Enda Kenny
Question:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the allocations in the Book of Estimates for 2007 in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39990/06]
Ceisteanna — Questions (Resumed).
Departmental Estimates.
Pat Rabbitte
Question:2 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the Estimate for 2007 for his Department. [41242/06]
Trevor Sargent
Question:3 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the Book of Estimates for 2007 for his Department. [41357/06]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:4 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his Department’s allocation in the Book of Estimates 2007. [42390/06]
Joe Higgins
Question:5 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the Estimate for 2007 for his Department. [42776/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.
The total allocation for my Department for 2007 is €40.624 million. This is an increase of 8% — €3.026 million — on the 2006 Revised Estimates allocation. Details of the Estimates are set out in the Abridged Estimates for the Public Service, which were presented to the Dáil on 16 November last.
I look forward to addressing specific issues relating to the Estimates provisions when they are considered in the usual way by the Select Committee on Finance and the Public Service. I also look forward to responding to questions which Deputies may wish to table separately in relation to specific aspects of the work of my Department.
In the context of the draft European Union constitution, what allocation has been made in respect of the National Forum on Europe? How will the forum's programme unfold during 2007? Does the Taoiseach envisage the holding of a series of public meetings throughout the country to allow the forum to engage with organisations and individuals in respect of its work, particularly as it relates to the draft constitution?
What allocations have been made to the National Economic and Social Development Office, the National Economic and Social Council, NESC, the National Economic and Social Forum, NESF, and the National Centre for Partnership and Performance? Will the Taoiseach indicate how he sees their programmes unfolding this year?
I will answer the Deputy's second tranche of questions first. Last year, legislation was introduced to establish the National Economic and Social Development Office, NESDO, as the umbrella organisation to co-ordinate the work of NESC, NESF and NCPP and to create and realise synergies between the work of these bodies. Accordingly, from now on a single funding provision for these bodies will be included in the Estimates under subhead B. The allocation for NESC is €1.116 million, while it is €880,000 for NESF and €1.62 million for NCPP. The allocation for NESDO is €1.937 million. The increase in funding across the four bodies is approximately 10%, which reflects increased operating costs. Some of the latter obviously relate to pay but many of them relate to activities in 2007. By coming together and using only one premises and secretariat, many efficiencies have been created.
The Estimate includes a provision of €1.621 million to provide for the ongoing work of the National Forum on Europe. The increase in funding reflects the expanded and increased levels of activity on the forum's part. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the day-to-day operations of the forum because it operates independently. However, there are resources available for the forum to continue and expand its work. The Deputy will be aware, from contacts with his group in Europe, that considerable momentum has been created by the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, in terms of pressing on with the constitution and moving towards a declaration in March.
The pro-constitution lobby has activated itself over recent weeks, with a meeting in Madrid next week. Much of that will be decided by the EU Presidency which will support strongly various amendments to the constitution. It is working wisely in streamlining some issues, while not changing them, placing them in separate annexes. That should create a position where those member states which have not previously ratified the constitution may do so. They may do so by parliamentary vote, which is a position we do not have. Realistically, such a process will not be in 2007 but in 2008, but the referendum on the EU constitution will be back on the table this year. The German Presidency will provide a blueprint on how to take it forward and, to build on that in the second half of the year, the National Forum on Europe should activate itself.
As there are a couple of dozen questions on Northern Ireland and we will not have much time to deal with them, I will defer on this question.
It is highly unlikely that we will come to questions on Northern Ireland today.
My colleagues may have a similar view.
There is one heading that briefly deals with Northern Ireland in so far as it applies to the Taoiseach's Department. To what does the heading, value for money on policy reviews, refer? It was not provided for last year but received €26,000 this year. How does that coincide with value for money? Funding for the information society, e-Cabinet and other initiatives has been reduced by 48%. Does that mean it is finished or that there is less focus on it?
One aspect discussed at the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation was the need to move beyond the main political parties and establish a civic forum. Hopefully, with the Assembly elections in the offing, we can reach that point in dealing with wider society. Does this fall under the remit of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation and is it provided for in the Estimates?
I note in the Oireachtas buildings that recycled paper is no longer provided for photocopying. Is that a directive from on high? Does the Taoiseach endorse this? Leadership from the Department of the Taoiseach would be critical if we were to have the market for recycled products which we claim we want in the House.
