had consistently made it clear that a complete transition to a peaceful and democratic society in Northern Ireland was required. I do not want Deputy Kenny to say that it was the mere matter of a single act of arms decommissioning. That was not the arrangement last year, and no one was trying to achieve that. It was only one part of the total process of what we were trying to negotiate in April and October. We are still trying to negotiate that and have not been successful.

The events of 21 October did not unfold in a way that instilled the confidence necessary to complete the sequence of events that would have given completeness to the process under negotiation all last year. Yesterday I said that it involved a complex set of undertakings with a range of elements which would emerge as a sequence of agreed statements and supporting actions, some by the Government, some by Sinn Féin, some by the IRA and some by Unionists. Everyone was playing his or her part in a sequence and process negotiated over the year. Our goal was clear, a way forward on all outstanding issues, bringing closure to those once and for all. It remains the agenda of the Government to try to achieve that, if we ever can. However, we did not achieve that position.

Deputy Kenny asked whether, having achieved all that, we would have honoured our commitments. Yes, we would have done so. If all those points had been agreed, we would have honoured our commitments. However, that did not happen. I emphasise that we are not talking about one point but about a whole sequence and range of issues.

Mr. Kenny

The Taoiseach has caused further confusion because he has not answered the question. When he says the IRA has moved to end position, that is different from what he said in recent days to the effect that it was a long way from that. He has not said, in honouring his commitments, whether or not this was moved on to the table last October. I would remind the House of what the Tánaiste said. She said in Volume 466 of the Official Report on 11 June 1996:

There is no room for ambivalence in relation to such issues. Anyone who falls short of condemning what happened on Friday last, the murder of a member of the Garda Síochána and the serious injury of another, cannot call themselves democrats. One is either for or against violence. There is no grey area in between.

Last weekend the leader of Sinn Féin told us he felt cheated. However, the people who can rightly feel cheated are Anne McCabe, her family and the late Garda McCabe's relatives, friends and colleagues. I accept the Tánaiste was absolutely clear in her comment. She said yesterday that the release of these killers would only take place after all had been laid down, guns decommissioned, an end to racketeering, abductions and kneecappings — matters which the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has lectured us about in terms of the IRA and what it does.

The Taoiseach knows that the IRA and Sinn Féin are two sides of the one coin. When he says, "We would have honoured our commitment," does that mean that he moved the release of the McCabe killers on to the table for last October and that in the words of Mr. Gerry Adams, "They would now be walking the streets"? In other words, would the IRA have gone away? Does the Taoiseach believe it would have gone away last October if this sequence of events had occurred? Am I to believe the words of my Taoiseach, the leader of our country, or am I to believe Mr. Gerry Adams? Which is it? Was this on the table last October or was it not?

An Ceann Comhairle

I would ask the Deputy to give way to the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach

I know that Deputy Kenny is trying to establish that there are some differences in viewpoints on this. There are not.

Mr. Connaughton

"Yes" or "No".

Mr. P. McGrath

"Yes" or "No".

The Taoiseach

I will make it very clear. I have a minute in which to make three brief points.

Mr. English

One answer.

The Taoiseach

If I can answer——

An Ceann Comhairle

I will ask Deputy English to leave the House. The Taoiseach is entitled to have his reply heard without interruption. I am sorry. The Deputy will be asked to leave the House.

The Taoiseach

The Government has been consistent in what it has been seeking to do. We have set out in paragraph 13 of the Joint Declaration that we have been trying to bring paramilitarism to an end. We have stated that six years after the agreement transmission to exclusively democratic means must be completed and that ongoing paramilitary activity, sectarian violence and criminality masquerading as a political cause are all corrosive of the trust and confidence necessary to sustain a durable political process.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Why does the Taoiseach not answer the question?

The Taoiseach

That is what the Government has stated. We have said that paramilitarism and sectarian violence must be brought to an end, regardless of from which community they come. In this instance we were talking about the Provisional IRA. We said we needed to see an immediate, full, permanent cessation of all military activity, including military attacks, training, targeting, intelligence gathering, the acquisition or development of arms or weapons, other preparations for terrorist campaigns, punishment beatings, attacks and involvement in riots etc. Moreover, the practice of exiling must be brought to an end and exiles must be free to return safely home. Sectarian attacks and intimidation directed at vulnerable communities must cease. We have stated in reply to a fair question from Deputy Kenny that all this must be signed up to totally and completely——

Mr. Connaughton

Categorically.

