Enda Kenny
Question:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the costs which have accrued to his Department in respect of the MacEntee commission of investigation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28203/06]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Dublin-Monaghan Bombings.
Enda Kenny
Question:2 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he next expects to receive a report from the MacEntee inquiry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28204/06]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:3 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the position in regard to the MacEntee commission of investigation into aspects of the 1974 Dublin and Monaghan bombings; if he is satisfied that the new deadline of 31 October 2006 for completion of the final report will be met; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28368/06]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:4 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he has received the report from Mr. Patrick MacEntee SC regarding the Garda investigation of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of 1974; the action to be taken in view of this report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28461/06]
Joe Higgins
Question:5 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach when he expects to receive the final report of the commission of investigation into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of 1974. [29233/06]
Trevor Sargent
Question:6 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the progress of the investigation into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30639/06]
Trevor Sargent
Question:7 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on recent contacts with the British Government regarding the Dublin and Monaghan bombings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30640/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive, together.
In accordance with the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, which considered the Barron report on the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, the Government appointed Mr. Patrick MacEntee SC as sole member of a commission of investigation to examine specific matters relating to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of 1974, including aspects of the Garda investigation and missing documentation. The appointment was made on 26 April 2005. The amount spent by the commission of investigation to date is €1,822,266, of which €1,155,223 has been spent on legal costs, with the balance of €667,043 going towards the cost of support staff and the administrative cost of the offices of the commission. These costs are well below those associated with a tribunal of inquiry.
I have granted five extensions to the timeframe for the completion of the report from the original date of 14 November 2005. The most recent extension was until 31 October 2006. I have published the five interim reports provided by Mr. MacEntee as required by the legislation and placed copies in the Oireachtas Library.
Yesterday, Mr. MacEntee met officials from my Department, at his request, to discuss administrative arrangements for the completion of his work and publication of the report. In the course of that meeting, he indicated he is likely to seek a further extension. The period of that extension is not yet known. However, he indicated it may be up to six weeks. Both he and I are conscious of the importance, if at all possible, of the report being available while the House is sitting. I expect to receive a formal written request for an extension and a further interim report later this week. I will know the full reasons for the requested extension at that time.
I understand that Mr. MacEntee has completed his investigations and that this further period is required to deal with the final arrangements which the commission is obliged to comply with under the Commissions of Investigation Act. Subject to formal consideration of the matter when I receive a written request and further interim report I am minded to grant that extension once it has been requested. As with all previous interim reports, I will bring it to the attention of the Government and then publish it.
I acknowledge that waiting a further period before the final report is available is difficult for the victims and survivors of these terrible atrocities. Nonetheless, I believe they will agree on the importance of Mr. MacEntee being allowed sufficient time to properly consider and deal with the conclusion of the work of the commission.
I acknowledge the work which Mr. MacEntee has done to date. I am not, of course, in a position to comment on his ongoing work as he is independent.
The Government has been using all appropriate means in its efforts to ensure co-operation from the British Government on this matter. I have raised it with the Prime Minister on a number of occasions and it is frequently raised by senior officials in their contacts. It is clear from his earlier interim reports that Mr. MacEntee has received some co-operation from the British Government and I welcome that development.
On the last occasion the Taoiseach answered questions on this subject, we were happy to agree to an extension and it is obvious that Mr. MacEntee has his own reasons for this. Will the Taoiseach indicate why on the last occasion when an extension was sought and granted, that was expected to be the end of the procedure? Has some other issue arisen? Has there been some difficulty in acquiring answers to questions or information which necessitates a further extension now sought by Mr. MacEntee? It is a very important report and we would like to see it concluded in as full a form as possible.
Have the victims and the groups associated with the victims been notified or are they being notified that there will be a further extension required? When that is over and when the report has been agreed by Cabinet, will the Taoiseach ensure a sufficient lead-in time for the victims and the organisations supporting them to have the report and its findings before it is made public?
I undertake to do so, as has been the case with all such reports. I will consult the representatives of the victims' groups and ensure they receive the report in due time. I am not privy to precisely what Mr. MacEntee will report on. I understand from my officials who met him yesterday that his investigative work is completed. He has received quite a lot of co-operation and has followed a lot of new lines. The information available to my officials is limited but he seems to have moved in both aspects of the report. His mission consisted of two issues: to examine the issue of policing and the missing files and equally important, to examine the issues of various people seen in different locations and the various leads that resulted from Mr. Justice Barron's report. I am informed by British sources and by the Secretary of State that there has been quite an engagement on these issues. It is probable there are many legal issues to do with how these matters are dealt with but this is a matter for Mr. MacEntee.
