Vol. 617 No. 4
37 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will demand a United Nations investigation into the manner in which moneys set aside for reconstruction work in Iraq have been spent; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13298/06]
41 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on whether Iraq is experiencing, or is on course to experience, a civil war, in view of the ongoing attacks and reprisals between Shia and Sunni Islam groups; if this matter was discussed in talks over the St. Patrick’s Day period between his officials and officials representing the US Administration; if initiatives have emanated at European Union level directed towards an improvement in these matters; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13232/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 37 and 41 together.
I share the deep concern of Deputies about the situation in Iraq. The level of sectarian violence has been increasing in recent months with terrible consequences for ordinary Iraqi citizens. For well over a year, armed groups based in the Sunni community have engaged openly in sectarian attacks on Shia and Kurdish civilians. The cynical aim of their suicide and car bomb attacks on markets, mosques and other public places has been to cause the maximum number of civilian casualties, provoke retaliation and foment civil strife and chaos across Iraq.
Until recently, the Shia community has generally followed the guidance of its political and religious leaders and avoided retaliation. However, the attacks and killings following the destruction of the holy Shia shrine in Samarra in February were a stark reminder of the danger of uncontrolled sectarian violence. There had already been disturbing signs of a growing level of retaliatory violence by Shia militias, including evidence of death squads operating within the Iraqi security forces. The House will be aware that US troops have, on a number of occasions in recent months, located large numbers of prisoners who were secretly detained by these groups and, in some cases, abused and tortured.
This deterioration in the security situation has developed despite considerable progress in the formal process of political reconstruction, under UN guidance. Three democratic national elections have been successfully held. A new constitution has been approved by referendum and adopted and a freely-elected Iraqi Government has been in office since May 2005. These are substantial achievements and the high level of participation by the Iraqi people in the democratic process has shown the importance they attach to the political process, following decades of brutal dictatorship. The maintenance of this level of political commitment will be crucial if civil war in Iraq is to be avoided.
Most people now accept the only way to avoid further chaos and to build a secure future for the Iraqi people is for the Iraqi Government to establish effective administration over the country with the assistance and support of the international community. This must involve the development of effective national security forces with the capacity to take over responsibilities exercised by international forces operating in Iraq under UN sanction.
Following the democratic elections held in December 2005, the next important step must be the formation of a new broadly-based and sovereign Government, mandated for four years. Undoubtedly the recent violence has made agreement between the parties representing the different Iraqi communities more difficult to achieve. The strong message, however, from the EU and the wider international community has been that the establishment of a Government with the broadest possible base in the Iraqi parliament is an urgent national priority for Iraq.
The Taoiseach and I discussed the Iraqi situation with the US President, Mr. Bush and his advisers when we met at the White House on St. Patrick's Day. Mr. Bush was aware of the difficult situation in Iraq. He indicated his determination to maintain US involvement as long as is necessary. The situation in Iraq has also been discussed at the recent meetings of the General Affairs and External Relations Council. It will be on the agenda for next Monday's meeting in Luxembourg.
It remains the Government's position, and that of our EU partners, to continue to support the Iraqi people and their elected government as they work to create the conditions under which they can assume full authority for the security of their country. The EU's support will continue to focus on assistance to the political process, capacity building in Iraqi Government ministries, training of criminal justice professionals, reconstruction of infrastructure and public services and humanitarian relief.
Against this difficult background, it is disturbing and deeply disappointing to learn of serious allegations of misappropriation of funds that should have been devoted to reconstruction and to the welfare of the Iraqi people. The allegations relate to Iraqi funds controlled by the UN and to US Government funds. If true, some of the more recent allegations are simply disgraceful. Some individuals and companies, including well-established ones, have already paid substantial fines following proceedings in US courts.
Most of the allegations which have so far come to light relate to the period of the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority in 2003 to 2004.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
There seems very little doubt that major mistakes were made at that stage in addressing and overseeing the work of reconstruction. The position is that the UN Security Council authorised payment of Iraqi funds, including frozen accounts and oil revenues, into the development fund for Iraq, which was administered by the Coalition Provisional Authority. The Security Council also established a body, called the International Advisory and Monitoring Board for Iraq, to oversee and audit the use of these funds. The body, and its auditors, KPMG, have drawn attention in their reports to the lack of control over expenditure both in the Coalition Provisional Authority and in Iraqi ministries. However, only a few months after the auditors were appointed the Coalition Provisional Authority was dissolved, and administration of the funds transferred to the new Iraqi Government.