The Taoiseach

——and within a process of verification by the Independent Monitoring Commission, which was not then in existence — its establishment was agreed at last, 12 months ago last March — and that then we are prepared to honour our commitments. Other commitments had to be dealt with by others, particularly the British Government as regards "on the runs", OTRs. That might have affected us. We have also parliamentary scrutiny, demilitarisation, decommissioning and a host of issues.

I would make the point that I have some experience of Northern Ireland. I am not an expert, but I have some experience. If people expect us to bring it to finality but want the minutiae of the negotiations with people who are extremely difficult to deal with disclosed, I do not think we will ever bring it to an end. It is easy for people, not just Members of the House to take one item in isolation, but we will not be able to deal with it. Both the Tánaiste and I, as much as anyone else, have enormous issues of concern about the release of the four people who killed Garda McCabe.

Mr. Coveney

It shames his family.

The Taoiseach

However, we are trying to stop the killing of hundreds and thousands of people that has continued for over 30 years. We are trying to end that once and for all. We could sit back and say in effect: "Well, it will drift on and it might never happen again." However, we can see what has happened elsewhere, in the Middle East and other places, and we are not prepared to let matters drift. We want to bring the peace process to finality, not play any games. That is what we are endeavouring to do.

Mr. Rabbitte

I read in this morning's newspapers about the Taoiseach in Poland, on CNN and Sky News. I understand that he is big in China today, and that is all good for the country. Does he get any opportunity to have a look at our modest home-grown, under resourced little station in Donnybrook and in particular did he see the programme that showed the acute distress of some families attempting to cope with children who have intellectual disabilities? There are hundreds of families in the same circumstances. They probably all have two things in common. One is that they are all contemplating legal action against the State because they have no right to specialist services; and most of them have considered suicide as the only way out of the dilemma in which they find themselves.

It is difficult to imagine what it must be like for families in those circumstances, unless one has experienced it. My own most recent direct experience is of a mother with two autistic children. My office spent many hours every week on her case over 13 months before we got some modest minimalist relief for her. There are hundreds of families like that. There are 1,633 awaiting residential places, 682 looking for day care services and 1,400 awaiting respite care.

Will the Taoiseach say why the State has no strategy in this area? Why is there such an acute shortage of specialist staff, for example, in speech therapy, where the embargo is biting? Why are there day centres — as well as other centres for residential as well as respite care — that cannot open because staff are not provided? There is an embargo. The money is not provided in a country that can waste €52 million on a failed electronic voting experiment, or €15 million for horses at Punchestown. Yet we have families in these circumstances desperate for relief. Sunday and Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, every day is the same.

Where is the disability Bill? Why is it not being published before the election? Why does it keep slipping? Why has it been promised virtually every month since the election and in An Agreed Programme for Government? The last commitment was that it would be published before Christmas. I am afraid it will not now be published until after the elections, because it will not live up to the promises the Taoiseach solemnly made in the programme for Government, in terms of the remit of that Bill to give people legal enforceable rights.

The Taoiseach

Before I answer some of the Deputy's questions, I saw some of the programmes he mentioned on our national television station which is not under resourced, as he said. It is resourced better than ever. I saw some of these cases. As long as one family remains in such a plight, a job has still to be done. This Government recognises that. For this reason we have substantially increased resources every year. We are now spending well more than €1 billion. Five years ago, in 1999, the figure was about half a billion. We agreed last December that additional resources were required.

There are difficulties in getting professional staff. As Deputy Rabbitte knows, most of these staff come from abroad. We have recruited people and been actively engaged in recruitment campaigns. While there were some problems about the embargo we have sought to find ways around it for this sector. The Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Tim O'Malley, was successful in acquiring additional resources for staff and services this year. They have been engaged in discussions on how to surmount these problems.