I also know, as I told the House many months ago, he is anxious, for his own reasons, to get this finished. He is not interested in extensions of other work from the committee to do with other cases. He wants to see this work through but is not interested in continuing on to other aspects of the Barron reports. He is working on this mainly on his own but with a small team. I was advised this morning that he will seek a further extension and I am due to receive that letter in the next few days.
Arising from what the Taoiseach has said, has he formed any view or did Mr. MacEntee communicate any view in terms of whether he is satisfied with the co-operation he received from the British authorities? The Taoiseach referred in passing to the number of occasions he raised this matter directly with the British Prime Minister. Will he outline to the House, apart from the delicate issue of how the findings will be communicated to relatives and interested families, how he will purport that the report, when it comes to hand, will be put into the public domain? Am I correct in assuming that, while Mr. MacEntee may make findings of fact, in so far as he can establish them, he is precluded by the legislation from making recommendations? Is that the position?
It is my intention to publish the report as soon as possible after it is received. I am required by law to consider certain issues prior to publication. This is likely to involve legal advice from the Attorney General and I have to submit it to the Cabinet for publication. As in the case of other reports, the timescale involved between receipt and publication of reports is impossible to estimate because of the legal arguments that arise every time mainly about publishing names.
It may not be published this year.
It depends on what is in the report and how Mr. MacEntee presents it, but I certainly wish to publish the report as quickly as possible because we have to put it into the committee. The House must be sitting when we publish the report. As I understand it, Mr. MacEntee can make recommendations. On the point I made about the British Government, I think there has been co-operation because Mr. MacEntee said the British side has been co-operating. How the information he has got can be legally used is the issue. There are a whole lot of intricacies involved but we will have to wait and see. In all these reports the difficulty arises when it comes to statements of fact and information. The use of names of people who are still alive, or their families, is the continual difficulty that arises.
In light of what the Taoiseach said to Deputy Kenny, without pre-empting the letter he is due to receive from Mr. MacEntee, is it anticipated that the further extension will be towards the end of 2006 or beyond? Is there an indication of what the time period may be for the final phase of the work? On his reply to Deputy Rabbitte, there was a phrase in the last progress report where Mr. MacEntee talked about the disclosure of sensitive material to the commission for the purposes of the investigation from persons, agencies and entities and that that would involve careful consideration. Obviously this has an impact on the final report. At this stage has the Taoiseach an indication of the number of people who were involved in this process and how it might compromise the final report of the MacEntee commission?
This is the first such commission set up under the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 and its first year of operation has run a cost of €1.73 million. As this is the first practical experience of this type of commission, does the Taoiseach have an opinion as to whether it compares favourably with other such entities? Does it represent appropriate value for money?
As regards timing, I know that Mr. MacEntee would like to wrap up this work on the important aspects that were referred to him. Obviously, he wants to bring it to a successful conclusion following the work of the Hamilton and Barron inquires as well as the work of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. He has done a lot of work and brought the inquiry to a stage beyond that dealt with by Hamilton and Barron. There are legal complexities in dealing with these important issues which date from a long time ago.
The costs involved are not large compared to other tribunals or commissions. In fairness, it is one of the most difficult inquiries because it is dealing with matters that occurred over 30 years ago. It has been trying to piece together data and seek information through the British Government system, so it is far more complex than the normal work of an inquiry would be.
Has the Taoiseach decided how the report will be dealt with when published? Will there be public hearings on the report? Will Mr. MacEntee be able to appear before a joint committee in order to respond to questions on the report? Has that matter been considered or will we have to wait until the report is published? Does the Taoiseach recall that the central demand of the survivors and the bereaved relatives of those who died in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings has always been for a statutory inquiry? Does he also recall that this House unanimously sought an inquiry by the British Government into the murder of Pat Finucane? In that regard, would the Taoiseach acknowledge that——
The Deputy is moving away from the substance of these questions.
