Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:1 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on social inclusion and drugs last met. [19095/05]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Cabinet Committees.
Pat Rabbitte
Question:2 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on social inclusion and drugs last met; and when the next meeting is due to be held. [20741/05]
Trevor Sargent
Question:3 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach when the last meeting of the Cabinet committee on social inclusion and drugs took place. [22337/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together.
The Cabinet committee on social inclusion last met on 27 April 2005. The next meeting of the committee is scheduled for tomorrow, 29 June.
Has the Cabinet committee on social inclusion and drugs reviewed the report of the national drugs strategy mid-term review?
That issue does not arise out of this very specific statistical question. There is no space for supplementary questions.
Is the Ceann Comhairle going to close us down completely?
There are questions on Northern Ireland, so the Deputy should not take up time on irrelevant questions
I appreciate the importance of that. Nevertheless I am trying to establish whether the Cabinet committee on social inclusion and drugs has addressed the report of the national drugs strategy mid-term review. It is a very straightforward question and I thought it would have been accommodated. It is not outside the scope of the question.
It is definitely outside the scope and if the Deputy wants information in this regard he should submit a question to the appropriate line Minister. It is not appropriate to have a debate on what was discussed or on any particular issue which is the not the responsibility of the Department of the Taoiseach.
Is the Taoiseach in a position to outline whether the committee has or will address the report? I will leave it at that because I have no intention to retrace this line of argument. Unfortunately, there is no end to it.
The answer to the question is yes, the committee is addressing that issue.
Questions like these about Cabinet sub-committee meetings have been the traditional method used to permit the head of Government to answer broad questions such as those posed by Deputy Ó Caoláin. The Ceann Comhairle has constantly, persistently and consistently narrowed the scope of questions that this House might legitimately put to the Taoiseach to such a point that it is not worth our while standing up to ask a question anymore. Therefore, I do not propose to ask a question.
I agree with the Deputy. I believe that these questions, which are statistical, should not be posed for oral answer.
They are not statistical questions. That cliché has come into parliamentary exchanges because of questions habitually posed under the rubric of the Central Statistics Office and other statistical matters. A question about drug abuse and a Cabinet meeting is not statistical in nature.
Deputy Rabbitte's question is as follows: "To ask the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on social inclusion and drugs last met; and when the next meeting will be held".
That question is in line with parliamentary convention and aims to ascertain if, arising from the meeting, any decisions were reached or general policy announcements are to be made by the Taoiseach. He is the head of the Government.
The Deputy is aware that policy questions should be addressed to the line Minister. The Chair does not want to be involved in this type of discussion every day that questions such as these are posed.
If we accept that the position is so, what is the point in posing a question to the Taoiseach?
I agree with the Deputy about putting down a question of this nature for oral answer——
Could the Ceann Comhairle suggest, on the matter of drugs policy that effects so many people in our communities, how we might draft an appropriate question?
Deputy, you are missing the point.
I am not missing the point. You do not want the Taoiseach to answer——
The question should be drafted for the line Minister——
You want to narrow the scope of the questions that we can put to the Taoiseach.
The Chair has ruled on the matter in accordance with precedent. Questions on policy are addressed to the line Minister.
I hope the Ceann Comhairle will consider that my question is in order. To take 45 minutes to ask the Taoiseach when the committee last met is not a good use of parliamentary time. The limitations on party leaders or anyone else asking the Taoiseach a question are so strict that we are forced to ask questions about when the committee last met. I ask the Ceann Comhairle to bear in mind that we are attempting to address important issues here, not simply fill a calendar or inquire about diary entries. Will the Chair countenance the question that I propose to ask, namely, whether the Taoiseach accepts that the Cabinet committee on social inclusion and drugs should meet more frequently, given that there is growing inequality in the pathways to social inclusion? CORI published a report last month which clearly indicates that one quarter of Irish children and over one fifth of Irish people are at risk of poverty.