There are approximately 1,700 additional residential places mainly based in the community. These figures include residential respite places in recent years. There has been a 37% growth in the number of people with intellectual disabilities living in full-time residential places in communities. There has been a 165% increase in the provision of intensive places designed to meet the needs of individuals with challenging behaviours, including those whose behaviour may arise as a result of a dual diagnosis of intellectual disability and mental illness. There has been a 47% reduction in the number of people accommodated in psychiatric hospitals, which is a significant achievement. There has been a continual expansion in the availability of residential support services, in particular service-based respite provision. That has grown by255%, an additional 443 people have received those services in the past two years. Substantial improvements are occurring.

It is true that not everyone who needs a residential place has got one. We continue to try to improve that situation. The assessment of needs for the coming years spells out the figures we must achieve. Of the 1,633 people who require a residential place over the next five years according to the last index, 96% are already in receipt of day places. Therefore, we must continue to try to ensure they have the opportunity to get residential places as they require and as the age profile advances. We are committed to that.

I can also give the figures on sensory disabilities and others, if people wish, but Deputy Tim O'Malley has spelt those out. We are committed to producing not only a disabilities Bill we believe is better than any similar legislation anywhere in the world but one on which we can garner as much support as possible.

Mr. Rabbitte

Once again the Taoiseach takes shelter behind the billions of euro spent on this and that. Does he disagree with the Disability Federation when it says that in the last two years no service provider has been able to afford new residential, educational or respite places? Is that the case? If it is, what is the point in talking abstractly in billions of euro? The reality we saw on television last night and the night before shows the circumstances in which people are living. We have heard on three occasions of the commitment to sell off land that would be ring-fenced for investment in services for people with disabilities, first from Deputy Cowen before he escaped the health portfolio, then from the Taoiseach, except he said the land at St. Ita's hospital would be sold off for social housing.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must conclude.

Mr. Rabbitte

The Ceann Comhairle is very strict with me but not quite so strict with the Taoiseach.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has gone well over time on his first question and he was the Member who raised the question of Members going over time.

Mr. Rabbitte

I apologise and I agree. Will the disabilities Bill be rights based as committed to by the Taoiseach? It is a simple question. Will the Bill be published before or after the election but, most importantly, is it rights based? Does it give people affected the right to enforce access to different services and education?

Mr. Gormley

The answer is "No".

The Taoiseach

There are two answers. There are 1,700 additional residential places, which answers the first question.

Mr. F. McGrath

There are 3,000 people on the waiting list.

The Taoiseach

I am not saying there is no one on waiting lists or that the age profile does not bring in more people but there are additional places.

Ms McManus

Not this year.

An Ceann Comhairle

Allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.

The Taoiseach

Which question am I answering now? It is very hard to know. Deputy Rabbitte gets a minute to ask me a question but I must answer six people.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Will the legislation be rights based?

Mr. Crawford

That is the question.

The Taoiseach

I do not wish to cite figures only but we are spending €1.2 billion on the service which I assume is being used for something. I assume the staff, whose numbers we continually increase, are doing something. The legislation gives a right to people if the system fails them to appeal to the end position. However, I am conscious that NESC and others have said the legislation should not try to achieve legal certainty or constitutional rights although those appeal mechanisms exist. We should be trying to achieve assessment of need, service statements in redress, genetic testing, public service employment and try to give people the services they need, not just their legal rights. The legislation does that very well and it gives them the right to appeal.

Mr. Sargent

The Green Party expresses its absolute revulsion at the gross breaches of human rights being witnessed in Iraq, especially following the barbaric killing of Mr. Nick Berg and sends heartfelt sympathy to his family. On the topic of human rights it is appropriate and essential that we also question the record of China. What exactly did the Taoiseach say to Mr. Wen Jiabao, the Chinese Prime Minister, during his visit to Ireland? Amnesty International reports that in each year between 1997 and 2001, the Chinese Government executed 15,000 people, judicially or ex-judicially. However, 69% of capital crimes as defined in China's criminal law are non-violent.

