Vol. 615 No. 2
57 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the number of principal development specialists, senior development specialists and development specialists with Development Co-operation Ireland volunteering to decentralise; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7219/06]
Under the Government's decentralisation programme, the development co-operation directorate of the Department of Foreign Affairs, currently based in Dublin, will decentralise to Limerick. This is scheduled to take place during the first quarter of 2007 and will involve the relocation to Limerick of 124 posts.
A total of 26 posts in the directorate, including that of director general, are filled by officers who have signalled their intention to decentralise to Limerick and 15 officers serving elsewhere in the Department, mostly abroad, have also expressed an interest in doing so. This total of 41 represents 33% of the posts being transferred to Limerick. The aim is that by the second half of 2006 most posts in the directorate will be filled by staff who will decentralise to Limerick.
Of the 24 specialist posts attached to the directorate at headquarters, three are designated as principal development specialist, 12 as senior development specialist and nine as development specialists. Five officers included in the above total of 41 are development specialists, of whom four were recruited since the announcement of the decentralisation programme in December 2003 and one applied via the CAF, the central applications facility. Two senior development specialists and a further four development specialists, who had also applied to decentralise to Limerick, have since withdrawn their applications. No applications have been received to date for the three principal development specialist posts.
It is my hope that a greater number of specialists will, in time, volunteer to decentralise to Limerick. Discussions are ongoing with representatives of the specialists, their union, IMPACT, and the Department of Finance about the conditions of service that will be applicable to specialists transferring to Limerick and to those who choose to remain in Dublin. These discussions also have a wider Civil Service dimension.
I am not against decentralisation which I regard as having an important role in regional development. If handled properly it will be completely in line with the Government's national spatial strategy. However the shambolic manner in which the decentralisation programme is being handled is a cause for worry on a number of fronts. It seems the decentralisation of DCI, Development Co-operation Ireland, has gone into reverse. In response to my parliamentary question asked last December, the Minister stated that 28 out of 123 DCI staff had applied for decentralisation but in a response given in January, the number was 24 out of 123 staff. The Minister of State now informs the House that approximately six development specialists have withdrawn their applications and the matter is now one for discussion between the Department and the trade unions.
Has the Minister of State taken into consideration the views of the non-governmental organisations which have expressed concern about the situation whereby at a time when the overseas aid programme is expanding rapidly, there will be a serious loss of intellectual memory in Development Co-operation Ireland? Has the Minister of State been in negotiations with the NGOs about their concerns? A statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs last January contained an implied threat that staff who did not decentralise would be replaced. This is not the way to conduct a sensitive decentralisation programme of an important arm of the development aid programme.
I have great pleasure in defending my senior colleague, the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern. He did not seek in any fashion to threaten staff and that would be a very wrong assumption for the Deputy to make.
The Department has taken very strong proactive measures to minimise the threat raised by the Deputy of corporate loss of memory. Specific measures have been taken to protect the development division against such an occurrence because of this very difficult move to Limerick, which will be executed in early 2007. I outlined some of the measures to the House on the last occasion I replied to questions. These measures will include hand-over periods of one month before a member of staff is replaced by another person who will be decentralised to Limerick. This has proved useful to new staff joining the Department who have been learning about their new positions from the person they will be replacing.
The Department has conducted an audit at official level to ensure all relevant documentation which may be required by those coming from the wider Civil Service and decentralising to Limerick will be captured accurately and to ensure the corporate memory, as referred to by Deputy Allen, will be intact and protected in a positive way. The documentary knowledge and the expertise and knowledge of the fine diplomats who have worked overseas and at headquarters which relates to the development programme will be protected.
The Deputy asked whether I had consulted the NGOs. I regularly consult NGOs on the subject of decentralisation. They have their view and I have mine, and I and my senior colleague have a job to do. Decentralisation is a Government policy decision and we will do our best to ensure it happens within the ambitious timeframe of early 2007.
