Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Dec 2005

Vol. 611 No. 5

Leaders’ Questions.

Mr. Kenny

The first torpedo has been fired in respect of this budget day. Some time ago the Taoiseach said in the House:

Deputy Kenny and I have been Members of the House for long enough to know that there is a code of ethics whereby those who have been elected to the House try to remain elected. That is the code of ethics in this House.

This morning brought news of another indiscretion by the Minister of State, Deputy Callely. This is not just an isolated incident. The Taoiseach appointed the Minister of State, Deputy Callely and, in his judgment, he deemed him to be a fit person to hold down a substantial public brief. When he had responsibility for the elderly, Paul Murray of Age Action Ireland said:

We never found him to be totally engaged or to fully understand the issues in an Irish or international context. He was difficult to deal with. Overall his performance was disappointing. The real losers were the elderly.

The Travers report stated that the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, was so worried and concerned about the illegality of nursing home charges that he decided to personally talk to the Taoiseach and to the then Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin. That was the last we saw of that. Perhaps he was too busy choosing the colour scheme for his house.

The Taoiseach was obviously so impressed with the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, that he gave him responsibility for Dublin transport and traffic. The website of the Department of Transport states: "An Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern TD, paid tribute to Minister Callely for his tremendous work and the solid base he put in place in health and asked him to apply his talents to the challenging transport issues." What did the commuters in Dublin do to deserve to have this great honour bestowed upon them? His tenure in the Department of Transport has been characterised by regular high profile announcements about preventing toll increases, double-decker trains and crash barriers on the M50. As the senior Minister commented, some of his recent pronouncements are just guesswork and not based on fact.

The latest revelation is that the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, had work carried out on his house by a major contractor, for which he did not need to pay. This is another incident which causes very serious and grave doubts among the public about the capacity of this Minister of State to carry on. In his discussions yesterday with the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, did the Taoiseach raise this matter? What did the Taoiseach say to the Minister of State about what he should do?

The Taoiseach

I will start at the end. I will not get into what the Minister of State did when he had responsibility for the elderly, where he worked hard, and for transport. I am more concerned about the issues that have come to light in recent days. I discussed these issues on Monday morning with the Minister of State, Deputy Callely. There were issues centering on his attitude to the staff in his Department, a number of private secretaries and some of the issues that have arisen from his dealing with staff. I told him that he would have to change his attitude and behaviour towards the staff who work for him. The Government works closely with public servants and obviously at times there are difficulties, but people must be dealt with in a proper fashion.

From 7.30 this morning I chaired the Cabinet meeting on the budget. I heard these reports, which were referred to me last night, that an issue was raised. I tried to contact the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, last night and my office tried to contact him very early this morning. I have not been able to talk to him about these serious issues. They come on top of light about issues that I have had to deal with in the past few days about carpets, photographs and other issues. I hope to speak to the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, later today.

Mr. Kenny

I believe the signs are ominous from the Taoiseach's remarks here. In December 1996, the Taoiseach said:

My party and my front bench are determined that financial scrupulousness will be strictly observed by all our elected members without fear or favour. The public are entitled to have an absolute guarantee of the financial probity and integrity of their elected representatives, their officials and above all of ministers. They need to know they are under financial obligations to nobody other than public lending institutions, except to the extent that they are publicly declared . . . We must draw a line under bad habits that may have grown up over the past 30 years and return to the ethos and public spirit that prevailed under the founders of this State, Eamon de Valera and WT Cosgrave.

Does the Taoiseach's comment this morning mean that the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, will not be a Minister of State by the end of today's proceedings? As the Taoiseach rightly pointed out, there has been the issue of a civil servant apparently being harassed to attend a political function and then deciding to leave the job. There has been a case of an appointee of the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, being offered a car to stay in office. There have been other indiscretions regarding the Minister of State and his conduct. What are the Taoiseach's standards? Is the Taoiseach prepared to make a decision that ensures the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, no longer holds office tomorrow? Does he not feel a little like Michael Corleone in The Godfather when he said, “Just when I thought I was out they pull me back in again”? On this day of all days that a political missile has been fired from within his own ranks speaks of the standards that have crept into the Government. If the Taoiseach wants to live up to the words he uttered in this House in 1996 my understanding, from what he has said, is that he will speak with the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, this morning and that he will not be a Minister of State at the end of today’s proceedings.