The Government has no way of assessing accurately the basis of the allegations made. However, I agree fully that it is unacceptable if funds intended for the relief of the Iraqi people have been misspent, or worse. Responsibility for investigating such allegations rests primarily with the United Nations Security Council, and with the International Advisory and Monitoring Board established by it. The Iraqi Government and the US Administration clearly also have their own substantial responsibilities.
I asked if the Minister for Foreign Affairs would press for a UN investigation into the misappropriation of funds. Instead the Minister spent four minutes before addressing the misappropriation of 363 tonnes of 100 dollar bills imported into Iraq since the lifting of sanctions on 22 May 2003. There is a black hole of accountability in this matter with no monitoring of spending. The administrative arm of the US and UK forces in Baghdad failed to establish a monitoring committee on the spending of the reconstruction funding. An administrative monitoring agency was only established when a further UN resolution insisted on it.
This is the largest financial fraud in the UN's history. People are dying in hospitals and on the side of the street because of the lack of services in that war-torn country. What specific actions will the Minister take to ensure an investigation into the misappropriation of this funding?
I accept the Deputy's comments on the length of reply.
This is primarily a matter for the UN Security Council which authorised the payment of these funds into the development fund for Iraq. It established the International Advisory and Monitoring Board for Iraq to examine these allegations.
Yet UN Resolution No. 1483 failed to do so.
Allow the Minister reply without interruption.
The body and its auditors, KPMG, have drawn attention to the lack of control over expenditure. These allegations relate to the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority's time in power. It has been dissolved and the administration of the funds has been transferred to the new Iraqi Government. So far no allegations have been made against that government of misappropriation or misuse of funds. The Irish Government can exhort its colleagues on the UN Security Council which has the primary responsibility to ensure funds are not misappropriated.
It is important to recognise that those funds that have gone missing, have done so at the level of the banking system. In the oil for food programme, it was not the persons who were distributing the food in Iraq that were involved in fraud but those contracted to supply the food. It is the same on the construction side. Again, international trading companies defrauded the most vulnerable of the vulnerable.
Mr. Allawi, the former Prime Minister of Iraq, told the BBC, "We are losing each day an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is". The destruction of the Shi'ite mosque in Samarra was followed by the destruction of other mosques. Is it not clear that Iraq is at the edge, if not in, a civil war? Is that not indicated by the talks taking place between the US and Iranian authorities on how to construct a Shi'ite consensus? If that happens, it will lead to the further exclusion of the Sunni population in Iraq. Is there any basis for assuming a unitary state in Iraq will remain? Current talks indicate a division on a religious basis. Will the Minister agree that the loss of 50 to 60 civilian lives every day is an indication that the situation has deteriorated into a civil conflict?
The argument of whether the horrendous loss of life in Iraq should be defined as "civil war" is semantic. There is a concerted effort to drag the country into a sustained period of civil strife. Despite the killings, several religious and political leaders have been restrained in their responses to them. Efforts are continuing to draw together a broadly-based Iraqi Government but it has not been easy. The Iraqi people have a strong desire for the establishment of democratic institutions and their own hands on power. However, there is a long way to go yet.
Recently I had discussions with the newly accredited Iraqi ambassador to Ireland. Given our history, the Irish are cognisant of the TV pictures of the awful events in Iraq. However, the ambassador pointed out to me that substantial peace reigns in 14 out of the 18 regions in Iraq. In some places, there are daily flights to and from Frankfurt and Amsterdam. That is not to diminish what is happening in other significant areas of Iraq. All efforts of the international community are to endeavour to have as broadly based a representative government as possible.
There has been a failure to form a government three months after the elections. Will the Minister agree that the talks between US representatives and Iran on constructing a Shi'ite consensus is working in the opposite direction to the stated position of the EU, which is in favour of a unitary state even with federal arrangements? Is it the view of the European Union that a religiously or ethnically divided Iraq is acceptable?
The answer is "No". The priority must be to get a government which is supported by all sides.