The Department of Finance is responsible for that.
I will ask my Department about the recycled products matter. I thought we were using recycled products.
So did I.
We certainly were using recycled products, but I will check it.
The e-Cabinet project is reaching a conclusion. Only minor areas of work need to be undertaken in 2007, associated with the full roll-out and upgrade of certain functions of the system. The system is up and running and the costs have been expended. Future costs will be small.
There is only a small provision to keep the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation subhead alive in the event that it may have further meetings, but no meetings are envisaged in the foreseeable future. The civic forum model is not included in that subhead. I support moving to the civic forum model and made clear throughout the discussions that we are ready to move on that. It would be an enlightened road for us to take, with wider community involvement. If we can achieve stability in the political situation, I hope we can get the civic forum moving. We will play our part in assisting that.
There are new proposals, which the Minister for Finance outlined, where all Departments must show their outputs to ensure they are getting value for money. This must be presented in a format outlined by the Minister in the last two budgets. The value for money subhead refers to work my Department has done on its presentation to the value for money committee.
I note Deputy Rabbitte's position and I will accordingly curtail my questions. The establishment of an all-Ireland civic forum merits provision at this point. We have waited on it since the Good Friday Agreement. It would be welcome if the Taoiseach could add to what he has already said on it.
I note a reduction of 2% in the provision for the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. What work does the Taoiseach propose to refer to the committee in 2007?
I repeat that I support the broader initiative of the civic forum. Its costs will not be large and it will come either from my Department's Vote or that of the Department of Foreign Affairs. It is more about getting the initiative up and running. We made an effort to do so when the Northern Ireland Executive was previously running and it had broad support from the trade unions congress, employers' and agricultural bodies and political groups. A civic forum would be very beneficial, allowing a North-South basis for groupings, which would normally not be in the political domain, to actively engage with each other on civic society matters. While much of that is happening informally and on an ad hoc basis, a civic forum where people representative of the broad sectors in society could be engaged would be beneficial. I have made that clear time and again in discussions with the NIO, the British Government and various interest groups in Northern Ireland.
The All-Party Committee on the Constitution has two or three initiatives in front of it which will take it to the end of the life of this Dáil. It has been involved in working on the social and family aspects of the Constitution. Its chairman, Deputy O'Donovan, is anxious to finish that work. A number of its reports have been sent to the Departments and agencies on matters which will be dealt with through legislation. Others will involve forming a group of constitutional amendments. There are seven areas where there is ongoing work and it may take a number of years to deal with them. It is hard to bunch them together and take a number of amendments. Officials in my Department, the committee secretariat and relevant Departments have been working on that for some time.
Employment of People with Disabilities.
Enda Kenny
Question:6 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the policy of his Department in respect of the employment of persons with disabilities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39991/06]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:7 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the number of persons with disabilities employed in his Department; if he is satisfied with the progress made in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41243/06]
Trevor Sargent
Question:8 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the percentage of staff in his Department who have a disability; if all aspects of his Department have been made accessible to persons with a disability; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41358/06]
Joe Higgins
Question:9 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach his Department’s policy on the employment of people with a disability. [42779/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 9, inclusive, together.
My Department and the bodies under its aegis are committed to a policy of equal opportunity for all staff. Staff are recruited on the basis that they meet the requirement of the positions they will fill. In addition to complying with the provisions of the Disability Act 2005, we follow the guidelines set out by the Commission for Public Service Appointments in its code of practice for the appointment of persons with disabilities to positions in the Civil Service. Recruitment to my Department is undertaken by the commission and through positive action programmes such as the Willing, Able and Mentoring programme under the aegis of the Department of Finance. The Minister for Finance has responsibility for policy in regard to the employment of people with disabilities in the Civil Service.
The 3% target for the employment of persons with disabilities in the Civil Service and public service was set in 1977 and has never been reached. It is now enshrined in section 47 of the Disability Act 2005. Given that the target was never reached and that there are persons with a disability who have the capacity to work in the Civil Service or public service, is the Taoiseach satisfied that the level of monitoring, by the Department of Finance in particular, is sufficiently robust to ensure this legislative requirement is met? Substantial numbers of potential workers may be affected. Is the Taoiseach satisfied that the Government can stand over its implementation of legislation passed by this House?