The Deputy has made his point.
I also ask about equality as it relates to people with disabilities because 16% of the complaints made to the Equality Authority were from people with disability. Such facts indicate that the Cabinet committee on social inclusion and drugs needs to meet more regularly and needs to be more public and more effective in responding to these growing problems.
The committee meets on a monthly basis. I do not know if this is helpful to Deputies, but if direct questions are posed about any of these issues, the Ministers who report to the committee would be only too glad to answer them. When I was on the other side of the House and Deputy Rabbitte was on this side, he used to take part of the time allocated to Taoiseach's questions to answer these types of questions and I posed questions directly to him. Unfortunately, that does not happen now and if Deputies really want answers, they should revert to the old system, which worked very well.
It worked well because Deputy Rabbitte always gave full information in response to questions.
I could do so too because I attend the committee meetings, but that is not the point. Procedurally that is how it should be operated.
The Taoiseach's Government changed that procedure.
There has been no change. It can still be done and there is no problem in doing so.
In view of today's report on the national survey of drug-related suicides and the significant increase which has taken place in recent years, and given that serious drug abuse is a feature of national life rather than of urban life——
The Deputy is straying into policy which is a matter for the line Minister.
——will the Taoiseach consider making the Minister of State with responsibility for drugs strategy and housing solely responsible for drugs strategy because of the extent of the problem?
The Minister of State is responsible for all actions in the drugs area. He is also responsible for housing because in many of these areas there is a cross-link between the difficulties and problems. Research shows that these areas——
It is in health and so on.
The health aspect is different, being concerned with treatment centres. I do not think it would be a good idea for the Minister of State to take on the additional responsibility of the health aspect.
Northern Ireland Issues.
Pat Rabbitte
Question:4 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting on 15 June 2005 with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair. [20735/05]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:5 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the outcome of his talks with the DUP in London on 15 June 2005; his assessment of the prospects for political progress in Northern Ireland in view of these talks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20736/05]
Enda Kenny
Question:6 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his discussions in London on 15 June 2005 with the leadership of the Democratic Unionist Party; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20751/05]
Enda Kenny
Question:7 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the British Prime Minister in London on 15 June 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20752/05]
Trevor Sargent
Question:8 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in London with the DUP leader, the Rev. Ian Paisley on 15 June 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21057/05]
Trevor Sargent
Question:9 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in London with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, on 15 June 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21058/05]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:10 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the DUP on 15 June 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21256/05]
Trevor Sargent
Question:11 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he has had any recent discussion with the Alliance Party; when he next intends to have contacts with the Alliance Party; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22340/05]
Trevor Sargent
Question:12 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the Government’s benchmarks on assessing any future IRA or loyalist paramilitary commitments or actions in terms of genuine progress in the peace process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22341/05]
Enda Kenny
Question:13 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the political parties in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22459/05]
Enda Kenny
Question:14 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he next expects to meet the British Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22460/05]
Enda Kenny
Question:15 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he next intends to visit Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22461/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 15, inclusive, together.
I met Dr. Paisley and senior representatives of the DUP on 15 June in the Irish Embassy in London. The meeting was the first chance to meet the DUP since its success in the UK elections. We had a good, comprehensive discussion about the current political situation. The DUP knows that the Good Friday Agreement is the centrepiece of the Irish Government's policy. We reiterated our view that the only way forward is for people to share power on the basis of equality and a commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic methods. That is also the view of the British Government. To move forward, we need a clear, unambiguous end to all paramilitary and criminal activity and the completion of decommissioning.
Dr. Paisley made it clear that he is only interested in actions, not just words, and the Irish Government shares that view. I assured Dr. Paisley and his colleagues that we also want the IRA response to be conclusive and decisive. We also said to the DUP that if we see the actions that are required, both Governments will expect Unionists to participate in fully inclusive partnership politics in Northern Ireland, recognising that regaining confidence and trust will inevitably take some time. We also talked about the importance of everybody in the community working together to ensure we have a peaceful summer.