The Minister says he is a great friend of President Bush and the US Administration, but has he asked the President where all the money has gone from Iraq? Where have the 363 tonnes of hundred dollar bills that were shipped to Iraq gone? There were enough banknotes to pay for the Pentagon four times over but where has that money gone? Will the Minister get real and accept that the Administration there, beyond the green line, has lost control in Iraq? There is no water or electricity and people cannot walk the streets without the fear of being kidnapped or killed. The police force in Iraq has been infiltrated by militias so one does not know whether a peacekeeping unit or a death squad is calling to one's house. The Minister should get real and accept that the war there is one against humanity and that nobody is safe on any side. Will the US Administration be asked the hard question about where the money has gone? Will the Taoiseach and the Minister insist on an audit of the moneys shipped to Iraq and the expenditure concerned?
The UN Security Council has responsibility for this matter. Any information concerning the improper use of funds must be transmitted to the monitoring board. We did not raise this issue with the President when we met him recently, although we did raise the unfortunate and difficult situation in Iraq. It is important to emphasise what has happened there over recent years. There has been a huge resurgence in the people's desire to have their own government and the establishment of democratic institutions. It must be recognised that there are a small number of insurgents who are endeavouring to cause civil war and undo the good that has been done. Many people were surprised at the developments concerning the elections, the referendum and the establishment of an Iraqi government. It was never going to be easy given the different religious factions there. The main focus should be on trying to get a government in place that has broad support from all factions. We should not focus on other issues.
38 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the results of the parliamentary elections in Israel; the implications which this result holds for the roadmap for peace; the mandate he feels that the incoming Government has been granted with regard to the future of Israeli and Palestinian negotiations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13169/06]
I have been closely following the developments since last week's general elections in Israel. I offer my congratulations to acting Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, on the success of his party, Kadima, which is now the largest party in the Knesset. It seems clear that he and other Israeli political leaders will need some time to negotiate the formation of a new coalition government.
The Irish Government strongly believes that as the political situation following the Palestinian and Israeli elections settles, it will be clear that the basic reality remains that the only way in which a lasting and peaceful settlement of the conflict can be found is through the negotiation of a mutually acceptable and viable two state solution. This must involve the coexistence in peace and security of the state of Israel and a truly viable Palestinian state with agreed international borders.
Negotiations on the basis of agreed fundamental principles are the only option. The pursuit of progress through unilateral actions by either party or both parties will not create the conditions for long-term peace. I therefore warmly welcome the statement by acting Prime Minister Olmert, in his victory speech on 29 March, that there is no good alternative to a peace agreement and that while his goal is to bring about the establishment of the final borders of Israel as a Jewish state and a democratic country, his Government will work to achieve this through negotiations and through an agreement with their Palestinian neighbours.
The Government looks forward to developing a good working relationship with the new Israeli Government and to maintaining the open and frank relationship which enables us to discuss directly and constructively our views on the obligations on the parties under the roadmap and under international law. We will continue to raise directly with the Israeli Government our concerns, which are shared by all our EU partners, on Israeli policies and activities in the occupied territories, which are contrary to international law and which threaten to undermine a solution based on the coexistence of two viable states.
I continue to hope that the new Hamas Government will take seriously the clear messages from the EU and the international Quartet on the conditions for engagement with the international community. They have also received clear advice on the way forward from President Mahmoud Abbas, their Arab neighbours and in direct discussions with representatives of the governments of Russia and Turkey.
The Government, in common with our EU partners, strongly supports the requirement that the Hamas Government renounces violence, disarms, recognises Israel's right to exist and accepts existing agreements reached by negotiation between the PLO, the Palestinian Authority and Israel. If there is any evidence of a willingness to make progress on these steps, based unequivocally on the continued absence of violence, I will strongly urge a response from the EU. The meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council, which I will attend in Luxembourg next Monday, will further review developments.
I find one part of that answer truly extraordinary. I understand that Prime Minister Olmert is, in fact, speaking about a unilateral extension of the borders of Jerusalem further into the occupied area, east through the Jordan valley. It has nothing whatever to do with the Quartet or the roadmap for peace. What Mr. Olmert has announced is in flat rejection of what were called the Quartet's final stage talks. The Quartet spoke about dealing with east Jerusalem as the final stage. When 8,200 families were removed from Gaza last year, some 36,000 permissions were given illegally in the occupied territories.
This has led the second report of the Euro-Mediterranean network of human rights organisations, which includes human rights organisations on all sides of the Mediterranean, to draw a distinction between what it calls operative diplomacy and the declarative diplomacy of the European Union. It means that the EU issues statements that have no implications but accepts what are called practical arrangements or new realities.
No.