I reassure the Deputy opposite that there is good news about a site in Limerick which has been identified by the Office of Public Works as a location for the division when decentralisation occurs. The Department is very pleased with the numbers of staff who have opted to decentralise. A total of 42 people represents 33% of the staff requirement that will be needed in Limerick, which will be 123 posts. That is a good level at this stage. This process started in September 2005 when a total of 13 people had volunteered to go to Limerick but the figure has now risen to 41.
The Deputy is correct that the numbers fluctuate. Since he asked his last parliamentary question there has been a drop because, as the Deputy correctly pointed out, a number of the specialists withdrew their names and were unwilling to decentralise because they required more clarity on the issue of their conditions of work and service. It is not uncommon for the numbers to fluctuate from month to month and they may increase or decrease. It is the case that some people apply for decentralisation but other offers come their way within the wider decentralisation process and they pursue their ambitions in other Departments. The development specialists who have withdrawn their names have a specific issue about their conditions of service and the Deputy will be aware this is a matter for a European court to determine. Wider implications for the Civil Service——
It sounds shambolic.
58 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the findings of a draft report complied by five independent experts further to an 18-month investigation by the UN Commission on Human Rights into detention conditions at Guantanamo Bay, in particular the finding that aspects of the treatment of prisoners there, including violent force feeding, must be assessed as amounting to torture; his further views on the finding that serious questions exist regarding the legal basis upon which persons there are being held; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7223/06]
The recent joint report by the four UN special rapporteurs and the Chair of the working group on arbitrary detention is a significant development in the debate regarding the situation of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay.
The finding of the report, which states the view of the authors that aspects of the treatment of prisoners there must be assessed as amounting to torture, should be taken very seriously, given the expertise and international reputation of the special rapporteurs and the chair of the working group. This finding will clearly be subject to further consideration and debate.
As I stated in the Dáil on previous occasions, Ireland regards torture as unacceptable and unjustifiable under any circumstances.
With regard to the legal basis on which the persons in Guantanamo Bay are being detained, the Government's position on the condition and status of detainees in Guantanamo is clear and has been consistently conveyed to the US authorities. All detained persons are entitled to the protection of international human rights instruments and, where applicable, international humanitarian law.
I have carefully noted the initial response of the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Kofi Annan, to the joint report. I endorse the Secretary General's view that those held in Guantanamo Bay should either be charged or released, and that the United States should close the facility. This would be highly desirable on human rights grounds. Closure of Guantanamo Bay would, in addition, serve to reassure all of America's friends, including Ireland, who recognise the importance of the role of the United States as a global leader in combating terrorism and promoting democracy.
I welcome the Minister's unequivocal condemnation of torture, his opposition to Guantanamo Bay and his support for the UN Secretary General's comments on the report. Does the Minister agree, however, that there is no legal basis for the Guantanamo facility, no legal protection for the detainees there and that a massive abuse of human rights is involved?
As regards the suggested war against terrorism, does the Minister agree that the redefinition of torture is a mitigation of the relevant international protections? In the press release accompanying the extensive questionnaire which the Minister sent to the Council of Europe following the article 52 request as to what was taking place in Shannon, he stated that the Garda Síochána has the right to inspect such planes at Shannon. However, senior gardaí have informed me and Senator Norris that under the Criminal Justice (United Nations Convention Against Torture) Act 2000 they do not have the right to enter and inspect aircraft or to arrest anybody in connection with the issue of torture. They suggest that they have no such powers under the aforementioned Act. The reply to the questionnaire stated that three cases have been investigated but they were investigated second-hand by talking to cleaners and others who serviced the aircraft. Gardaí are under the impression and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is ruling that under the 2000 Act they do not have the right to enter such aircraft.
The press release affirms that the Garda Síochána can inspect such planes. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has said that he is against the use of torture and I accept that he is. However, the attitude of the Garda Síochána and, as I understand it, the DPP's office, is that the 2000 Act, which inserted the United Nations Convention Against Torture into Irish law, does not allow gardaí to enter any civil aircraft in Shannon or elsewhere.