I had a separate meeting with Prime Minister Blair on the same day. This was our first opportunity to meet in person since the British general election. We reviewed our respective contacts with the political parties, including my meeting earlier in the day with the DUP. We reaffirmed our shared position that full implementation of the Agreement is the way forward and that to get to that point, we need to see a complete end to paramilitary and criminal activity and the completion of decommissioning.
I met the Prime Minister again yesterday when we jointly chaired the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, BIIGC. This was the first meeting of the conference at summit level since 1999. The meeting was the first comprehensive engagement between the two Governments on Northern Ireland since the British general election in May. I was accompanied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Peter Hain, together with other Ministers for Northern Ireland participated on the British side.
We discussed a range of issues, including political developments, security and criminal justice, policing, the marching season, human rights and North-South co-operation. I also raised the Dublin-Monaghan bombings with the Prime Minister.
The joint communiqué which was issued after the conference outlines in greater detail the issues we discussed. A copy of this communiqué has been placed in the Oireachtas Library. The two Governments will continue to remain in close contact over the coming period. The Government also remains in contact with the other parties in Northern Ireland. I met the Alliance Party in January and I am happy to have meetings with parties as the need arises. In this context, I reiterate my congratulations to Sir Reg Empey as the new leader of the Ulster Unionist Party. I hope that we will have the opportunity to meet shortly.
As Deputies may know, I was in Belfast last week at the ICTU conference. I do not have definite plans to visit Northern Ireland again in the near future.
Given that it is now three months since Mr. Gerry Adams made his statement to the IRA, has the Government any factual information on when a definitive response from the IRA can be expected? Given that the impact is that everything else is on hold awaiting the IRA's response, does the Taoiseach acknowledge how frustrating this is for the democratic parties which cannot proceed with normal business until we have the IRA statement? Will he outline the minimum requirement of the two Governments in terms of what they are demanding from the IRA and what is their bottom line in respect of any statement considered to be imminent? Does he understand the extent to which many members of the public are repelled by statements, most latterly attributed to himself, that the IRA should become some kind of commemorative organisation and the implications of such a statement in terms of the 1,700 odd murdered by the IRA? What would be the reaction of the Nationalist people if we had similar statements about loyalist paramilitary organisations reconstituting themselves as some kind of commemorative organisations? Does the Taoiseach agree the demoractic parties and the two Governments ought not be a party to the rewriting of history that seeks to paint either the loyalists gangs or the IRA as having been involved in anything but a vicious sectarian conflict and that any attempt to rewrite this is repulsive to the average citizen?
On the Deputy's first question on the date we expect to hear a response, frankly, I do not know the answer. The two Governments expect to hear a response over the summer. We expect to hear one in the weeks immediately ahead prior to the holiday break in August. That is what we believe, although we do not have any definite information. As I said previously, if that is not adhered to, I will regret that fact but it is not the biggest issue; the biggest issue is that when we receive a response, we get the right one. That is still my position. It would help everybody if we could remove the uncertainty. I welcome the fact that all over the island of Ireland there has been a meeting of people — we know this from security intelligence sources and otherwise — who have been involved in Provisional IRA activities during the years. That they are debating this issue is good and I hope we will get the right answer from them.
On the Deputy's second question of what is our minimum and maximum position, there is no difference in this regard. We have made it clear since last autumn and long before — since October 2001, the first time we spelled it out in a document, and the position has not changed much — that we want an unambiguous end to all paramilitary and criminal activity. This means a full end to paramilitary activity with clear instructions that those involved in these activities cease. That was set out very well in paragaph 13 of the document issued a few years ago which defines what it means and all the categories covered. I would not add to or substract from the list. The only change over the period was that in addition to paramilitary activity we included criminal activity. The Deputy knows the reason we inserted that term. The end of criminal acitvity means the end of all such acitivty. I do not believe there can be big and small criminal activities.