The Taoiseach

Deputy Kenny knows my standards are the highest standards. Anybody who holds the position of Taoiseach would like to keep to the highest standards. I am glad that is the standard I have operated for my party for 11 years. We are proud of those standards.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Another line in the sand.

The Taoiseach

The Minister of State, Deputy Callely, has worked hard in his job but he is surrounded by a number of controversies. Part of my standard is that I have a sense of fair play to listen to the Deputy but I am not impressed.

Mr. Rabbitte

I am not sure that I understand what the Taoiseach is saying. Is he saying he will fire this incompetent, accident-prone Minister of State? Is that what he is telling the House? I am not clear from what the Taoiseach has said what exactly transpired at St. Luke's last Monday morning. What issues were discussed with the Minister of State, Deputy Callely? Is it the case, as it appears to be, that the Taoiseach was satisfied with whatever explanations he gave him in respect of a series of incidents relating to the rate of turnover of staff in his office, the use of a private secretary to take up a politically partisan role, the offer of a car to an employee as an inducement to stay and so on? It appears the Taoiseach was satisfied with those assurances. Do I understand the Taoiseach to say that he has been trying since last night to contact the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, and that he has been unable to do so? Is that what he is telling the House?

Does the Taoiseach recognise the following quotation: "The resignation of the former Minister, Deputy Lowry, in the absence of any proper explanations about personal payments received from Dunnes Stores for work done on his home, was correct and inevitable"? If that was the Taoiseach's view on Deputy Lowry what is the difference in this case where a contractor carried out work in the private home of the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, while he was engaged in a major contract for the State at Dr. Steeven's Hospital? What is the difference of principle involved here? Why are we dragging this out, if the Taoiseach is going to fire him? As the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, said on television on Sunday night he presumed he was safe unless he was involved in another incident? On the face of it this seems such another incident. Is the Taoiseach going to act today or will he drag it out until he sees which way the wind is blowing and ultimately he ends up retiring?

The Taoiseach

I met the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, on Monday morning and I discussed the two central issues which were the staff issues with which he clearly has had a difficulty in his Department. He gave me a written statement of his position on that matter. I discussed the issue of the inducement to a staff member to which he gave me an explanation. I think I made it clear on Monday that giving an inducement to a staff member, regardless of how one does it, in that kind of a case is not a good practice.

In regard to the second issue, I heard last night that there was some issue about work being done on his home by a contractor. When I returned home last night I tried to contact the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, late last night-early this morning and again very early this morning because I was in work at approximately 6.30 a.m. We started a Cabinet meeting at 7.30 a.m. so I have not been in a position to speak with him. The Chief Whip and one of my advisers have spoken to him this morning. In the interests of fairness I want to speak with him. Other than having been handed a short note from a contractor I do not know the details of the case. The Deputy will appreciate that I will not make a judgment on a report I did not hear. I understand Mr. Charlie Bird has made a detailed report on the matter and I am going to listen to it. I will speak to the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, later in the day.

The issues which the Deputy referred to on the public record regarding probity and political judgment are all matters I stand over.

Mr. Rabbitte

Do I understand the Taoiseach will not require the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, to come into the House and make a statement explaining his case or will the Taoiseach deal with it directly in the discussions today? Can the Taoiseach tell the House that no other benefits have been conferred on the Minister of State at any stage during his political career by any other private interests? In terms of his ability to discharge his functions, given the list of accidents which have confronted him since he became Minister of State, is the Taoiseach saying there is even the most tenuous prospect that he will be retained in office? While the Taoiseach is anxious to tell the House about his high standards in the matter he does not have a particularly strong record when it comes to dealing with Ministers who have been guilty of wasting taxpayers' money at a profligate level that we have never seen before. In his first couple of months in office the Taoiseach is on record as accusing this side of the House of hounding a decent man out of office. The Taoiseach should not look across here with doe eyes and assert that he has always observed the highest standards in the matter of disciplining his colleagues.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

It is a line in the sand.

The Taoiseach

If the highest standards equals putting a head on a plate and carrying it down the corridor I would not be into that because that is from old times.

A Deputy

John the Baptist.

The Taoiseach

In terms of giving somebody a chance to give his or her point of view I would follow that line. This Government has followed extremely high standards in everything it does, instead of using people's money in the wrong way. Deputy Rabbitte will appreciate that if I was to give an outline of the meeting with the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, there would not be much point in having a meeting.