Is the Taoiseach mindful of the many followers of Falun Gong in Ireland who are being persecuted for religious reasons? As one practitioner said at a meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs Sub-Committee on Human Rights, China tortures and kills followers of Falun Gong as the ancient Romans tortured and killed Christians. Is the Taoiseach aware of the various methods used to persecute the Falun Gong in China including rape, gang rape, throwing stripped female practitioners into male prison cells, using electric batons on practitioners' sensitive body parts, imprisonment in water cells where the practitioners are immersed in dirty water with no light and stretching and tying practitioners' limbs to the four corners of a metal bed? I could go on had I the time.

Did the Taoiseach condemn human rights abuses in China when he met the Chinese Prime Minister? Did he mention Tibet, which has asked that the Irish Presidency establish an EU ambassador to Tibet given it is illegally occupied? What exactly did he say to the Chinese Prime Minister?

The Taoiseach

I raised both issues and several other issues last night in a two-hour meeting with the Chinese Premier, Mr. Wen. Deputy Sargent knows the Tánaiste and I have lobbied hard to secure the release of Falun Gong members who had been here for some time as students and suffered severely under the regime, and that our diplomatic efforts were successful. I have met members of Falun Gong several times and am well aware of what they have said.

Last night I endeavoured to follow the recent EU line which has tried to encourage the Chinese to engage in the process rather than be in denial and to reach an understanding on how these activities can be eliminated in some of the 23 regions where the problem is particularly bad. I stressed, as did many of my EU colleagues in this five country visit, how we believe the Chinese authorities can achieve this. I emphasised the importance for China of this issue if it wants to make progress in other areas. I believe China is doing so and wishes to do so.

I pointed out that China has to work with the EU and other countries on this issue. This has been the case, even from the time I met Premier Zhu Rongji. They realise this and are making efforts to move on and co-operate with other bodies. It is the view of Amnesty International and others that we will make no progress if we continue to lecture them without trying to engage with them. Last night I emphasised what I believe the EU strategy on human rights and the dialogue on this between the European Union and China can do to enhance their position. It has already helped them to get membership of the WTO. They are also interested in a number of other issues.

I only raised the issue of Tibet briefly yesterday because it was raised in the Troika meeting last March where some progress was made on it. They have agreed a process on Tibet. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, has been particularly active on that during our Presidency, in the Troika in March and since then.

Premier Wen Jiabao informed me last night that they would engage in the EU human rights dialogue in a constructive and meaningful way. We will have to see if that happens, but that was what he stated and I have to accept that they will do that. He also said that to the other five European leaders he met over the past week.

Mr. Sargent

I did not ask the Taoiseach if he had lectured anybody, I asked him if he condemned human rights abuse in China, yes or no? The reason I ask is that it seems it is not just the Chinese who are in denial, because it says in today's edition of The Irish Times that the Taoiseach raised human rights issues and expressed satisfaction that progress had been made. Certainly those who are suffering and the people who are in contact with us and Amnesty International have not been expressing satisfaction. I ask the Taoiseach once again if he condemned human rights abuses in China.

Second, will he tell us what was the reason, as there has been much speculation, that the press conference that was to be held last night was not just called off, but was called off over a tannoy so that nobody could be asked, face to face, why it was called off? Will the Taoiseach outline why there is a reluctance to have questions asked of the Chinese Prime Minister about any number of issues to do with China? Goodness knows there are many in that large country. Essentially, people want to know if the Taoiseach condemned human rights abuses in that country.

The Taoiseach

We express our concern and revulsion at human rights abuses anywhere.

Mr. Gormley

Did the Taoiseach condemn human rights abuses?

The Taoiseach

We did that again. To clarify the matter for Deputy Sargent, what I said last night is that I was glad there was positive engagement on the most recent session of the EU human rights dialogue which took place in Dublin at the end of February. Following that, we got the release of three detainees who were on the list of the EU. I communicated to the Prime Minister that we would try to deal with the other people on that list. The human rights groups who are concerned about China also praised that initiative. We must be consistent.

There is no doubt that the protection of human rights is a challenge for every administration. I am not saying that Deputy Sargent said that they should not be lectured to, but for decades China refused to engage with the various human rights bodies. They have now agreed to do so, which is a considerable achievement, and will respond to requests, not my requests but those which human rights bodies asked us to raise. We got that commitment last night, which is important.