It is a related question. Does the Taoiseach acknowledge that the Government's proposals in the tribunals of inquiries Bill——
The Deputy will have to stay within the confines of the seven questions before us.
——would give new powers to Ministers to close down inquiries and censor reports such as the MacEntee commission's report? Hopefully, that will never happen but Ministers would have those powers in the future, which would undermine the demands from Justice for the Forgotten for full disclosure.
For many decades nothing happened on all of these matters. In recent years, however, we have worked through Mr. Justice Hamilton, Mr. Justice Barron, the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights and, currently, the Commissions of Investigation Act to obtain and make available as much detail as we can from the British system, the Northern Ireland Office and the Garda Síochána. As I have done with all these reports, it is my intention to place the MacEntee report in the Oireachtas Library and furnish a copy to the committee that has dealt with these matters for a number of years. It will be for the committee to see how these matters will be progressed. Given the holistic approach to this and other reports, we have succeeded in throwing more light on issues about which almost no factual information was in the public domain up to now. The Commissions of Investigation Act allows us to deal with such issues.
As regards the Finucane case, we have not changed our position; we continue to seek an inquiry by the British Government into that matter. The British legislation is different from ours because it allows a Minister to engage with, become directly involved in and limit information. Our Act does not do so.
Tribunals of Inquiry.
Enda Kenny
Question:8 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the costs which have accrued to date to his Department in respect of the Moriarty tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28205/06]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:9 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the cost incurred to date by his Department arising from the Moriarty tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30874/06]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:10 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he or his Department has received any recent communication from the Moriarty tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30875/06]
Trevor Sargent
Question:11 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he has recently received communications from the Moriarty tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33617/06]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:12 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he or his Department have received communications from the Moriarty tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34470/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 to 12, inclusive, together.
The total cost incurred by my Department in respect of the Moriarty tribunal from 1997 until 30 September 2006 is €25,232,028. This includes fees paid to counsel for the tribunal and administration costs incurred since its establishment. The total payments made to the legal team were €19,310,119 by 30 September 2006.
The administration costs for the Moriarty tribunal, including counsel fees, are met from the Vote of the Department of the Taoiseach. Issues in this regard which may be raised occasionally by officers of the tribunal are dealt with in the normal course of business by my Department. From time to time, there have been requests by the tribunal for records and files and my Department has submitted these. It will continue to co-operate with the tribunal in making available any records sought. Normally, these requests are received by the Secretary General and assigned by him to the appropriate departmental official. All requests are dealt with on a highly confidential basis, as is required by the tribunal.
I have to hand a reply to a recent parliamentary question which sets out some of the costs associated with tribunals, including €58 million for the ongoing Mahon tribunal, €26.2 million for the ongoing Morris tribunal, €25.2 million for the ongoing Moriarty tribunal and €10 million for the Barr tribunal. What is the position in respect of the ending of the Moriarty tribunal? Has an end date been projected? What scale of fees is being applied? Are the increased fees approved some time ago by the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform being paid?
In the midst of the recent controversy to which the Taoiseach was central, the Tánaiste stated: "some of the people there [in the Dáil] today will have a lot of answering to do in a couple of months' time when the second report of the Moriarty tribunal is published."
Sorry, Deputy, under Standing Order 56, we cannot discuss in this House the content of the tribunal, what may be in it or who is named in it.
Did I discuss the content of the tribunal?
The Deputy was discussing comments which were made about persons at the tribunal.
No, I did not discuss the content of the tribunal because I do not know it.
However, the Deputy is quoting what somebody said about it.
In the House by a Minister.
This is the deputy leader of the Government.
A question has been put down on the matter.
However, this is not the subject of the question. It is important that we are clear on these questions.
If the Ceann Comhairle will allow me to ask my question, I have been very careful in addressing——
Standing Order 56 governs behaviour in this House and it applies to all Members.
The Ceann Comhairle might address that to the Tánaiste when he comes in.
It falls to the Ceann Comhairle to ensure that Standing Orders are respected.
I always obey the rulings of the Ceann Comhairle and I was very careful in phrasing my question to the Taoiseach. This is a case in which the Tánaiste——
That does not arise out of any of these questions.
It does arise. Question No. 10 inquires whether the Taoiseach or his Department has received any recent communication from the Moriarty tribunal and if he will make a statement on the matter. Let me put my question to the Taoiseach.