Further to what the Deputy said was taking place in Shannon, the report clearly states and shows that nothing was taking place there. Ireland was one of only three countries that received categorical and unqualified assurances on the non-use of their territory for what is called extraordinary rendition.
As to whether members of the Garda Síochána have a legal basis to board planes, it is the strong advice of the Attorney General to the Government that they do. Some time ago, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform assured Deputies and the wider public that gardaí had full power to board civilian chartered aircraft such as those about which many of these allegations have been made.
As for the three cases referred to in the report, I have some information on the type of complaints made. Ultimately, however, it is a matter for the Garda Síochána and the Director of Public Prosecutions to make an independent determination as to whether there is enough evidence in that respect. As regards the two cases that were referred to the DPP, it is quite clear that he said there was insufficient evidence. The complaints related to a regurgitation of media reports of allegations that Shannon was being used.
Of 41 reports that have already been sent to the Council of Europe as of midnight on Monday, Ireland's is one of the most comprehensive. It clearly states and shows that as far as the Government and its agencies are concerned, Shannon was not used in any way for extraordinary rendition. It also shows that the constant assurances given by the Americans, from Condoleezza Rice down, are verified.
As for the legal basis for Guantanamo, it is a fact that the US administration has already disputed the report from the special rapporteurs. The US administration also states that it has the legal basis for the presence of the Guantanamo facility. In our view, however, allegations of torture there must be investigated. As far as we are concerned, we fully endorse the views of Kofi Annan on the necessity either to charge or release those detained in Guantanamo Bay and that, ultimately, the facility should be closed.
The adequacy of such assurances must be assessed in the context of the observation of international law by the sovereign state involved. It is the common view of those interested in international law that assurances of the type the Minister has received and accepts are not sufficient as positive compliance with the UN Convention Against Torture.
We now have two positions. When the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform answered questions in this Chamber, he said he was against torture. I accept that the Government would be against the commission of torture. However, the Criminal Justice (United Nations Convention Against Torture) Act 2000 was invoked by two Garda superintendents to me and another Member of the Oireachtas. They said that they had no powers under that Act to enter or search the aircraft in question or to arrest anyone.
The third paragraph on page one of the questionnaire, which was sent back to the Council of Europe, states that the Garda Síochána's powers of search and inspection extend to civil aircraft of the type cited in allegations about extraordinary rendition. Which version is correct? How can the Garda Síochána and the DPP be wrong?
I would welcome the Government's position if it were factual but gardaí have not boarded planes or sought to obtain evidence. In response to our questions, we are always told that if we have evidence, we should give it to the Garda Síochána. The extensive questionnaire that has been sent back to the Council of Europe says that under Article 40 of the Constitution concerning the deprivation of liberty, the Garda Síochána has common powers under the 1998 civil aviation legislation.
If one wants to be fully compliant and positive in implementing the UN Convention Against Torture, it is not sufficient to accept assurances. It is also insufficient not to have investigations, be they sporadic or regular.
The Deputy is wrong in that respect. The European Court of Human Rights has set the bar for the acceptance of diplomatic assurances.
Yes.
It has referred to "a substantial proof of a real risk of a breach of a right being created".
But what is happening in Guantanamo?
I did not interrupt the Deputy. A number of academics would normally be critical of the US stance on this but New York University carried out a study for the House of Commons. It stated that actual knowledge of any breaches would have to be required before intervention could take place.
That is why the five people were not allowed in to see the detainees.
Time is limited so the Deputy should allow me to answer the question whether the Garda Síochána has powers to board aircraft. It has been verified by the Attorney General that the Garda Síochána has such powers. I would hazard a guess that the Attorney General is correct and that the information the Deputy received is not correct. However, that is a matter for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to answer in the House.
Why could he not accept it then?
The issue of these so-called extraordinary renditions on chartered civilian flights is exactly the same as members of the Garda Síochána going into the Deputy's house. They can only do so on foot of a search warrant——
Yes.
