Trevor Sargent
Question:1 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent work of the National Security Committee; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25210/05]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
National Security.
Joe Higgins
Question:2 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach when the National Security Committee last met; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25357/05]
Billy Timmins
Question:3 Mr. Timmins asked the Taoiseach when the National Security Committee last met; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25949/05]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:4 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach when the National Security Committee last met; when the next meeting is due; if the group has examined the implications for this country of the London bomb attacks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26564/05]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:5 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if the National Security Committee has completed its work; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27694/05]
Enda Kenny
Question:6 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent work of the National Security Committee; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28681/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, together.
The National Security Committee, which is chaired by the Secretary General to the Government, comprises representatives at the highest level of the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Defence and Foreign Affairs, the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces. The committee meets as required and will continue to do so. Given the security nature of its work, it is not appropriate to disclose information about the dates of individual meetings. I confirm, however, that it met last month.
Members of the committee liaise on an ongoing basis to monitor developments which might have national security implications, in particular in the international arena. The committee is concerned with ensuring that I and the Government are advised of high level security issues and the responses to them but not involving operational security issues.
Has the Taoiseach had an opportunity to respond to or analyse in detail the comment of a leading Islamic radical, Mr. Anjum Choudhury, in Trinity College last week that Ireland was a target for al-Qaeda due to Shannon Airport's role in the United States's occupation of Iraq? Does he believe it is high time to change policy and address the current lack of inspections of aircraft at Shannon Airport and Casement Aerodrome?
As I have pointed out on many occasions, it would be more appropriate to address the Deputy's questions to the relevant line Minister. The Chair has ruled consistently on this matter.
I will not pursue the question. Has the Taoiseach had an opportunity to respond to Mr. Choudhury's comments by ensuring that the National Security Committee instructs the authorities to carry out aircraft inspections? While I appreciate he cannot, for obvious reasons, discuss in detail the activities of the committee, will Mr. Choudhury's comments receive a response? Will the National Security Committee review issues such as proposals to embed microchips containing biometric data in all Irish passports?
It is not appropriate to discuss the role of the National Security Committee in detail.
I understand the tender for this project has been put on hold. If we are serious about national security, surely simple matters should be done correctly and we should examine what we can do rather than worrying about what we cannot do. I see no evidence that this is the case. May Deputies ask about inspections of aircraft at Shannon Airport and the tender pertaining to Irish passports?
I have ruled that the matters would be more appropriately addressed to the line Minister.
Will the Taoiseach indicate whether a response will be made to Mr. Choudhury's comments or will they be simply dismissed?
The committee obviously keeps all potential international threats from extremists under review based on security intelligence. The intelligence services are not aware of any specific threat to Ireland, and they believe that the threat level is relatively low. There is, of course, no room for complacency, and that is what the committee examines. The security services continue to maintain a high level of vigilance in conjunction with their international colleagues. They also continue to monitor the activities of a small number of known Islamic extremists.
Of course, Mr. Choudhury's remarks have been brought to the attention of the Garda. It is true that the general level of threat for all countries has been seen to increase significantly in the aftermath. In that context, a close reading of what he says is taken seriously here. Regarding ongoing checks and threats, questions on that procedure were answered by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, last week, and by the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, a few weeks ago. The procedures are in place.
Regarding Shannon, since this matter has been brought up several times recently we have once again raised it with the Americans at the highest level and they state that they are doing nothing outside the agreement. If they seek to bring up the issue of prisoners, weaponry or other issues outside the agreement, they say that they will bring it to our attention. They restated that as late as last week.
Following the 11 September 2001 attacks, a task force on emergency planning was established in this country. Is there any cross-over? What is the difference between the National Security Committee and that national task force? Is the Taoiseach aware that in 2003 the Emergency Planning Society, a European organisation, recommended to the Government that there be a single body underpinned by legislation to oversee national emergency planning and security? It is rather confusing and there seem so many groups and bodies that everyone and no one is responsible. For this type of activity, particularly in view of its seriousness and the attacks carried out recently in various countries, it would be better if there were a single body responsible located in the Department of the Taoiseach.