Promotion, training and all other benefits, supports and opportunities for staff in the Civil Service and public service are decided on the grounds of ability, qualifications and other relevant objective criteria. The percentage of staff with a disability in my Department is 3%, equivalent to six and a half members of staff. This meets the target recommended in the Disability Act 2005.
My Department, through the Office of Public Works, maintains best accessibility practice. The Department is currently conducting an access audit with the OPW to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Disability Act 2005 and to further improve the Department's existing physical facilities and services. It is not the Department's view that efforts in this area should cease because the target of 3% is met. We have exceeded that target in the past but when people retire, transfer to another Department or leave, the percentage reduces. The Department of Finance monitors the situation in all Departments carefully and it is my understanding that most meet the target. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is responsible for monitoring the performance of external agencies.
We constantly seek to improve services. My Department and most other Departments provide access to information to staff and visitors with a disability in a variety of formats. In the past few years we have extended the services to include Braille, simple text documents and large print. Hearing loops for those with hearing aids are installed in the welcoming pavilion, the reception and the press centre. Relevant technologies are supplied to staff and visitors as necessary. Accessibility tools are part of the standard desktop used in the Department. Our websites are monitored on an ongoing basis to ensure we meet commitments under the web accessibility initiative. The websites currently comply with levels one and two as specified under that initiative. Everything possible is being done to make the Department accessible to visitors and staff, and these efforts are monitored and encouraged.
It would be better if the percentage of staff with disabilities were higher than 3%. Some Departments, however, have gone to extraordinary lengths to achieve higher figures. The sectoral plans we published last year, in accordance with the Disability Act, are designed to facilitate an increase in the numbers of people with disabilities employed in the Civil Service and public service. We should not be satisfied with an employment rate of 3%. The best approach is to provide the facilities necessary to enhance accessibility and that is being done.
Has the Taoiseach responded to a recent evaluation of accessibility in regard to e-Government websites? The Internet consultancy firm, Red Cardinal, found that one quarter of departmental websites failed to meet the minimum — priority one — standards required by the globally recognised website content accessibility guidelines. Although his Department's website is not mentioned specifically in the report, the Taoiseach must provide leadership in this regard. Does he know whether it meets the standard? Does he know whether the same is true of the websites of the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Chief State Solicitor or the Central Statistics Office? Other Departments will take a lead from the Taoiseach.
Does the Deputy refer to accessibility in the use of modern technology?
I refer to the international standards for website accessibility.
To the best of my knowledge, the websites to which the Deputy referred are compliant with standards in this area. The Commission for Public Service Appointments must adhere to defined standards in devising panels for vacancies. In line with the requirements of the Disability Act, my Department has appointed an inquiry officer to deal with complaints where the Department fails to comply with the Act, and an access officer to ensure compliance. The standards to which we adhere are up-to-date and, as I understand it, in accordance with those of external regulatory bodies.
A monitoring committee comprising staff from all departmental divisions, bodies under the aegis of those Departments and union representatives was established last June. That committee is obliged to approve a report on compliance with the Act to the National Disability Authority by June each year and to report to the Cabinet committee on social exclusion. The National Disability Authority is currently investigating best practice methods to capture and record information on disability. I cannot say whether the standards we have imposed accord with the latest international guidelines but there is no doubt that they are being implemented.
The Disability Act 2005 report refers to priority two as the globally recognised standard. However, the Red Cardinal report to which I referred states that several Departments do not meet this standard. The Taoiseach might get back to me on this if he does not have the information to hand.
The question refers specifically to the Taoiseach's Department.
Yes, and that is why I am asking about the Taoiseach's standards.
I take Deputy Sargent's point. As I understand it, my Department is compliant with the standards set out in the 2005 Act. The National Disability Authority is currently investigating best practice methods to capture and record information on disability. I assume it is doing so to determine the best mechanism for monitoring the 2005 Act to ensure there is compliance and to allow it to arbitrate on disputed instances. If the authority is examining this it is in a general sense and its findings will apply to my Department also. I will get back to the Deputy on this matter.
I thank the Taoiseach.