——or on suspicion of a crime being committed. It is exactly the same at Shannon or anywhere else in Ireland for a civilian plane on which extraordinary rendition is supposedly taking place. It is a matter for members of the Garda Síochána to intervene if they have a suspicion that there is a substantial risk of a breach of rights taking place. To date, members of the Garda Síochána have not done so.
No. They have never entered a plane.
59 Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on whether the EU has a role in assisting the development of a conflict resolution process in the Basque country. [7291/06]
The issue of whether the European Union has a role in assisting the development of a conflict resolution process in the Basque Country is solely for the Spanish Government to decide. I am not aware of such an approach on the part of the Spanish Government to the European Union. The Government will be happy to offer support in any way deemed helpful by the Spanish Government, in the event that it decided to seek such assistance.
As the Deputy will be aware, in December 2004 the Basque regional parliament approved a plan proposed by the Basque Prime Minister to replace the existing autonomy agreement for the region, which dates from 1979, with a new agreement which would give the Basque Country the status of free association with Spain. The Basque Prime Minister's plan would also allow the people of the Basque Country to decide by referendum whether they wished to remain a part of Spain. In February 2005, this plan was rejected by the Spanish Parliament. However, at the same time, Prime Minister Zapatero indicated his government's willingness to discuss a new statute for the Basque Country.
In May 2005 the Spanish Parliament approved a resolution proposed by the government authorising it to enter into dialogue with ETA, which has been included on the EU's list of terrorist organisations since December 2001. The resolution makes it clear that the focus of the dialogue will be on bringing an end to violence. It states that terrorism is totally incompatible with democracy and that violence cannot yield a political reward. The resolution requires ETA to renounce violence before the process of dialogue can begin, and states that ETA must dissolve itself and lay down arms.
As regards the discussions on wider political issues, the resolution also stresses the principle of engaging solely with the legitimately elected representatives of the Basque people. To date, however, ETA has not abandoned the use of violence nor committed itself to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. As I have made clear on previous occasions, there can be no place in our democracies for the use, or threat of the use, of force. I am sure the Deputy and all who have the interests of the Basque people at heart will share the hope that there will be early progress on this matter which will, I hope, assist the Spanish Government in the opening of negotiations with elected representatives in the period ahead.
I welcome the Minister's answer. In January of this year the Spanish Prime Minister spoke optimistically of the progress he expected to make in the peace process. Batasuna, a political party, has restated that dialogue is the way forward and there is widespread speculation within the region that some degree of conflict is still ongoing between the Spanish authorities and the Basque nationalists. However, only last month a Batasuna congress to discuss the peace process was banned and a mass rally, which included representatives of most of the Basque independent political parties was held against that ban.
Given our mutual recognition that dialogue is central to building a just and lasting peace, a common understanding gained from our experience in Ireland, does the Minister agree that the ongoing banning and criminalisation of one partner to the peace process in the Basque Country is not conducive to the progression of the peace process? Can we have a viable peace process when one of the main political parties involved has been declared illegal? Does the Minister believe the inclusion of Batasuna on the EU list of terrorist organisations is conducive to assisting development of the Basque peace process? Does he agree it is unacceptable to deny a community its fundamental rights to assembly, free speech, political association and political representation? If he agrees, will he state his objects to the Macrosummario summary to the Spanish authorities? The Macrosummario is the ongoing trial of 90 political and social activists which is denying these people their fundamental civil and political rights.
I accept that the Deputy has been in the Basque Country on a number of occasions with regard to the move towards a peace process. Obviously we would welcome any assistance he and his colleagues could give in that respect. As the Deputy knows, ETA has been on the EU list of terrorist organisations since December 2001 and by a unanimous decision of EU member states, Batasuna was added to this list on 4 June 2003. In taking the decision, the Council was satisfied that Batasuna was a terrorist organisation and that it was merely an alias for ETA. The Deputy knows the situation well. On Saturday last, 18 February, ETA issued a public statement. While it called for dialogue and negotiation as being the only way forward, unfortunately the text of its statement also attempted to justify the group's recent bombing campaign.