Mr. Sargent

I wish to continue on the theme of the Taoiseach's standards but in regard to the director of the Irish Centre of Human Rights, speaking at NUI in Galway last night, Professor William Schabas who said the Government should stop CIA flights landing at Shannon. How will the Taoiseach respond to that issue? He said yesterday it was ludicrous to have the Garda search airplanes. The US Secretary of State has admitted that rendition flights are taking place. The Taoiseach said yesterday he would not facilitate torture by any state but under international law — I have a couple of examples here — unless Ireland can verify that planes are not used for rendition in effect we are facilitating whatever might come out of any investigation. There is circumstantial evidence pointing to the fact that torture has taken place and may still be taking place. The United States' own New York University School of Law has said the refuelling of planes used for rendition is illegal if that is what is happening. I put it to the Taoiseach that effectively Ireland is an accomplice. That law dates back to the Nazi trials at Nuremburg. The law is already in place. It is not about diplomatic relations with the United States or goodwill gestures. It is about being found guilty in an international court of law. Is the Taoiseach looking out for the airplanes suspected of being used for rendition? Will he take note of the laws in place? If necessary, I will read from the Convention on International Civil Aviation, known as the Chicago Convention, from 1944, whereby any State is expected to, and quite understandably will, search a plane when there is any suspicion of untoward action as the US Secretary of State said.

The Taoiseach

I dealt with this issue yesterday and I repeat that Ireland cannot and will not allow any aircraft engaged in what are known as "extraordinary renditions" to land or refuel at Irish airports. That is the legal advice we received from the Attorney General. Ireland has not and will not facilitate any use of torture. We have used internationally understood terms and definition for torture for many years and there is no need for doubt about that terminology. It has been used by the Council of Europe, in European human rights issues, and by international fora since the Hague Convention. Wherever torture occurs it is wrong and deeply reprehensible. All Government powers are exercised to preclude any use of our facilities where, in the language of the European Court of Human Rights, substantial grounds exist for believing there is a risk to a prisoner under any of the definitions used. As far as we are concerned, the only definition is that recognised and found in international law.

We have been assured repeatedly by the US authorities, including the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, on several occasions during the past few years, that no prisoners have been or will be transferred through this country in owned or operated aircraft. Yesterday, I made reference to the fact that the Secretary of State would give a press conference to international journalists last night. I heard her repeat that statement emphatically so it has not just been said at an official meeting with the Minister for Foreign Affairs. We have accepted these repeated assurances. The Deputy is aware of the international law on this and on inspections. That is the position. The issue has been raised correctly by European countries because of matters that arose during the past few months. However, the Secretary of State has given her assurances to this country.

Mr. Sargent

I am aware those assurances were given. However, assurances were also given to the Spanish Government, which were subsequently found not to be true. In a court of law, assurances given by the US would not stand up. The Irish Government must take that point into account before it follows the US down the road of illegal practices or falsehoods that could put Ireland in the position of being an accomplice in an international illegal event.

Article 16 of the Chicago Convention is quite clear:

Search of aircraft

The appropriate authorities of each of the contracting States shall have the right, without unreasonable delay, to search aircraft of the other contracting States on landing or departure, to inspect the certificates and other documents prescribed by this Convention.

It is international law to which it is possible and expected we have recourse to in these circumstances. Under the Air Navigation and Transport Act it does not have to be carried out by members of the Garda Síochána. Authorised officers from the Department of Transport or the airport authority are also empowered to do so.

Does the Taoiseach regard it as being somewhat suspicious to hear of 50 landings and 35 departures at Shannon of CIA hired planes? Is there a need for a much closer inspection to ensure full transparency so the Irish Government can stand up in a court, which may be the case in the future, and state it can verify the evidence, and is not merely taking the word of another country?

The Taoiseach

The Chicago Convention, the air services administration order, the protocols used since 1959 are all in place. How we deal with these issues is a well built up practice. As controversial as these issue are, and as much concern as there is, everybody in this House and all members of the public would be deeply concerned, regardless of what countries were gone through, that any measures outside international definitions of normal investigation would be used. Everyone abhors torture and there is no argument about that. I would condemn it in the strongest terms, as would Deputy Sargent and every Deputy that raised the issue yesterday.

The facts are that we received repeated assurances by the US authorities, including the Secretary of State as late as last week, when we raised these issues and asked whether various protocols, understandings and commitments were totally adhered to. The US Secretary of State, whom we all agree is one of the most senior people in the administration, after the President and Vice-President, has given us that assurance. In the position I hold, I must accept that.