I ask the Deputy to first listen to the Chair. I remind Members that the Taoiseach replies to parliamentary questions on public affairs and matters of administration pertaining to his Department. He is not required or responsible to reply in respect of any interaction with a tribunal as an individual, as party leader or in his capacity as a member of a previous Government. In addition, under Standing Order 56, Members should not stray into the business of the tribunal.
I agree with the Ceann Comhairle.
Discussions on what any person might have said at the tribunal or what may arise from the tribunal in regard to any Member of this House are not appropriate.
I agree with the Ceann Comhairle. I am not going to stray into that area. I am referring to the comments made by the Tánaiste outside the House with regard to the workings and content of the tribunal, that certain people in here will feel the heat when the tribunal's report is published. While I know nothing of this, obviously the deputy leader of the Government does. Has the Taoiseach received any communication from the Moriarty tribunal giving some indication that the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform knows the report's contents, knows when it will be published and knows that persons in this House "will have a lot of answering to do"? The Moriarty tribunal has not yet produced a first or second report. I understand the Taoiseach has a very close, warm and friendly relationship with the Tánaiste. I know he does not read the files from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. However, I know that in the past the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has been prone to removing some pages from departmental files containing certain information.
I will deal with the questions in so far as I can. The end date for the Moriarty tribunal is, for the applicability of proposed new costs structures to the existing tribunals or Moriarty tribunal, end 2007, because that was the date given back at that stage. As I reported to the House previously, there were to be two reports, one in autumn and one in January. That is still my information — I do not have any new information. I have no idea whatsoever and I have not been given any previews of the first report, not to mind the second report; I do not believe anybody else has either, for what it is worth.
Was he bluffing?
On the other question, there were issues of fees for the other tribunals. The Morris tribunal date was the end of October 2007 and the Mahon tribunal was 31 March 2007. The Bill provides for the making of regulations that will apply the new schedule of fees to these tribunals. I believe that covers the Deputy's question.
The Taoiseach has said that lawyers' fees in this particular tribunal total €19 million so far, with a total cost to the State of approximately €25 million. Has anybody in the Department, who is in contact with the tribunal, done any calculation of what is likely to be coming down the tracks in terms of costs? Is anybody making a stab at third-party costs? When the Taoiseach states that the cost is €25 million, it is sometimes misunderstood that that is the total cost. Deputy Kenny made passing reference to the costs of other tribunals and again the figure is taken to refer to total costs. However, I understand it is only the cost to the State to date, the cost of State's counsel etc. Has anybody tried to calculate the possible position?
I revert to my Question No. 10, with which the Taoiseach failed to deal in his opening reply. In his latter reply to Deputy Kenny is he stating that he has received no communication from the Moriarty tribunal about a first or second report? The implication of what the Tánaiste said was that, as a named person, the Taoiseach might well have got sight of a concluded or about to be concluded report and that the Tánaiste caught sight of it. I do not know how the Tánaiste would like to be compared to the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy. They are of similar age, height——
Looks.
——and, in my view, ability etc. However, could it be that the Tánaiste was bluffing? I ask the Taoiseach to clarify this point, because for obvious reasons it is important that we should know.
On the first question, to the end of August 2006, the total cost to the Exchequer of completed and sitting tribunals of inquiry and other public inquiries was €263,836,000. Of this, €188,907,000 was in respect of legal costs and €74,929,000 related to other costs. The figure for legal costs includes €75,444,000 in respect of third party legal costs awarded to date. The Deputy is correct in assuming that is only the figure awarded. We do not have an estimation of what could be the total cost.
On the tribunals of inquiry and public inquiries sitting at present, the total cost to the end of August 2006 is €167,169,000, of which €104,323,000 is in respect of legal costs. Of this sum, €11,611,000 relates to third party legal costs. The latter figure serves to answer the Deputy's question. At the end, there would obviously be a substantial claim of third party costs.
On the second question, I have no idea about the substance of the first or second Moriarty reports. Obviously some of the issues that might relate to my Department in the normal way would involve consultation, but they are very limited issues and do not shed light on the substance of the broad issues of the reports. I frankly have absolutely no idea what would be in those reports.
Having regard to the import of the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform going around muttering darkly about the conclusions of a Moriarty report, would it not be even-handed that Mr. Justice Moriarty should require him to appear before him?