With regard to the completion of decommissioning, it seems to the two Governments that continuing with incremental decommissioning will not resolve the problems. It was useful at the start as a confidence-building measure but that did not last too long. General John de Chastelain must be totally and absolutely happy in this regard. He is accepted on all sides — we had this discussion recently — as being in a position to make an authoritive declaration on the matter. Neither Prime Minister Blair nor I want to get into discussion with him on it, one way or another. It is a matter for him to be satisfied and to make his assessment based on the logistical information that we know is in his possession. Anything other than that, as the Deputy correctly said, will not allow us to move on and deal with the political agenda. That agenda will have its own difficulties and problems. We cannot get on with that, however, until we get these answers.
If this does not happen, as I have said to other parties in recent months, there is not much point in asking further because we know what the answers will be. In the event, the stalemate will continue into the dim and distant future. I have been very clear on that in all meetings with the various parties since last September.
On the Deputy's third question, nobody has suggested to me what the IRA as a group will do, if we can move it to a peaceful mode in which paramilitary activity, violence and criminal related activities are over. I have talked about this to many people in Northern Ireland, including the Unionist political parties. It was Mr. David Trimble as leader of the Ulster Unionist Party who said that a commemorative organisation was something that would be acceptable to him.
If they believe that they should commemorate those who have died, who have been colleagues over the years, whatever their activities, I am certainly not going to condemn that. Neither do I condemn the fact that the Red Hand Commandos, the UVF, the UDA and other paramilitary organisations engage in such activities. To say they will all go away and never be involved in such activities any more is just not dealing with the real world, because they will. To try to say they should not commemorate somebody who has been killed or was a colleague is not to live in the real world. Our line is that as long as we are finished with arms, criminality, paramilitary trappings and all those matters, we will have brought an end to that which we have sought to end.
I am sure the Taoiseach understands the difference between retired paramilitaries choosing to commemorate whomsoever they want is quite distinct from democratically elected Governments conferring approval on a particular version of history. In the sectarian slaughter that we have witnessed over the last 30 years, more people were killed by the IRA than by the Black and Tans. It is a matter of concern to a great many citizens that we should seek to confer some type of approval or be complicit in the re-writing of history.
Has the Taoiseach had any response to his representations on behalf of the Shankill bomber, Sean Kelly? Will he explain to the House why he decided to take up the cudgels in respect of that case? To my knowledge, he has not made representations in respect of any person returned to prison, so why has he done it in that case?
Is the Taoiseach aware of the comments by the SDLP MLA, Dr. Seán Farren, about events at the Orange parade in Ballymena last night and the policing of same by the PSNI? Has he or does he intend to make representations to the British Government or to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in respect of the incidents that occurred at Ballymena?
I agree with Deputy Rabbitte on the first point. Nobody is suggesting that anybody is giving recognition. However, the reality must be acknowledged, as well. We are trying to end paramilitary activity and criminality and complete decommissioning. We do not want to embark on the next round of trying to end something that is clearly impossible to finish. This does not mean, however, that these organisations have any type of official support. The reality is that one cannot go through Northern Ireland without passing places where the UVF and others were in 1912 or were trained in 1916. Neither the Deputy nor I has respect for any of these activities or all the atrocities over the years. To ask me not alone to try to end paramilitary and criminal activity and bring decommissioning to a conclusion but to disband organisations so that their members will never meet again is to seek the impossible and I have made that clear to groups. I do not see the day when we will all be there commemorating anything that anyone did. That will not happen at any time in the next century, not to mind in the short term.
On the Kelly case, this was only the second case of a licence being suspended. Whenever these cases come up on either side we always ask questions and play an even-handed role. I have raised the cases of loyalist prisoners and fought on behalf of the father of the loyalist leader killed in prison whose name escapes me.
Billy Wright.