The current Spanish Government has made it clear that the only type of communication from ETA in which it has any interest would be one which would renounce violence and show a desire to move on a clearly political path. Prime Minister Zapatero has been as accommodating as he can be within the normal democratic principles in order to reach out a hand to assist people in ETA and Batasuna who may wish to move exclusively into a political realm. In a recent interview last weekend he indicated there is a clear road map starting from the May 2005 parliamentary resolution which in effect calls on ETA to abandon its arms, to renounce violence and to engage in political talks.
Obviously there is no understanding among the Spanish authorities of the peace process that has taken place in Ireland. Will the Minister use his good offices to impress on the Spanish authorities that banning a political party is not conducive to encouraging dialogue or progress in its peace process? Looking at the yardstick of our peace process, setting unattainable goals at this stage is not conducive to that. Batasuna is a political party, has a role and should be encouraged in the role it has played over the past months in trying to ensure all groups within the Basque Country are united in the same aims of a wider peace process.
I repeat that all EU members unanimously decided and agreed that Batasuna was merely a cover or alias for ETA. Accordingly, calling on the Spanish Government to revoke the banning of Batasuna is futile.
Does the Minister support that ban?
The Deputy referred to our own peace process and there are similarities between many peace processes happening around the world. In our instance, however, the peace process was a joint initiative between the British and Irish Governments. The Spanish Government regards its process as an internal matter, has not involved any other government or to the best of my knowledge asked any other EU country, including Ireland, to assist. If the Irish Government were asked by the Spanish authorities to assist in any way, we would be willing to help.
This is not just an internal matter. It has an international dimension.
We will not go there.
60 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the contact made with the administration of the United States of America on behalf of undocumented Irish citizens resident in that country; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7220/06]
The Government attaches the highest priority to the issue of the undocumented Irish in the United States. In all our contacts with US political leaders, we emphasise the importance of addressing the situation in a positive and sympathetic way. In this regard we welcome the engagement of President Bush on this issue and his support for a humane approach which involves reform as well as enforcement. The Deputy can be assured that the Taoiseach and I look forward to discussing this issue when next we meet President Bush, hopefully over the St. Patrick's Day period.
In raising this matter with our US contacts, we appreciate that immigration is a highly sensitive and divisive issue. The current legislative debate in the US Congress involves differing approaches and strongly held opinions. Some members of the US Congress, for example, are opposed to any proposals which would allow undocumented people the opportunity to regularise their status. It is clear that achieving the necessary compromise remains a formidable challenge.
As the Deputy is aware, the US Senate has before it a number of proposals. Indications are that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary will discuss the immigration issue again in early March. The proposals before it include the Bill sponsored by Senators Kennedy and McCain as well as the Kyl-Cornyn Bill and a compromise text proposed by Senator Specter, chairman of the committee.
Deputies can be assured that in all my meetings with US contacts, including the Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, and key congressional figures, I made known the support of the Government and the Oireachtas for the approach favoured by Senators Kennedy and McCain. Their Bill has also been strongly endorsed by the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform, a group established in December to mobilise grassroots support within the Irish community in the US for immigration reform. I welcome the establishment of this organisation. I encouraged the formation of such an organisation and recently approved a grant of €30,000 towards its operational expenses.
The Deputy can be assured the Government will continue to lobby intensively on this issue in the critical period ahead, again emphasising our strong support for the inclusion of the key elements of the Kennedy-McCain Bill in any final compromise legislation. I welcome and support the committee of the Houses that will shortly go to America. The Taoiseach and I will convey this view at the highest level in Washington over the St. Patrick's Day period.
I welcome the Minister's approach to an issue of importance for thousands of Irish emigrants. I also welcome his support for the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform. Ms Sheila Gleeson attended the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs yesterday and outlined the range of activities of the Coalition of Irish Immigration Centres to counter the anti-immigration atmosphere, as she put it, post 9/11 and due to fears about job security and the erosion of working conditions in the US because of the large number of illegal immigrants.