In light of the experience of the Taoiseach's Department and the points he enunciated, is there not merit in examining the idea of a cross-departmental team to ensure that best practice in one Department is applied in all others, thus ensuring the maximum employment and accommodation of people with disabilities?
The objective is to ensure coherence across all Departments and their agencies in regard to what is in the Disability Act, what the National Disability Authority has set down and the commitments in the sectoral plans so public bodies do all they can to ensure we have the best standards. The guidelines have been updated in regard to possible supports for collection. We must return this data to the Department of Finance annually. A sincere effort is being made to ensure everyone complies with the highest standards as per the commitments set down in the Disability Act.
There are 20 minutes remaining and there is a large number of questions on Northern Ireland. If the House wishes to proceed with the questions, we will do so for 20 minutes.
The questions on the visit to President Bush in the United States should not be part of the grouping. I do not necessarily see the connection, especially if we are to take the questions in 20 minutes but let us proceed.
There is not too much on that.
Northern Ireland Issues.
Pat Rabbitte
Question:10 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach his views on developments at Stormont on 24 November 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41123/06]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:11 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he regards the statement made by Dr. Ian Paisley during the session of the Northern Ireland Assembly on 24 November 2006 as meeting the requirements of the St. Andrews Agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41124/06]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:12 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the discussions he has had with the British Government or British Prime Minister regarding developments at Stormont on 24 November 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41125/06]
Enda Kenny
Question:13 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in London with the British Prime Minister on 4 December 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42288/06]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:14 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the discussions he has had with the British Prime Minister since the meeting of the Assembly at Stormont on 24 November 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42391/06]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:15 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, in London on 4 December 2006. [42515/06]
Joe Higgins
Question:16 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the parties in Northern Ireland. [42759/06]
Joe Higgins
Question:17 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach when he next expects to meet with the President of the United States of America, Mr. George W. Bush; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42761/06]
Joe Higgins
Question:18 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the US Administration. [42763/06]
Enda Kenny
Question:19 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on recent developments in the Northern Ireland peace process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43866/06]
Enda Kenny
Question:20 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the political parties in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43867/06]
Enda Kenny
Question:21 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the British Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43868/06]
Enda Kenny
Question:22 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he expects to meet the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43869/06]
Enda Kenny
Question:23 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation will next meet; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43877/06]
Enda Kenny
Question:24 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he next expects to visit the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43878/06]
Enda Kenny
Question:25 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will convene a meeting of the Ireland America Economic Advisory Board during his next visit to the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43879/06]
Enda Kenny
Question:26 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the arrangements in place within his Department for maintaining contact with the Ireland America Advisory Board; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43880/06]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:27 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his contacts with political parties in Northern Ireland. [43954/06]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:28 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach when he last met the British Prime Minister to discuss the situation in Northern Ireland; when he expects to meet him next; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43955/06]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:29 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he plans to visit the United States around St. Patrick’s Day 2007; the programme agreed for such a visit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1000/07]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:30 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his participation in the peace process and his contacts with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, since the beginning of the Dáil’s Christmas recess; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1125/07]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:31 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he expects the March 2007 deadline for the holding of new elections in Northern Ireland to be met; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2032/07]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:32 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his most recent contacts with the United States Administration. [2033/07]
Trevor Sargent
Question:33 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on recent developments in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2342/07]
Trevor Sargent
Question:34 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on recent contacts with the parties in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2344/07]
Trevor Sargent
Question:35 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on recent contacts with the British Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2345/07]
Trevor Sargent
Question:36 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach his views on the establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2346/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 to 36, inclusive, together.
The last 12 months have seen significant and welcome progress in the peace process. The St. Andrews Agreement, which the two Governments published on 13 October, is built on the twin pillars of power sharing and support for policing. It contains an explicit timetable leading to the restoration of the power sharing Executive on 26 March.
I met Prime Minister Blair in London yesterday to review progress on the implementation of the St. Andrews Agreement. We remain fixed in our determination to see shared government returned to the people of Northern Ireland. Since St. Andrews, we have agreed practical changes to the operation of the institutions, we have announced financial packages to help underpin restoration and we have made progress across a range of equality, human rights, victims and social exclusion issues.