It is not a matter for this House to decide what the sole member should do in any tribunal.
Would there not be a lot of common sense in——
We are straying away from the questions before us.
——bringing the Minister, Deputy McDowell, before the Moriarty tribunal——
It is not a matter for this House.
——to justify his allegation?
It is not a matter for this House and does not arise out of these questions.
It does not arise. I will accept the Chair's ruling.
Three of the five questions before the Taoiseach on this matter deal with whether he has received communication recently from the Moriarty tribunal. I have not heard him respond to that question. I know he is a very busy man but he must have the opportunity to check his post from time to time. If he could answer the question directly, I would appreciate it, as would Deputy Sargent.
On the costs, the Government has made at least three attempts over the past two and a half years to reduce barristers' fees at the tribunals from the daily rate of €2,500 to €900. It was first mooted by the former Minister for Finance, now European Commissioner, in July 2004 and was abandoned by the Government in September 2004. The Taoiseach raised the matter again in September 2005 and said that if the tribunal had not completed its work by the end of June 2006, the reduced fees would apply, yet the Government, having requested a reduction for the third time, has, as of the start of July, maintained the existing fees for barristers at all the long-standing tribunals and that will remain the position until they complete their work.
Will the Taoiseach explain why the Government, having raised this issue on a number of occasions and sought to reduce the cost, which in the case of the Moriarty tribunal seems to amount to €19 million of a total of €25 million, has not pursued the matter? If the Government had achieved what it said it would achieve in July 2004, how much would have been saved in the two and a half years since then?
I thought I answered the first question on two occasions. We have had no information in the form of drafts or otherwise on the substance or substantial issues of the first or second Moriarty tribunal reports. There would be some limited issues in my Department and we would only have had reference to them. They would have been very minor. They would not have had anything to do with the substantive issues.
A number of years ago, when seven or eight tribunals were ongoing, the Minister for Finance and the Attorney General communicated with the chairs of all the tribunals about end dates, modules and all those issues. The dates which were agreed then were subsequently moved following consultation with the Attorney General and various Ministers with responsibility for certain matters. The end dates I have mentioned were the end of January 2007 for the Moriarty tribunal, the end of October 2007 for the Morris tribunal and the end of March 2007 for the Mahon tribunal. It was proposed that those new dates would apply.
It was also agreed that the set fee to be paid to a senior counsel would be based on the current annual salary of a High Court judge, plus 20% in respect of pension contributions, with related payments to be made to other legal staff, including barristers and solicitors. I will give details of the specific annual remuneration packages in 2005. Senior counsel received €221,708 per annum, or €1,008 per day. Junior counsel received €147,806 per annum, or €672 per day, which is two thirds of the senior counsel rate. Solicitors received €176,000 per annum, or €800 per day, for appearance or €100 per hour for work undertaken other than appearing at tribunals. I am advised that the new measures will drastically reduce the legal costs of new tribunals of inquiry and will reduce the costs of existing tribunals of inquiry from the future dates I have mentioned.
The surplus will be gone.
We will have to have a flag day for them.
The new rates represent less than 40% of the maximum current rates paid to tribunals of inquiry. They give an indication of the potential savings arising in the future.
I heard the Taoiseach mention annual remuneration packages. Has he been informed of a timescale for the conclusion of the Moriarty tribunal? Will several remuneration packages be needed before it is concluded? The Taoiseach stated previously that his party was awaiting the outcome of the Moriarty tribunal to find out what happened to some €500,000 that was allegedly donated to the party, but was never passed on. Is that still the case? Has the Taoiseach's party made any attempts to recover that money? Is it still acting on the advice that it cannot do so until the tribunal ends?
I have mentioned the dates. The relevant dates are the end of January 2007 for the Moriarty tribunal, the end of October 2007 for the Morris tribunal and the end of March for the Mahon tribunal. It is obvious that we will have to await the outcome of the tribunals before we can deal with other outstanding issues.
National Security Committee.
Enda Kenny
Question:13 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when the interdepartmental group established to monitor the threat of a terrorist attack will next meet; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28209/06]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:14 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the membership of the National Security Committee; the number of times it met since July 2006; the number of meetings planned for the remainder of 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28324/06]
Joe Higgins
Question:15 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach when the National Security Committee last met; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29230/06]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:16 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach when the National Security Committee last met; when the next meeting will be held; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30876/06]
Trevor Sargent
Question:17 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the composition of the National Security Committee; when it last met; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34118/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 13 to 17, inclusive, together.