Of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States of America, an estimated 50,000 are undocumented Irish citizens. We would be foolish to believe there would be special legislation to deal with them alone but I fully support the Minister's efforts to convince President Bush and leading politicians on Capitol Hill to give this matter their priority. However, I doubt the success of their efforts in light of the anti-immigration feeling.
That said, we have an obligation to pursue other avenues. In this context, has the Minister discussed the possibility of a bilateral agreement between the United States of America and Ireland? Would it comply with European Union law? If there is a potential to explore the possibility of a bilateral agreement, what are the Minister's views on it?
I welcome the support of the Deputy, his party and all Members of the House. It is important that an all-party and all-Oireachtas view be given on this issue. Our efforts are honed in on the legislation proceeding through the Congress. While we should not deviate, other issues and scenarios have been discussed. However, given the small window of opportunity on the legislation, we should not take our eye off the ball.
The US has a number of bilateral trade agreements with other countries. Tacked on to those, such as the US-Australia trade agreement, is an element of allowing people to enter the US but it does not take into account undocumented Australians already living in the US. Any effort we would make in respect of a bilateral agreement would not address the people we want it to deal with. The agreement may deal with other issues.
I recently met a congressional delegation including Congressman Jim Walsh. The Deputy may remember the recent major Irish-American separate agreement on immigration, the Walsh visa programme relating to the six Northern and six Border counties. That visa waiver programme has worked to a certain extent but not as well as it could have due to Ireland's economic climate. It does not address undocumented people in the US.
I asked our embassy and consulates in the US to treat this matter as an absolute priority and I assure the House we will continue to do so. While we will also examine other options, I strongly suggest we should continue our representations more or less exclusively in respect of the legislation going through the Congress.
I agree that we must not take our eye off the political ball. Like other political representatives, we must have another card to play in our pack. A bilateral agreement must be considered as a fall-back position in tandem with our efforts at political level to address this significant problem for 50,000 undocumented Irish citizens. Will the Minister have his officials examine this possibility while we are discussing what is happening on Capitol Hill?
I hope the Minister and the Taoiseach will impress upon President Bush that he must go further than his comments in his State of the Union address, which I considered somewhat of a retreat from his sentiments expressed in his 2005 State of the Union address. I hope that in an election year in the United States of America, the enthusiasm for justice for so many people who have contributed much to the development of the US but are living in fear day in day out is not eroded by the anti-immigrant feeling in southern California and the border states with Mexico.
President Bush articulated the diverse views of the Congress on this matter. The legislative process has taken the road of a closed border issue and dealing with security. It is now recognised that the Congress will move into a position to try to regularise the 11 million or so undocumented people in the US.
I am not ruling out bilateral agreements. Those ideas are on our table and there have been some discussions with a number of people in the US on these issues. To ensure we get the best deal out of the legislation, I again emphasise that our efforts and those of the Irish political system should concentrate on the current proposals. If the legislation does not allow for a path to the permanent residency of undocumented people in the US in some way, it is my view the legislation would be deficient as millions of undocumented people would not come out of the woodwork to apply under it for fear that, in three or six years' time, hands would land on shoulders and they would be told to go back to where they came from. If such legislation is introduced, it will only push the problem down the line for three or six years. There must be some element of a path to permanent residency included in the legislation.
The potential of a bilateral agreement depends on the goodwill between this country and the US. The opinion in Irish-American circles, and in broader circles, is that Ireland takes a negative view of American interests. This is something we must deal with as we go, cap in hand, to ask them to change legislation to suit Irish people in America.
61 Mr. Gregory asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the steps he is taking to support the request of the family of the late Pat Finucane for a full public independent inquiry into the collusion involved in his murder. [7224/06]
The House will be aware of the support which the Government has given to the Finucane family in its long campaign for an independent public inquiry into the murder of Mr. Patrick Finucane. The Government fully agrees with the family on the need for a public inquiry as recommended by Judge Peter Cory.