New realities are further illegal settlements. By accepting this language and these terms from Israel, the EU is undermining international humanitarian and human rights law. For the life of me, therefore, I cannot see how the EU is being of any assistance at all by accepting an alternative that has at its centre further illegal settlements in breach of international law and in flagrant breach of human rights law.
We all hope that Hamas, in turn, will take a political rather than a military direction. I agree entirely that it is urgent for it to do so. The flaw in what is happening, however, is that we in Europe will be presented with a reality in which the land will already have been spoken for. There is now no final stage in the Quartet talks. The land is already occupied.
In his initial statements, the acting Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Olmert, indicated that he looks forward to dealing with the Palestinians on the basis of negotiations. Through the EU, the Irish Government has always made it known strongly that the transfer by Israel of its own population into occupied territory is in breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The situation is that such transfers are illegal. The EU will accept nothing less than a return to the pre-1967 border situation.
I accept that the direction that has been taken by the Israeli authorities concerning the occupied territories and building the wall goes against the principles agreed in the roadmap. It also goes against the principles accepted by the international community on having a two state solution. Equally, however, there are questions to be answered by the Palestinians on whether Hamas is willing to accept democracy and the normal rules under which it would participate in a democracy. Getting a mandate in a democratic election brings with it responsibilities. As the Deputy knows with regard to our own experience, Hamas cannot be part of the democratic system if it still adheres to violence.
I have no difficulty with the Minister's statements on Hamas. However, while Israel has been in breach of human rights law and international humanitarian law, the decision of the European Union to enter into technical arrangements on customs co-operation and make an informal arrangement on research was a reward for breaking Article 2 of the basic agreement between Israel and the European Union. The European Union watched and saw clear breaches, offered no sanctions and stayed silent on the further occupation of the land, especially that which extends beyond east Jerusalem.
It was interesting that the Heads of Mission and representatives of various European countries prepared a report last October and November in which they appealed to their Heads of State to make a statement before it was too late on the further expansion of east Jerusalem. That is now a key situation. East Jerusalem has been expanded by an area one and a half times the size of Paris. Entire communities have been surrounded and it will effectively cut the occupied West Bank in two. What is left as a viable Palestinian state are three cantons, namely, Gaza and the north and south occupied West Bank. It is time to realise that what is being put at stake by these unilateral actions is the viability of the two state solution itself.
In answer to Deputy Michael D. Higgins, the EU could break off all discussions with Israel on the basis of what that country is doing. I fully accept what the Deputy stated about its extension into occupied territories. It is incumbent on the EU and the international community to exhort Israel. The comments made by acting Prime Minister, Mr. Olmert, and the non-violence so far of Hamas provide a possibility. It is accepted that the situation is very fraught and difficult. The coming weeks will tell a tale on how far——
A total of 100 or 120 Deputies are in favour of——
The Deputy should let me finish. He has got himself into a froth.
It is not correct to state the EU should break off relationships with Israel. A number of association agreements with Israel exist, as does the neighbourhood action plan. These allow us the authority to raise issues on the basis we are all on the one side in dealing with Israel through normal bilateral arrangements between a country such as Israel and the EU. They give us the authority to be able to dictate to Israel our view on what should happen regarding the occupied territories——
We have not dictated very much.
——and the wall. I do not think the Deputy suggests——
I do not suggest breaking off.
——we should in some way break off the normal type of other——
I do not suggest that.
The Deputy stated the EU entered into customs relationships——
I stated the human rights conditions in the treaty should be exercised. There is no evidence the Minister is doing so.
There is. The Deputy should check the record.
I have. There is no evidence the Minister is succeeding in any pressure.
I disagree with the Deputy.
39 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the steps he intends to take on illegal Irish immigrants in the United States; if this matter was raised by members of the Government at the St. Patrick’s Day celebrations in the White House; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13171/06]
40 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the contact being made with the US Administration on behalf of the undocumented Irish in the United States of America; the efforts being undertaken to urge support for key elements of the Kennedy-McCain Bill; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13299/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 39 and 40 together.
The Government attaches the highest priority to the welfare of the undocumented Irish in the United States, and takes every opportunity in contacts with US political leaders to emphasise the importance of addressing the matter in a constructive and sympathetic way. As Deputies are aware, the debate in the US on immigration reform has entered a critical stage. The St. Patrick's Day period provided the Government with an especially timely opportunity to make known our views on this matter and, in particular, our strong support for the approach favoured by Senators Kennedy and McCain. It was an opportunity we availed of to the full in our meetings with President Bush, his Administration and key figures on Capitol Hill. President Bush was appreciative of our position and he helpfully reiterated to us his support for a broad approach which involves reform as well as enforcement, an approach he subsequently emphasised again in speeches later in the month.