As far as I can see — I may be wrong — no additional funding has been allocated to any of those bodies in the past few years. That indicates that perhaps we are not taking this threat as seriously as we should.
The office of emergency planning in the Department of Defence takes an overview. The office was established after the attacks of 11 September 2001. The issues that the Deputy has raised regarding day-to-day threats are real. As he knows from his brief, that office deals not merely with Army issues but with a wide range of issues. The National Security Committee brings together a small group of people from Departments, the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces. That was established as a high level forum for mutual awareness and consultation on security issues. It provides for the ongoing exchange of information and collective assessment. The nature of the committee's work precludes my describing its proceedings.
On the first part of the Deputy's question about whether there is a tie-in, there is. The Garda Commissioner, the head of the senior sections of the gardaí and the Chief of Staff of the Army are involved in emergency planning and they sit on the committee. However, the National Security Committee examines issues brought to our attention internationally where we believe that there might be deficiencies or where the Commissioner, the Chief of Staff or officials have some concern about co-ordination efforts. It brings together that small group of high level people.
On the Deputy's question as to why the matter is not all brought together with a single high-powered group, that would mean setting up an entire organisation with an administration, staff and resources, and it was considered that would be neither appropriate nor necessary and would be hugely costly. It was thought better and more efficient to put the money into buying a great deal of equipment and protective clothing, with all the other matters dealt with in the defence budget. Resources have been allocated to that.
Regarding emergency planning I am aware from the budgetary process of the level of work and expenditure being put into providing and building up precautionary measures and carrying out reconnaissance and preliminary work to determine where there are biological or flooding threats. As a result of the attacks of 11 September 2001 a great deal of that is going on compared with the position three or four years ago.
Is there contact between this committee and counterparts in other countries such as the UK and the US? Regarding the implications of the London bombings, there were reports in the aftermath that our Government might be considering identity cards. Is there any truth in that?
Does the committee have any role in the matter of avian influenza? What is the connection between it and the national office of emergency planning?
Avian influenza has been dealt with by the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, and the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney. It uses almost the same model as we put in place for the outbreak of foot and mouth disease some years ago, the difference being that there is greater involvement on the part of the Department of Health and Children owing to vaccines and other medical issues. The office of emergency planning is not involved.
To restate the position, the office of emergency planning deals with all issues stemming from the attacks of 11 September 2001, as well as other potential emergencies such as flooding, Sellafield or a climatic disaster. All those issues are being considered afresh owing to all that has happened this year. One hopes that such occurrences will be rare, but one can never be sure. There has been planning because of ongoing issues connected with Sellafield and terrorist attacks. Sellafield is a threat apart from the risk of aeroplanes flying into it. However, there are also security issues, and the office of emergency planning has been working on that, as well as all other potential disasters, examining what kind of equipment we have, planning, Army training and all the other efforts.
The National Security Committee brings together senior people, chaired by the Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach, including the Garda. It looks mainly at international intelligence, which is being supplied to a far greater extent than a few years ago. Even a year or two after the attacks of 11 September 2001, there was not a great flow of information, but that has changed.
At European level and internationally, the flow of data into the system regarding various security issues is intense. The group forms a judgment and opinion on how to deal with that. It is no secret that nowadays there are extremely dangerous people from several groups with very wide networks who regularly move around the world. The committee considers that and based on that information and data it picks up internationally, it feeds back to the office of emergency planning and the Government generally its view on anything that it believes should be taken more seriously. Unfortunately, that is more regular now than it would have been even two years ago.
Is the office of emergency planning a co-ordinating committee or is it an office with somebody heading it up and so on?