The British Government's current position is that it proposes to hold an inquiry under the UK Inquiries Act 2005. This is unacceptable to the Finucane family and to the Government. Both prior to and since the enactment of this legislation, the Government has raised its concern about this legislation with the British Government. This has been done directly by the Taoiseach in contact with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair.
The Government has also highlighted its concern in contact with the US authorities and at appropriate international fora, most recently at the 2005 session of the UN Commission on Human Rights and in regular interventions at the Council of Europe. In these forums and bilaterally we have made clear our belief that an inquiry under this Act would not be in line with the commitment made by the Governments at Weston Park, nor with the recommendations of Judge Cory.
I met the family in November and my officials remain in regular contact with them to offer every possible support. The Government will continue its strong efforts in support of the family's campaign for an independent public inquiry.
Does the Minister accept the new British legislation, the Inquiries Act, restricts the control of inquiry judges, allows for the deletion of details of findings made by the inquiry and transfers control of the inquiry from the judges to a Government Minster? The inquiry on offer is a British Government controlled inquiry into collusion by the British Government security services. As such, the inquiry has been rejected by the Finucane family. An independently verifiable full public inquiry is required. Without such an inquiry the end result will be another cover-up. Just as the British Government refused to co-operate on the matter of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, it refuses to co-operate with the Finucane family demand for a transparent public inquiry.
I reiterate the Government's support for what was agreed at Weston Park. Since the publication of the Inquiries Act, Judge Cory indicated he was not satisfied the proposed inquiry under the new legislation would be in accordance with the recommendation he gave on this and other inquiries, including the Breen and Buchanan inquiry into two murders in my constituency. The latter is being carried out under the terms set out by Judge Cory.
I do not agree with Deputy Gregory on the extent to which the Inquiries Act curtails independence but I agree the key difference between the original proposal and the proposed inquiry under the new Act is the extent of ministerial control over production of documents. This restricts the ability of any chairperson to examine this independently and consider what documents should be put in the public domain. Under the new Act the Secretary of State has greater powers than before through the use of a restriction notice which substantially reduces the independence of the chair in deciding on the publication of such documents.
The Government will continue to lobby the British Government at the highest level but it must be accepted the British Parliament, not just the British Government, has passed and enacted legislation. The Council of Europe is examining this issue, the Government will continue to liaise with the family and I will meet Mr. Peter Hain in London tomorrow where I will raise the issue.
The Minister has raised this in the past, the Taoiseach has raised it and still the British Government refuses to co-operate. What does the Minister think of this refusal to co-operate on the Finucane inquiry and on the Dublin and Monaghan bombings inquiry? Is it a sign of good faith between the two Governments? It seems to be far from it. Will the Minister continue to go, cap in hand, to Mr. Peter Hain and face a deliberate refusal to co-operate and a calculated attempt to cover-up British Government security services collusion in the murders of Mr. Finucane and people on the streets of Dublin?
The issue of the Dublin, Monaghan and Dundalk bombings are the subject of a separate inquiry.
It is the same thing.
While there is a view that British Government co-operation is not as it should be, there are some indications that further information may be produced.
There is a lack of co-operation.
This Government has made its case clearly and does not go cap in hand. People often said Irish Governments tipped the forelock to the British on issues such as Sellafield, the Dublin and Monaghan bombings or the Finucane murder. It was often said we never took a case against the Brits over Sellafield because of the special relationship between the two countries. This Government took such a case. We will continue to examine all avenues to make progress on the Finucane case. The Attorney General met legal advisers of the Finucane family some time ago to consider taking a case to the Council of Europe. We are still examining this but the possibility of taking a case is not advisable.
The Government will continue to meet the Finucane family, members of which recently attended hearings of the Sub-committee on Human Rights of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. Mr. Peter Hain has stated the British Government wishes to hold an inquiry under the Inquiries Act and it is seeking a building and a judge.
It will find it difficult.