I raised that case time and again. I met Billy Wright's father and I always played my part in the case.
With regard to the case of Mr. Kelly, we knew, from our people, that he was involved in the marching season last year when he was quite helpful in de-escalating trouble on the streets. The British side says it has information that he had broken his licence. We cannot make a judgment on that and the case will go to the appeals commission. All we said was that if this is the process, we accept it — there have been very few such cases — and the quicker it is dealt with, the better. Last year, Mr. Kelly was definitely involved in playing a constructive role in very difficult situations about which we were well aware. As to what he was doing during the winter season, I am not in a position to make a judgment.
As Deputy Rabbitte will appreciate, marches have taken place practically every day for the past few weeks. It is a difficult issue and we are trying to be as constructive and helpful as possible in trying to deal with difficult situations, whether the tour of the north march ten days ago, the Whiterock parade, which was on Saturday, the mini-12th celebration, which will take place in east Belfast this Friday night, Portadown, the Drumcree parade, which is coming up on 10 July, tensions around the neighbouring town of Lurgan or concern about parades through Nationalist areas of Ballymena, such as the Orange march on 27 June mentioned by Deputy Rabbitte, about which Seán Farren said the police had been heavy-handed in dealing with Nationalist protestors. I want to be very even-handed about this issue. There are all kinds of tensions and difficulties around many of the parades this year, for all the obvious reasons, including the Derry parade which I mentioned recently. We are trying to help all sides.
Yesterday, apart from the formal meeting, we had meetings with British officials. We are doing our best to try to reduce tensions around parades. Every word uttered in the House during these debates is read by all sides. We are trying to be even-handed with regard to all the marches, including those I did not mention, whether by the Orange Order, provisional republicans or any of the loyalist groups. What we, in the House, are trying to do is help to get through a difficult marching season.
Was the Taoiseach surprised at the security briefings from the Garda Síochána and the Army as to the estimated strength of IRA personnel at the moment? Newspaper reports indicate a strength of 1,500, around 20% of regular Army numbers here. Does the Taoiseach have evidence about how many are in the Republic compared with Northern Ireland? Was he surprised at the statement by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform or the numbers estimated to be active personnel in the IRA? Does the Taoiseach believe the evidence from the International Monitoring Commission that the IRA is regrouping, actively purchasing arms and training personnel in military style operations?
After the breakdown in talks, the McCartney murder and the Northern Bank raid, the Taoiseach had an acrimonious meeting with the president of Sinn Féin in Dublin. He sent away Sinn Féin with a flea in its ear to talk to the IRA and to come back to the Irish Government with a clear statement of the IRA's intentions. The Taoiseach is entitled to keep dialogue between parties open but there are newspaper reports that the Taoiseach has had meetings with the president of Sinn Féin on his own, in secret, and that no one knows what was discussed at these meetings. Can the Taoiseach confirm there were no side deals made about on-the-run prisoners or people in Colombia? What where these meetings about? Why were they necessary in the first place if the Taoiseach had made clear his position and that of the Government that the onus and responsibility rests clearly with the IRA to make up its mind about what it wants to do? In future, as Mitchell Reiss said to me in Washington, there will be no more constructive ambiguity and words will mean what they are supposed to mean and everyone will know what is intended. Everyone here wants an end to paramilitary and criminal activity once and for all. Can the Taoiseach explain what went on at these meetings and why were they necessary?
Does the Taoiseach believe this situation will continue to drag until assembly elections take place again for the political reasons of various groups? Will the assembly be up and running before elections are again called?
Has the Taoiseach had any security briefings on the disappeared and where their remains might be located, still a source of great sensitivity to those involved?
There is no new information on the disappeared but we continue to engage with any information there is. Sites that have not been checked previously are always kept under review. If the information is sufficiently detailed and specific enough to do something, it is checked.