Yesterday's IMC report confirms that the decision of the Sinn Féin Ard-Fheis on policing contains all the necessary elements of support for policing and criminal justice set out in the St. Andrews Agreement. This opens the prospect of inclusive support for policing across the entire community. I welcome this landmark step and the important follow-up comments that have since been made by the Sinn Féin leadership. The IMC report also provides further clear evidence and reassurance that the IRA's campaign is over for good.
Our purpose now is to ensure that Northern Ireland can build on all of these positive developments through the restoration of shared accountable government committed to serving all of the people. There is no reason for any further delay.
The Assembly election due to be held on 7 March is an integral part of the process and timetable agreed at St. Andrews. It is being held for the explicit purposes of endorsing the St. Andrews Agreement and of electing an Assembly that will form a power-sharing Executive on 26 March in accordance with that Agreement and timeframe. That is the single purpose of this election. The terms are clear: support for policing, support for power sharing and a deadline of 26 March. That is what acceptance of the St. Andrews Agreement means.
The Governments are proceeding on the basis that all parties understand and accept this position and that they also understand that the Assembly to be elected on 7 March will be dissolved, in accordance with the law, if it fails to meet its legal responsibilities fully by 26 March.
We will proceed on the basis of new partnership arrangements in the event this is necessary. However, we have made clear that this is not our preferred outcome. After four years of suspension, the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to see devolved government restored and their elected representatives working actively and openly for them in a fully restored Assembly and shared Government.
I have been advised by the Attorney General that no referendum is required in this jurisdiction on the St. Andrews Agreement as the changes effected by this Agreement do not constitute fundamental changes to the Good Friday Agreement.
I also took the opportunity at my meeting yesterday with Prime Minister Blair to raise the issue of collusion, particularly in light of the ombudsman's recent report. The British Government is well aware of the widespread concern on this issue and of the need to find some means to address this regrettable and disturbing aspect of the Troubles.
As at all stages in this process, contact is maintained at different levels with the British Government and with all of the political parties in Northern Ireland. The Government also remains in close contact with the United States Administration whose ongoing support for the process is deeply appreciated. I had the opportunity yesterday to meet with Ambassador Mitchell Reiss and Ms Paula Dobriansky who will succeed Mr. Reiss as the United States Special Envoy on Northern Ireland.
I take this opportunity to thank Ambassador Reiss for his involvement and contribution over the last four years. I also wish Ms Dobriansky well in her new role. I look forward to working closely with her and President Bush over the coming period as we seek to take the final steps flowing from the St. Andrews Agreement.
I next expect to meet President Bush during my visit to the US to celebrate St. Patrick's Day in March. The final programme for this visit has yet to be finalised. I expect to participate in the traditional ceremonies at the White House and on Capitol Hill in the course of my visit and I will also attend the American Ireland Fund Dinner. I also expect the programme to include events in New York.
As I have indicated to the House on a number of occasions, I am proceeding, taking account of the views expressed by the other party leaders, with the proposal to establish a new joint Oireachtas committee on the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and North-South co-operation. This is such an important national issue that it fully merits the attention of a dedicated committee. I have asked the Chief Whip to discuss the practical arrangements with the Opposition whips with a view to obtaining all-party agreement.
The question of further sessions of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation will be kept under review. As of now, there are no plans for a further meeting.
It has been the practice for the past number of years to meet the Ireland-America Advisory Board over the St. Patrick's Day period and I expect to do so again this year. My Department maintains contact with the board primarily through the embassy in Washington as well as through mutual visits and meetings. As the House will be aware, board members give voluntarily of their time and expertise in a number of ways. I welcome and greatly appreciate their ongoing advice and support.
The question most observers will want to ask the Taoiseach is if he will state the basis of the assurance he received yesterday from the British Prime Minister that the DUP is prepared to commit to power sharing after the elections on 7 March, in particular having regard to this morning's comments by the DUP MP, Willie McCrea, who seemed to say the opposite. In the event the DUP does not agree to share power with the other parties concerned, will he outline the contingency plans the two Governments have?
Having regard to the decision by Sinn Féin, which I am sure everybody in this House welcomes, and the delay in convening the Ard-Fheis and making that decision, the window of manoeuvrability is very brief. Does the Taoiseach have any concerns in that regard?