As the work of the National Security Committee is confidential, it would not be appropriate for me to disclose information about the dates of its meetings and proceedings. The committee, which is chaired by the Secretary General to the Government, comprises representatives at the highest level from the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Defence and Foreign Affairs, and the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces. It is concerned with ensuring the Government and I are advised of high level security issues and the responses to them, but not operational security matters. The committee will continue to meet as required. As well as attending meetings, the members of the committee liaise on an ongoing basis to monitor developments which might have national security implications, particularly in the international arena.
It is obvious that yesterday's report that up to six Islamic terrorist cells were operating in Ireland in 2003 is quite disturbing. The groups in question were delivering financial and logistical support to terrorist groups abroad. We have raised this matter in the House on a number of occasions. If I recall correctly, the Taoiseach said on one occasion that members associated with al-Qaeda were being watched, or being kept under some sort of observation, here in Dublin. Was the Taoiseach or the Government given briefings on this matter by the US Government? If the Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, or homeland security representatives were aware of Islamic terrorist groups operating throughout the world they would have evidence relating to Ireland.
How did this information come into the public domain? Did it come to the Garda or Army via American security sources? When such information is passed on to Government does the Garda, for instance, have control over whether it becomes declassified?
Can the Taoiseach assure the House, as far as he can, that there are no Islamic terrorist cells operating in the country? Does the Taoiseach have security information on such matters and is he satisfied that there are no such clandestine cells operating here, delivering logistical and financial support to international terrorist groups?
A Taliban commander on Sky News last night said his organisation intends to wreak havoc on the families of those in the West who had destroyed the families of Taliban members. Can the Taoiseach give some reassurance in this regard?
Deputy Kenny will recall that after the events of September 2001 I mentioned on a number of occasions that the Garda was involved in operational matters relating to a small number of suspects linked to al-Qaeda. This is what has emanated from these reports which suggest there were six units associated with Islamic terrorist organisations active here. These units were described as logistical and financial cells giving operational support.
It is the responsibility of embassies around the world to inquire and report on matters of interest to their authorities. I am aware of recent media coverage of the assessment report of 2003 by the US embassy in Dublin and this assessment was based on information, gleaned mainly from Garda sources, relating to Islamic terrorist organisations. I do not wish to comment on these reports but I understand the information was supplied by the Garda and recycled.
More importantly, the monitoring and investigation of any groups suspected of engaging in or associating with terrorism is an operational matter for the Garda. I am satisfied the Garda is vigilant in fully meeting this responsibility and has reported to us, from time to time, on small groups and individuals that are being monitored. Deputies will appreciate it is not possible to address in the House the methods and strategies employed by the security services in countering such risks. There is very close co-operation between agencies dealing with security matters and the necessary resources are supplied for this purpose. Much information is gained through Europol, Interpol and the international agencies.
Thankfully the units in Ireland linked with Islamic terrorist organisations are small in number; I would not like them to be associated in any way with the Islamic community in the country and I recognise that this has not been suggested. The Islamic community in Ireland has been very responsive and co-operative in dealing with such matters and the Government and security services are always confident of the support of the Irish Islamic community in its commitment to countering activities related to terrorism. The few who are watched closely usually move into the international domain, though they do exist.
Does the Taoiseach agree there is a certain irony in that this information was secured under American freedom of information legislation and it is not something that could happen in this jurisdiction? Accepting what the Taoiseach said about the responsibility demonstrated by the Muslim community, does the Garda believe these groups still operate here? Can the Taoiseach tell us anything about the current assessment of the risk, if any, posed as a consequence?
This report was presented in such a way as to suggest there were six units associated with Islamic terrorist organisations in operation. I did not see the full text of the documents, but one would think it referred to six active cells. However, on further reading one will find that it referred to people who showed operational support. It refers mainly to logistical and financial support and to a limited number of people who move around. This is not what the reports suggested. The manner is which this was reported and the response it got shows the danger of releasing such information.
As I understand it, a small number of people are closely watched and monitored. These are considered to be highly classified people that come and go from this country.