On the number of volunteers, I do not have any real oversight of this. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform receives security reports and he bases his information on intelligence mainly from the Garda but also from the Army. There are meetings a few times a year with the Garda when there are security issues such as the Northern Bank raid but normally I do not make a point of it. Anything the Minister would say would be based on that information and that is the position given by the Garda. Regarding the meetings, I accept what Deputy Kenny has said and that he is under some pressure because people have raised the issue with him. I appreciate the bipartisan approach to these matters and Deputy Kenny's recent letter on the issue. I have no argument with the Deputy.
I will reiterate what I stated recently. Following the public meeting the Government had with Sinn Féin after January, I made it clear there was no issue about us seeking to engage with the party. We asked Sinn Féin to go away and let us know what was happening. However, because of the wider peace process, we did not stop engagement.
From 8 December until the St. Patrick's Day period, other than the meeting that happened after 8 December and the meeting to which the Deputy referred, we did not have another meeting or engagement — hardly even a telephone call. It was then that I spoke to the leader of Sinn Féin and then met him in Washington. This was a short meeting between myself, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and Mr. Adams and Rita O'Hare. We reiterated our position from two months previously. Mr. Adams, as president of Sinn Féin, then issued his statement.
On three subsequent occasions, before, during and after the UK general election, I had three further short meetings with Sinn Féin. None of these was secret. I said publicly that I met the party. These meetings were mainly around two issues. One was the issue of us being clear about what we expected so that we could move forward. The other concerned the ongoing issue of the marching season and how we would work through it.
Many of the contacts we have had over the years on these issues are important and ensure we get through issues and events. It is not always understood the amount of contact that goes on during the marching season in attempts to get people on all sides to communicate. Otherwise events can easily get out control. Not only in this Government but with previous Governments, people, including myself, have gone to the trouble of meeting loyalists and others, sometimes privately. However, none of these meetings was in any way secret. There was no question of us talking about side negotiations or deals in written or other form. Such a request was never made to me. I was not asked in any of these meetings to make any such issue. These meetings simply concerned our ongoing business.
While I stated we would not engage with Sinn Féin, not to do so at all would be dangerous. It does not make any sense, particularly when the UK Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, has met Sinn Féin. The US envoy has met the president and other members of Sinn Féin. For the Government not to do so would be irresponsible. We must keep up the ongoing contact and dialogue. I hope that position is absolutely clear. I will answer Deputy Kenny's letter.
Regarding the assembly elections, I honestly hope that over the summer we will get a satisfactory conclusion of the issues to which I referred. In the months — not weeks — ahead, although I hope it is not too long a period, we can begin the process of engaging to build the confidence of the Democratic Unionist Party and Unionism generally to return to the position we were in some years ago. This will not be easy and will not happen overnight or in a few months. However, we must try to do so. The question has arisen as to whether one can get to that position with the assembly of November 2003, or if it will require fresh elections. From a purely technical or legal perspective, I do not see why one must change that position. Perhaps it will become clear to people, who will state that elections are needed. At present however, that is not an issue. It is another question as to whether it becomes an issue at some point in the next year. I do not see why it should, but no doubt others will state that it definitely will do so. It remains to be seen. However, before we reach that point, two major steps must take place or no further steps will take place. These issues must be answered in the short term — I have not put a date on it but they must be dealt with — and then we will move to the next phase, which will be to try to build trust and confidence and to return to establishing the executive. Hopefully, this can be done in the months ahead.