The Taoiseach said he raised the Nuala O'Loan report on collusion with the British Prime Minister yesterday. I raised this issue in the House in 2005 at the request of Raymond McCord. The Taoiseach subsequently met Mr. McCord in respect of the experience of his son. Having regard to the horror revealed in the ombudsman's report, what response did he receive from the British Prime Minister? Was the role of Sir Ronnie Flanagan, who was head of the special branch and chief constable at material times, raised? Does the Taoiseach have any reservations about the fact Sir Ronnie Flanagan was on the interview committee which selected Kathleen O'Toole as chief inspector of the Garda Inspectorate?
Did the Taoiseach hear yesterday morning's interview with Robert McCartney's sister, Catherine? Does he accept it is the litmus test of the bona fides of Sinn Féin that it come forward now with information about the grotesque murder of Robert McCartney and instruct people in possession of such information to make it known to the PSNI?
I will endeavour to answer all those questions. The first question was on what basis did I accept the decision, or the view, of the British Government. I was also asked about what Willie McCrea said on "Morning Ireland". I will not comment on individual voices from the DUP. I am much more interested in where the party stands. We are proceeding on the basis that all the parties accept the St. Andrews Agreement with a full Executive in place on 26 March.
On the closing date of those talks, 13 March, the Reverend Ian Paisley stated he was accepting the St. Andrews Agreement and subsequently clarified that point a second time on 24 November. This whole business must be St. Andrews Agreement-compliant, otherwise there is no basis for an election. That is a point I have made in recent weeks.
It is accepted that Sinn Féin has moved on the essential issues. If there were delays, some of them arose from the fact that clarifications, which would have helped the process to move forward quicker, were not forthcoming. That created some delays in the period before Christmas. It would be unfair and wrong not to acknowledge and accept that Sinn Féin has done what has been described as "heavy lifting" on some of these issues.
All the parties must play their part now and rise to the challenges ahead. There is a major responsibility on the Democratic Unionist Party. It may not be easy for some of them but all the parties must face this responsibility. Nobody is entitled to sit on his or her hands.
We should be clear about why an election was called for. It is worth repeating what I said about the party that wanted an election. The St. Andrews Agreement states that there would be an endorsement of that agreement. Members will recall that there was a debate for a period as to whether that would take place by way of a referendum or an election. The DUP wanted an election so that it could endorse its position to participate in this process. I cannot imagine that it could be in the interests of Unionism to frustrate the St. Andrews Agreement, which is now in legislation. The dates agreed are in British legislation. The process is also set out in British legislation and it is that an election will be held on 7 March and an Executive will be set up on 26 March. If not, the entire process will collapse in its totality. There is no provision for anything else after 26 March. Our discussions on partnership arrangements will continue as the fallback position. As I said previously, I hope that is not necessary, but I have stated that I want these discussions to continue so that we do not lose further time down the road.
It is not in the interests of anyone or in the interests of Unionism to allow this to happen, but to do so and fail to agree an Executive on 26 March would be a serious error. The advertisements the DUP took out after the St. Andrews Agreement make clear that it will be at a disadvantage if it does not fulfil its obligations. That is its position.
For the process to work we need the DUP to understand that just as it has had expectations of republicans and policing the rule of law, the rest of us, including Nationalists, republicans, everybody else and the two Governments have had legitimate, if not unreasonable, expectations of the DUP in regard to power sharing. The DUP has stated that it is prepared to engage in power sharing if the other issues were fulfilled.
I have talked to Dr. Paisley in recent weeks but Prime Minister Blair has had far more engagement and contact with him, having met him several times a week during the past number of weeks. It is on that basis that he believes that the DUP's position is that we are moving forward to an election. He is very clear that if the parties are not committed to the St. Andrews Agreement, there is no basis for an election. He is convinced that after the elections, the DUP will move to form an executive. I said yesterday — I am not saying anything now that I did not say in private — that I would have liked more clarity on 24 November, in the period prior to Christmas and in recent weeks but, based on the private discussions and meetings he has had, Prime Minister Blair believes that the DUP will fulfil this commitment on the basis that Sinn Féin has dealt with the issue of policing. Sinn Féin has also stated since Sunday that the rule of law should be upheld. It has further stated that in respect of the McCartney case anyone with any evidence or information should go to the police. That is important and was one of the questions raised. That applies not only to that case but all other cases.