It is an office in the Department of Defence. I am not an expert on this but I have been at briefings of it and it is the case that some of our best and brightest in the military are involved in it. Much of that work involves planning, international planning and so on. Obviously, our military people are keeping abreast of what is happening internationally where there are now significant budgets involved. We all hope none of these incidents happen, many of which we would never have thought of previously, including biological and biochemical attacks. It is not just a question of natural disasters. It is all of the issues which are considered to be possibilities. That is what the office is engaged in.
Has the National Security Committee addressed the continuing use of Shannon Airport as a staging post for the war in Iraq? Is the Taoiseach aware that only in the past fortnight, US troops have been photographed in uniform, in desert fatigues——
Deputy, I have already ruled, when Deputy Sargent raised it, that question is more appropriate to the Minister responsible.
I am only asking the Taoiseach if he is aware, in the context of the role of the National Security Committee——
I appreciate that, Deputy, but in fairness to Deputy Sargent, who accepted the ruling of the Chair, as all Deputies should do, I am asking you to accept my ruling.
I will have to accept it but the photographic evidence of that presence is here and I have copies which I will be happy to furnish to the Taoiseach.
That does not arise on this question and it is not appropriate to display photographs of any kind in the House.
Citizens using Shannon are very concerned to find that they are——
Did Gerry show that when he was on the video link? It would be interesting to know.
——mingling openly with uniformed members of an army outside of this jurisdiction.
I call Deputy Kenny. Deputy Ó Caoláin, I ask you to resume your seat and allow Deputy Kenny contribute.
I have a further question to ask the Taoiseach and I hope he will address the issue of the National Security Committee addressing the issue of the use of Shannon Airport.
Deputy, I am ruling you out of order and I ask you to resume your seat.
The National Security Committee is part of the question.
It is not part of the question, Deputy. The Chair has ruled that the question——
The Chair may rule but what exactly is the question stating? Has the committee completed its work? Is this issue part of its work? That is a simple question that the Taoiseach——
It is not appropriate for the Deputy to go into detail. As the Chair has ruled and as my predecessors have ruled, Deputy Ó Caoláin, it is a matter for the line Minister.
I will not go into further detail and I will allow the Taoiseach give whatever information he chooses. I want to know if the National Security Committee has addressed the issue of the US war planes using Shannon and the alleged transportation of prisoners on those planes. Has the National Security Committee addressed the express concerns and indeed the demands of human rights organisations that these planes be inspected? It is impossible to get a direct answer from a line Minister, despite the Ceann Comhairle's direction, because neither the Minister for Foreign Affairs——
The Deputy should ask questions, not make a speech.
——nor the Minister for Transport will accept responsibility for the substantive issue of the use of Shannon as a staging post to and from the war in Iraq.
Deputy, that matter does not arise on these questions. If you have a question appropriate to these questions, ask it.
The next time Gerry is talking to his friends in America will he tell them about this question here?
The Minister's interruptions will make no difference.
I would be interested to know.
When his Ministers will not take responsibility or give a substantive reply, I ask the Taoiseach, as Head of Government, if he will give a substantive reply. Will he take responsibility and address——
Deputy, that does not arise. Questions for a line Minister should be dealt with by the line Minister, not by the Taoiseach.
——what I can only regard as a shameful chapter in Irish history in regard to our long-cherished position on neutrality? Will the Taoiseach answer please?
The Deputy does not want to understand the issue but if you will allow me, a Cheann Comhairle, I will make two points on it. The use of Shannon Airport by US military is a long-standing practice; it has been in place for half a century. The period covers many crises and military confrontations. We have never withdrawn or suspended those facilities at any stage and the Dáil approved that decision in March 2003.
What the Deputy does not understand and what I would like to note is that the multinational force has been acting under UN authorisation to assist the Iraqi authorities and the UN Security Council in Resolution 1546, which was unanimously passed again recently.
On 8 November.
War is clearly continuing.
It was unanimously passed by the Security Council. The Deputy is taking a view now, whatever about when it happened, and he should realise what he is doing, that it is at variance with the unanimous view——
That of the UN.
I take the view that Irish citizens are not comfortable with that presence.