The joint communiqué contains a number of items, but the one with which I am concerned states the Irish Government raised its concerns regarding the Dublin-Monaghan bombings. Has the Taoiseach proceeded to discuss the possibility of a court case in the European Court of Human Rights with the Attorney General and what progress has been made in that regard? Does the Taoiseach have any indication as to when he expects a statement from the IRA? Can he inform Members what benchmarks the Government might have considered as to how the IRA's intent is to be analysed? I do not have time to go into them, but apart from declaring an end to paramilitary and criminal activity, will the Taoiseach seek a cessation of recruitment for example? He might indicate whether benchmarks have been considered. Finally, over the summer, will any thought be given to reappraising the approach of the Government? As far as I can tell, it has not changed since the time when unionism was predominantly pro-Agreement. Now that unionism is mainly anti-Agreement, does the situation not require a re-evaluation of the approach to the implementation of the Agreement and will the Taoiseach involve the Opposition parties in re-appraising that approach, so we can have a more rounded approach, rather than a unilateral one from the Government?
Regarding the Dublin-Monaghan bombings there was an indication, as I understand it, on the part of the British Prime Minister in the course of that meeting that the British were willing to look at the issue again but had no evidence of collusion as things stand. This so-called re-examination is without any time restriction. Should we not move ahead with the European Court of Human Rights case option without further delay? Regarding the arrest of Sean Kelly, does the Taoiseach share my concern at the reaction of many ex-Republican prisoners? The reaction to his re-arrest and re-incarceration was one of alarm, particularly as they have played such an important role in ensuring the diffusion of what can only be described as increased tension in interface locations, particularly in the city of Belfast.
I ask the Deputy to give way to the Taoiseach as we are coming to the end of Question Time. Deputy Sargent has already asked three questions.
May I ask a question?
A number of Deputies are offering to contribute and unfortunately we must give the Taoiseach time to answer.
The House began its proceedings a few minutes late and I hope some latitude will be shown. Has the Taoiseach had an opportunity to raise the case of Tipperary man, Christy McGrath with Prime Minister Blair? It is a miscarriage of justice.
The Deputy has made his point. Deputy Costello also has a question.
Is the Taoiseach aware of this case? Has he raised or will he raise this case in the near future?
I reiterate the point regarding the case of Christy McGrath.
The Deputy should ask a brief question.
Was the response from the British Prime Minister positive? The letter mentioned last week is the letter which came to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights but that is merely a six month's late reply to a letter sent by the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. Is the Taoiseach prepared to go down the road which he suggested last week, regarding the European Court of Human Rights action?
It is good to see the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste sitting together. The Irish Times had them disappearing down a crack in the aquatic centre.
Deputy Higgins should be aware that we are at the end of Taoiseach's Question Time and the Taoiseach should have time to reply.
Deputy Sargent again asked me about the date. As I said, I do not have a date nor am I as concerned about one as making sufficient progress on the issues which are important. Obviously, I hope it will not be a long period. I have already acknowledged the role of Sean Kelly, of which we are aware. I hope the case will pass through the appeals commission very quickly and that the issue will be dealt with there. I will check the position of Christy McGrath. The issue has been pursued by the secretariat.
All the Deputies asked about the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. Yesterday I outlined the position as we all see it simply and succinctly. I stated that we felt we had not got information we had specifically sought and that there was an overwhelming view that there had been collusion at some levels, of which we can never be certain because of the time span. It is, however, the belief that that is the case.
In particular, I have raised the issue of what we understood to be a commitment given at Weston Park a number of years ago for a Cory-like inquiry. I reiterated that the Oireachtas committee had unanimously called for such an inquiry. I indicated that in the absence of progress, we would have to examine the possibility of pursing the case before the European Court of Human Rights, as recommended by the Oireachtas committee. I stated that I had persistently made this point to the Oireachtas committee and it was not something on which I would go back.
The Prime Minister asked me some questions on the history which I answered very clearly. The British contend that they can find no evidence of collusion in the bombings but have said they feel some of the questions asked by the Oireachtas committee and the Government have not been precise in respect of particular periods and that we should raise this with them. I have no problem doing so but I am not prepared to stop on that basis because I agree with Deputy Costello in that I saw the reply to the Oireachtas committee and one would be no wiser after reading it than before. As I indicated previously, I intend, on a preliminary basis, to raise the issue of looking at the European option with the Attorney General.