The Taoiseach and I had a series of valuable meetings with members of Congress. In each of these meetings we gave particular prominence to our views on the issue of the undocumented Irish and the need to address the situation. We were particularly pleased to have the opportunity again to thank Senators Kennedy and McCain for their leadership on this issue. For their part they are warmly appreciative of the Government's support and that of the Oireachtas for their efforts.
The engagement of the Government is complemented most effectively by the significant mobilisation of the Irish community in the US on this issue. In this regard, the Taoiseach and I had a valuable discussion with Niall O'Dowd and Grant Lally of the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform, ILIR. I commend the work of the ILIR which has had a significant impact on the debate in Washington and elsewhere in the US and whose work I have been pleased to support financially. We agreed to remain in close contact as the legislative process in Washington progresses.
Since our St. Patrick's Day visit, there has been a positive development with the passage through the Senate Judiciary Committee of a comprehensive immigration reform Bill which includes key elements of the approach favoured by Senators Kennedy and McCain. I consider this to be a significant development and warmly welcome it. However, it remains clear that reaching consensus on this sensitive and divisive issue presents US legislators with a formidable challenge. Consideration of this matter has moved to the floor of the full Senate where a debate began on Wednesday last, 29 March.
The Government will continue to monitor the ongoing debate closely and emphasise our strong support for the regularisation of the status of the undocumented Irish in the US. In this regard, I warmly welcome last week's visit of the Chairman and members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs to Washington.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Have a substantial number of Republican Senators and members of the House of Representatives expressed concern about the idea of an amnesty for those they consider illegal? I know the Minister lobbied the President of the United States and certain Senators. Has the Minister lobbied those members of the Republican Party who appear to be recalcitrant? How effective was the lobbying campaign carried out by Niall O'Dowd and others? Is there a sense that the Minister is inhibited by his lobbying efforts from raising other important matters such as extraordinary renditions, Guantanamo Bay and the war in Iraq because he wants to deal with this issue in a comprehensive way and is trying to express his concerns about the undocumented Irish? Do these concerns inhibit the Minister from raising other issues?
They do not. During our meeting with President Bush on St. Patrick's Day we spent more time discussing other issues than the undocumented Irish. We know the President's position on the undocumented Irish. I understand from our contacts that he was very helpful this week in trying to progress the debate positively. He clearly stated the Administration and Congress would not wear an amnesty. We are progressing to a situation where the lobby on behalf of the Kennedy-McCain legislation, which includes an element of providing people with an opportunity to have a path to what is termed permanent residency, has come from the Senate Judiciary Committee to the floor of the Senate. In recent days we had discussions with Senators Kennedy and McCain on its possibility of succeeding in the Senate.
A suggestion was made that I might travel there this week because it is approaching its final position. However, a judgment was made that the best time for me to travel, and I intend to do so if the need arises, is at the reconciliation stage, which is the term used when the Bill has already gone through Congress, of the Sensenbrenner Bill on border security. We had previous discussions on this issue.
What emerged from the Senate Judiciary Committee is not exactly the Kennedy McCain legislation. However, it is critical to get that legislation passed by the Senate so that it will go to the reconciliation stage. We lobbied many people on all sides. I reiterate my understanding that this week President Bush has been more than helpful in trying to steer some of the people in his party to a view that this matter should and could be dealt with. I exhorted the Irish representatives to form a proper group to lobby the public representatives, and we fund the resulting group. I did this because in the early stages of lobbying we heard that Irish people were not exactly hammering down the doors of the Congressmen and public representatives on this issue. The formation of the lobby group and the rally it held engendered other groups. A crowd of 500,000 congregated, mainly Hispanic people which has largely turned the tide.
The Minister spoke about consensus and reconciliation and I agree almost totally with his analysis that the Senate faces a major task in addressing the report of the judiciary committee. I fear, however, that it may get through the Senate before the Easter recess but the House of Representatives will be the main stumbling block. I hope what emerges from the process will reflect the efforts of all sides of the political spectrum here and that it will be positive for the 40,000 or 50,000 Irish people in the United States.