Deputy Ó Caoláin, I ask you to desist from interrupting. I will ask you to leave the House if you do not allow the Taoiseach answer the question.
The Deputy asked if some Minister or I would answer but now he does not want to listen. The Deputy is taking a view that is contrary to that of the entire United Nations, as unanimously agreed. Whatever about the argument at the time, it does not hold up now.
My argument holds up.
It does not.
Even if I am in the minority.
If you are a world minority. You are not only a minority here.
I call Deputy Kenny.
Does Deputy Ó Caoláin condone Deputy Ó Snodaigh's remark?
A Deputy
Answer that one.
First, I ask the Taoiseach to respond to a matter raised by Deputies Gay Mitchell and Billy Timmins on a number of occasions. This country does not have the capacity to deter a terrorist attack from the air. I thank the Minister, Deputy Ahern, but I think the Taoiseach knows the answer. What is the position if the Government and the security forces are made aware that a plane has been hijacked by terrorists somewhere in Europe and is on its way to attack Dublin, as was pointed out by the head of the Scotland Yard Metropolitan Police, Sir Ian Blair, recently when he said that Dublin is as much a likely target for a terrorist attack as any other major city? What would happen in those circumstances or has the security committee and the Government considered such a scenario? Would the RAF have to be called in from either Northern Ireland or Britain to intercept a hijacked aircraft? What are the contingency plans for such an event?
Second, after the London bombings it was obvious that the fire brigade was critical to the response to that terrorist attack. Its members were able to launch rescue operations and tend to the wounded very quickly and there appeared to be a clear strategy of co-ordination between the fire brigade systems in the greater London area. In the event of something like that happening in Dublin, will there be co-ordination between Meath, Kildare, Carlow and Wicklow from a fire brigade perspective to get into the city? Is there a co-ordinated plan of action for dealing with such an event? Have those services carried out simulated emergency exercises on that basis? Should that not be central to this process when we consider, for instance, that as a result of a power failure in Wexford two weeks ago we could have had a serious emergency on our hands with people on trolleys in hospitals and so on? If a major emergency had arisen in Wexford that week, God forbid, what would have happened? Has the security committee considered those issues in the unlikely event that they will happen?
On the first question, there is co-operation and a pre-agreed understanding on those matters, and as Leader of the Opposition I can bring Deputy Kenny through that at some stage. On the second matter, as part of the national emergency plan the fire brigade, Civil Defence and all other areas have detailed arrangements in place, not only for all the surrounding counties but even for Belfast, and vice versa. All this is worked out through all the facilities. Such co-operation was always in place but has been strengthened in recent years. There is a closely co-ordinated plan involving all the State services, in which the fire brigade service plays a key part. Whatever units are needed can be enlisted and there is an understanding with our colleagues in Northern Ireland and vice versa. Co-operation in this regard took place recently when some of our Northern colleagues assisted with a Border incident.
I will get back to the Deputy on the first matter.
Cabinet Sub-Committee Meetings.
Joe Higgins
Question:7 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet sub-committee on Aer Lingus last met. [25350/05]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:8 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet sub-committee on Aer Lingus last met; when the next meeting is due; and the total number of meetings held to date. [26565/05]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:9 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the membership of the Cabinet sub-committee on Aer Lingus; when it last met; and when it is due to meet next. [27695/05]
Enda Kenny
Question:10 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of occasions on which the Cabinet sub-committee on Aer Lingus has met. [28682/05]
Trevor Sargent
Question:11 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet sub-committee on Aer Lingus last met; and when it is next due to meet. [30211/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 to 11, inclusive, together.
The sub-committee met on a total of three occasions, the last of which was 9 December 2004. There are no arrangements for it to meet again as its work is completed.
There has been no announcement on this matter since the decision last May to sell the company. As Head of Government, does the Taoiseach agree with the Leader of the Seanad, who said she does not anticipate anything will happen on this until after the general election?
Detailed questions are a matter for the Minister for Transport. That ruling has been applied consistently by my predecessors and me.