Dr. Paisley, in fairness to him, has said that he would also want to see that there is co-operation on the ground in all these matters. I hope that in the intervening weeks we will see such co-operation. It should quickly translate itself. The Chief Constable should be in a position to be able to see that fairly quickly. Obviously that will be something that will influence Dr. Paisley as the leader of his party in the intervening period. It is on the basis that this will happen that we will have a power-sharing Executive on 26 March, which will get up and running immediately. It is also on the basis of what is provided for in British legislation passed by huge majorities in the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
I have raised the issue of collusion in many different ways with the British Prime Minister in recent years and several reports have been published. I made a public statement on this matter when I said that over the years successive Irish Governments and many others have raised serious concerns about collusion in Northern Ireland. The recent report along with many other reports demonstrate that these concerns were well founded. It presents clear evidence that the RUC colluded with loyalist murderers and failed in its duty to prevent many horrific crimes. They are serious issues for the British Government. As I pointed out to Prime Minister Blair, they did not happen, as many of the other issues did, in the dim and distant past. Some of these issues happened under his own watch and up until recent periods.
I acknowledge that Deputy Rabbitte raised the McCord case here and he asked me to meet Mr. Raymond McCord at that stage. I have co-operated with him in recent months in this process. However, it is one of many. As I said previously, we must try to get to a position where all these cases are at least dealt with. Some families want apologies, some want other action and some want inquiries. We cannot find one solution that will cover all of them because there are serious cases such as the Finucane case in respect of which the Irish Government — Members having voted on a resolution on this last year — is committed to a particular procedure. There is also the agreement of the outstanding issues of Weston Park. However, I am also conscious that we must try to find some mechanism for most of the other cases to bring them to finality. Otherwise, people will still be raising these issues in this House in 25 years time. That is not a satisfactory position in which to leave these cases. Therefore, we need to find a way to deal with them. I have urged the Prime Minister to give this issue serious consideration and under his watch, however long that may be, to try to find a mechanism to deal with it because he understands it very well. He has been working on that for some months so hopefully we can find a satisfactory way of dealing with it. I think that covers all the Deputy's questions.
The time allocated for this business has expired but if the House is agreeable I will hear three brief questions from Deputies Sargent, Kenny and Ó Caoláin. I call Deputy Sargent.
When the Taoiseach was talking to the British Prime Minister did he ask him if he would support an inquiry or even an investigation into the report on collusion, given that from his statement he seems to have set his face against that? Will he co-operate in the case of resolving the issues that are outstanding?
This provision is not as satisfactory as we would want. I would like to remember the name of David Ervine because we did not have an opportunity to speak about him in this House since his death.
In respect of the comments the Taoiseach had with the British Prime Minister, what did Tony Blair say about the O'Loan report? Was he as shocked as the Taoiseach was at its findings? Given that the British Government did not co-operate fully in respect of the Barron inquiry, was there any outcome to the Taoiseach's comments to him about that? As Deputy Rabbitte said, did he reflect on the position of Ronnie Flanagan arising from that report?
I listened to the Taoiseach's comments in respect of the elections and I hope that this process goes through. However, Mr. Willie McCrea MP expressed a slightly different view this morning and time is relatively short. Under what circumstances would plan B be activated by the Government? When would the Taoiseach be in a position to know? Following discussions with the SDLP today, I know its members believe that the British Government could withdraw from the electoral process that is under way and cancel the elections.
I agree with the Taoiseach there should be certainty in this regard. Is he absolutely satisfied that the process is irrevocable, in the sense that it will happen and that the elections will take place? Alternatively, will there be a sham and a charade, in which although an election has been called and a process is under way, for some reason the Government that has called the election will then call it off? The Taoiseach might comment on this matter.
In his response earlier the Taoiseach stated that he raised with the British Prime Minister the issue of the O'Loan report and the issues spilling therefrom in respect of collusion. Can he advise us what he means by "raised"? Can he advise the House whether, for example, he raised the report of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, which was published before Christmas? Did he raise the fact that this body deemed the British to be guilty of international terrorism in Ireland? Has he pressed the British Government and the Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, on this issue? I use the word "press" as against the word "raise".