A group from Fine Gael visited last year and the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs visited in June. I was a member of that group, and Deputy Michael Higgins was a member of the group that visited last week. The Minister and the Taoiseach were there for St. Patrick's Day.
The Minister's words of consensus and reconciliation are limited. On my return from the United States last Friday as I caught up with the news in the local papers I saw an article headed "My Fight for the Lost Irish in America", written by the Minister. The Minister argues that there should be all-party support for this valid cause but the political bile, hatred, nastiness, untruths and divisiveness displayed in that article did no credit to him, his Department or the cause we all serve. All parties in the House are united on this issue and supported a motion in favour of it. I ask the Minister to retract the untruths in that article which rubbished the efforts of the Opposition.
The Opposition may not have the expertise and back-up of the army of civil servants available to the Minister but we have gone to the United States at some personal cost and loss of time.
I will not retract anything in that article. I too am a political animal and I will portray my side on this issue.
The Minister is engaging in the politics of desperation.
My record on the issue of undocumented Irish people, whether I have civil servants or not, is second to none.
Self-praise is no praise.
The Deputy refers to the reconciliation stage, as it is called, which covers reconciling the two Bills.
I know what it is all about.
I would be happy to go again to the United States, probably for the tenth time in 12 months, to lobby on this issue. I will not hide my light under any bushel in respect of the lobbying I and my party colleagues have done.
The Minister should not hide any other party's light.
Fine Gael is not the only one. I acknowledge that it is vital to have all-party approval on this matter and have given credit to the Deputy and his party leader in my speeches and discussions in America.
I will not withdraw anything in that article because I am a political animal and like anyone else will sell the point for which I and my party have been responsible.
The Minister may be a political animal but there should be united purpose and the sort of rubbish that someone in the Department may have written and the Minister may not have seen——
I saw it.
It was ill-timed, ill-conceived and inappropriate. It has degraded the Minister and his Department.
Now that we have raised this issue, that article answers the effort——
The Minister should be more magnanimous. We went to the United States last year at our own expense. We did not have a Government jet. We went at our own expense. I still have the receipts.
The Deputy should have some manners.
It cost us several thousand euro. The Minister is a Johnny-come-lately. There was no word this time last year on that side of the House about the undocumented Irish.
The Deputy should let me answer.
Deputies Connaughton, Ring, Coveney and McGinley went out there last year.
Will the Deputy allow me to answer?
We went at our own expense, not at the taxpayers' expense. We did not travel at the expense of Seán Citizen. We heard no word of the Minister there.
When we were in Washington recently the Deputy and his party——
We were there last May.
——and the Labour Party published a document which I answered regarding the incorrect direction which the two parties wish to take.
The Minister spoke about political patronage which is untrue.
They want to set up another quango which will not be responsible to this House.
How many quangos has the Minister set up?
It would cost approximately €1 million. The Department has already set up the Irish Abroad unit which is responsible to this House.
The Minister has changed the name of one body three times.
This organisation disseminates much-needed money to groups in the United Kingdom and in America and elsewhere. Deputy Allen's party and the Labour Party proposed to spend some of that money setting up an independent quango which would not be responsible to this House. It was to that I referred.
The Minister is engaging in the politics of desperation. He is a disgrace.
The Minister has indicated that he may go to the United States at the reconciliation stage. We need a reconciliation stage in this House before he goes. It might be a good idea if, instead of going on his own, he brought Members of all parties because after all he has recognised that all parties supported that motion in this House. Is he open to the idea of taking an all-party delegation to the United States?
I would have no problem with that, but there have been all-party delegations from the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Will the Minister do that?
If the committee wishes to go again I would have no problem with that.
Does the Minister support that recommendation?
It would complement my efforts and those of my officials and the embassies.
We got on very well there last week. We made real progress on behalf of the 11 million people.
Absolutely. We encouraged the committee in that work.
The Minister is rewriting My Fight for Irish Freedom.
That was by Dan Breen, God rest him. He did something.
I did not know Deputy Allen was so sensitive. I am delighted to see that he reads our propaganda.
It is propaganda.
It is black propaganda.
Deputy Michael Higgins was propagandising at the weekend. I was listening to some of the ráiméis that came out of him about benchmarking and the conscience of the people within this so-called arrangement. We noted that the leader of the Labour Party did not once mention Northern Ireland.
He did not do too badly.
Question No. 41 answered with QuestionNo. 37.