I am not asking a detailed question, I am asking whether the Taoiseach agrees with the Leader of the Seanad——
The Deputy's question is more appropriate to the Minister for Transport.
I do not want to know whether the Minister for Transport agrees with the Leader of the Seanad.
Unfortunately, Standing Order 33 is specific in that the Taoiseach is only responsible for questions relevant to his Department.
I am asking exactly that. As Head of Government, I ask the Taoiseach whether he concurs with the view of the Leader of the Seanad. I do not want to know what the Minister for Transport——
That issue does not arise on these questions.
Why not?
If Deputy Rabbitte wants me to read Standing Order 33, I will be happy to do so. If he reads it he will see it is clear on this matter.
I ask the Chair to read the Standing Order.
Standing Order 33 states: "Questions addressed to a member of the Government must relate to public affairs connected with his or her Department, or to matters of administration for which he or she is officially responsible (including bodies under the aegis of his or her Department in respect of Government policy)." It is clear and specific. The Chair may at times have allowed the Deputy to go beyond that, but the Chair must apply the Standing Order.
The Leader of the Seanad addressed this subject in a radio interview.
I ask the Deputy not to pursue this.
Does the Leader of the Government agree with the opinion that nothing will happen on Aer Lingus until after the general election? I am not asking the Minister for Transport, I do not want to know his view, I want to know the Taoiseach's view.
Issues relating to Aer Lingus are a matter for the Minister for Transport. The question does not arise out of these questions.
It is absolutely at the heart of the issue whether the Leader of Government endorses that view.
It may well be but the Deputy must find another way of discovering this.
Did the Chair quote Standing Order 33?
I will not get into a debate on this. I have read the Standing Order.
I do not ask for a debate.
We will not have a debate on the Standing Order. I quoted it for the benefit of the House.
I do not understand how you can interpret Deputy Rabbitte's supplementary question in such a way, other than to draw a negative conclusion about your intentions in the matter.
The Chair has ruled on the matter and I ask the Deputy to accept that ruling.
I do not accept the ruling, it is wrong.
I ask the Deputy to resume his seat and if he does not, he must leave the House.
The Chair's rulings have been wrong regularly. He has made some strange rulings.
The Deputy must resume his seat or leave the House.
In regard to the issue raised——
The Deputy should not go too far down this road or he must leave the House. I ask him to resume this seat.
How can we address this matter?
If the Deputy calls to the Office of the Ceann Comhairle, I will be delighted to discuss this matter with him.
When can I do that?
Has the Cabinet sub-committee on Aer Lingus addressed the substantive issue raised by Aer Lingus pensioners and those currently in service that their pensions would not maintain their value——
This issue does not arise. The discussions of the Cabinet sub-committee are confidential.
I wish only to establish whether the sub-committee has addressed this issue. It is one of major concern not only to the existing but the former workforce of Aer Lingus and the wider community, particularly given that SIPTU has pointed out that an actuarial evaluation——
I suggest the Deputy submits a question to the Minister.
I ask the Taoiseach, in line with my question, whether this issue has been addressed. Surely that is not inappropriate.
As the Deputy knows, matters discussed at a Cabinet sub-committee are confidential.
The Taoiseach can only confirm or deny whether it has been addressed. Will he give a simple "Yes" or "No" answer?
It is not appropriate for Deputies to frustrate Standing Orders every day. There may be another way to get answers to these questions, which include specific queries about dates and so on.
Against the backdrop of the actuarial evaluation of the Irish airline superannuation scheme, can the Taoiseach offer any solace or guarantees to the pensioners——
This issue does not arise. I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.
——who have been in service with the national airline? Will the Taoiseach give a "Yes" or "No" answer?