Has the Taoiseach taken up the long-repeated proposition that he and the Prime Minister should jointly hold a special summit on this issue, given the gravity and seriousness of these matters, as underscored by Ms Nuala O'Loan's recent report? Mindful that the British Prime Minister will vacate his office shortly, has the Taoiseach pressed him to ensure full co-operation from the British Government regarding the pursuit of truth and justice in respect of all such matters and at the earliest opportunity?
What are the Taoiseach's intentions regarding the proposal I made earlier this week to accommodate a special debate in the House on the issue of collusion in the wake of the O'Loan report? What are his intentions, given that it is now almost a full year since the House unanimously passed a Government motion on the murder of Pat Finucane? We have seen no further progress in respect of the proposal for the establishment of a full public inquiry. Did the British Prime Minister give any further indication of a change of heart or mind in this regard? Can we expect any progress in this matter in the coming period?
Does the Taoiseach accept, despite what others may think, that there is only one clear purpose in respect of the forthcoming election on 7 March? Does he accept its clear and bounded intent is to see the re-establishment of the Assembly, a working Executive, the all-Ireland Ministerial Council and, in institutional terms, all the outworking of the promise of the Good Friday Agreement? Does he accept it is now the DUP's responsibility to state clearly its intent to enter into such a power-sharing arrangement as of 26 March?
The Taoiseach, to make his final reply.
As I noted in my response, I have only a few moments to go through many detailed questions and I will not have time to go through them all. The Assembly election due on 7 March is an integral part of the process and timetable that we negotiated and to which everyone agreed at St. Andrews. It is being held for the explicit purpose of endorsing the St. Andrews Agreement and of electing the Assembly that will form a power sharing Executive on 26 March in accordance with that agreement and timeframe. That is the sole purpose of this election.
The answer to Deputy Kenny's question as to whether the British Government can cancel the election at any time during the campaign, if it believes the parties are not serious, is "Yes". The legislation provides clearly that it may pull the election at any time, if it believes there is no intent by the parties.
Deputy Kenny also asked when would we move to the different arrangements. I refer to the so-called plan B arrangement, or to what I would rather call our partnership arrangement, between the two Governments. This would take place immediately after 26 March, if there is no intention to set up an Executive.
In respect of the McCord case, the recent O'Loan report, the Barron report, the forthcoming McEntee report and the other reports from Weston Park all come to the same conclusion. There is an enormous amount of correspondence from Taoisigh extending back over the past 30 years. Successive Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Ministers for Justice have raised serious concerns in this respect. Behind all such cases lie many personal stories of lives that have been lost. However, all of the evidence says the same thing, namely, the RUC colluded with loyalist murderers to execute people.
The British Government is in no doubt about this situation. I have pointed this out time and time again. We have received extended co-operation. Will we get the British Government to deal with it and to admit it in the same manner as these reports? I doubt it. Will it hold a tribunal to examine these matters individually and to go back over hundreds of cases? I doubt it. I accept Deputy Ó Caoláin's point regarding "raised" and "pressed". We have done so forcefully and the British Government knows our views in this regard. I have emphasised to Prime Minister Blair that he would be doing a great service, in whatever period he remains in office, if he tried to give a comprehensive response on the British Government's position on these matters. I would much prefer he did so because he understands them and knows the details of such issues.
We await the McEntee report. I am not familiar with its contents. However, in respect of the bombings in Dublin and Monaghan, the work of the Barron inquiry shows there was collusion of some kind in this regard. I also refer to the execution of Seamus Ludlow and the Miami Showband. I have met the representatives and have been involved with them all. One cannot put a tooth into such matters and I have not done so. However, several of these reports, including the Cory report, the Weston Park initiative, the McEntee report, the Barron report and the Hamilton report, show clear evidence that there was collusion.
The question is how to present that detail. The Finucane case was taken up as a result of an agreement made in Weston Park to the effect that a sample of cases, rather than every single case, would be taken up. We undertook to deal with the Breen and Buchanan case while the British undertook to deal with the Finucane case. However, the Inquiries Bill was not satisfactory in the eyes of either this Government, the Finucane family or those international civil liberties groups that have supported the latter.
We can bring this to finality as best we can. We may not resolve them because I do not believe that any single statement can close down all such issues as people have the right to bring them forward. However, it would be extremely helpful if the British Government, and Prime Minister Tony Blair in particular, was to make some progress in this regard during his remaining period.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.