On a point of order, the Standing Order which the Chair read concerns members of Government. There is, however, a separate Standing Order for the Taoiseach. Standing Order 36 states:
Questions addressed to the Taoiseach may be asked only on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and shall be placed on the Order Paper before Questions to other members of the Government to be asked on the same day. The time allowed for the Taoiseach's Questions shall not exceed forty-five minutes each day. Any Question to the Taoiseach which appears on Tuesday's Order Paper and which is not disposed of shall be placed on the Order Paper for the following day before Questions to the Taoiseach to be asked on that day, save that a Question to be taken by the Taoiseach may be placed before Questions to be taken by a Minister of State at his or her Department.
I see nothing in that Standing Order that restricts me in asking the Taoiseach whether he endorses a statement by a Cabinet colleague or another prominent member of his party.
I absolutely agree with the Deputy, there is no such restriction in that Standing Order because it deals only with times. Standing Order 33, which I read to the House, is the appropriate Standing Order. As the Deputy well knows, if the Taoiseach were to answer detailed questions for another Minister, there would be no need for any Minister to come into the House. The Chair has ruled on Standing Order 33 and I ask the Deputy to accept the ruling. If he has a problem with it, he should accompany Deputy Stagg when he comes to discuss Standing Orders with me.
Standing Order 33 relates to members of Government, it does not refer to the Head of Government and I did not ask a detailed question.
The Taoiseach is a member of Government. We will not have a debate on this.
I did not ask a detailed question, I asked a general policy question.
I asked a question of the Taoiseach, to which his silence will give no comfort——
I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.
Will the Chair allow the Taoiseach to reply?
I am calling Deputy Kenny.
Will the Taoiseach take the opportunity to reply?
I suggest the Deputy should submit the question to the line Minister.
Standing Orders frustrate Deputies far more than Deputies frustrate Standing Orders.
In view of the restriction of the Chair's ruling, a great deal of imagination is required to ask a question to which one might get a reply. It might be appropriate for the Government Whip to allow time for a discussion or series of statements on Aer Lingus. These, along with the consequences of the ending of negotiations of the EU-US open skies policy, could be discussed by the Cabinet sub-committee on Aer Lingus.
Will the Taoiseach bring to the attention of the sub-committee the issue of the comment made by the company's chief executive officer that any sale of a share in Aer Lingus would have to take place in 2006?
Again that does not arise.
I am not asking was it discussed. I am asking will the Taoiseach bring this to the attention of the sub-committee. Will he also raise the matter of the pension deficit which exists at Aer Lingus with the sub-committee? This is a serious problem for the company and its employees.
Again it is not up for discussion.
Having got around the Standing Order restriction by the Ceann Comhairle, the Taoiseach must realise these are two important matters to which he must respond.
The sub-committee's work was to resolve the issues at the beginning of the year about the future finances of Aer Lingus. That work has been completed and the sub-committee no longer exists. In its work, the financing of pensions issue arose. However, this is a matter between the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Transport. There is a deficiency in the pension fund but it is being dealt with at ministerial level.
There are already parliamentary questions for the Minister on the recent decision made on Shannon Airport. When we were completing our work, the Government's decision was that there was a requirement for the company to get equity, which is Government policy.
Is there a prospect of this sub-committee coming out of retirement or is it in abeyance? In the event of a full business plan being developed by Aer Lingus, the Government may need to re-form the sub-committee. As the peak in oil prices continues to bite, the need may arise for the Government to address its overall aviation policy. Will the sub-committee have a role in such a situation, aside from the pension issue at Aer Lingus and so forth? Is there not a case for having the sub-committee on notice that it may need to be recalled, given the issues that are likely to unfold?
There are some standing Cabinet sub-committees. Others are formed when an issue arises that requires cross-departmental involvement with several Ministers and which can take up a considerable amount of time. A Cabinet sub-committee is also established to address an issue that does not directly involve all Ministers. In this case, there was an issue surrounding the future of Aer Lingus. As part of the deliberative process, a Cabinet sub-committee was established. The Minister for Transport commissioned a report by Goldman Sachs on the options for the future of Aer Lingus. The Minister considered other aviation issues that he wished to bring to a conclusion. This is what the sub-committee worked on and it completed its work in May. Unless some other issue emerges, the process is back with the Minister.