Gerry Adams
Question:1. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with former US President Bill Clinton; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12757/14]
Ceisteanna - Questions (Resumed)
Taoiseach's Meetings and Engagements
Micheál Martin
Question:2. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with Mr. Bill Clinton; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12768/14]
Joe Higgins
Question:3. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with Mr. Bill Clinton; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19932/14]
Former US President Bill Clinton took the opportunity to meet me on 4 March when he was in Dublin en route to a series of engagements in Northern Ireland. We discussed a number of political and development aid issues. At the time, the political and security situation in Ukraine and Crimea was evolving rapidly and we took the opportunity to discuss the latest developments in that country.
Our meeting focused on development work and issues in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. We discussed the work of Irish Aid in Africa, with particular reference to its focus on tackling AIDS in Mozambique and Lesotho, where the number of people with AIDS has dropped significantly thanks in part to the highly effective partnership in these countries between Ireland and the Clinton Foundation. Former President Clinton outlined other work under way in Africa, where his foundation is working with governments to support sustainable farming initiatives which help farming communities to modernise their practices and stay on the land.
We also discussed the situation in Northern Ireland following the conclusion of the talks process chaired by Dr. Richard Haass. As ever, the former President was keenly interested in seeing all sides in Northern Ireland continuing to work together to make further progress in building a sustainable future. I emphasised that the political leaders in Northern Ireland needed to be encouraged to work together to address the challenges they faced and not to let current difficulties become an impasse to further progress.
We also discussed the humanitarian situation in Syria and the challenge for neighbouring countries, including Jordan, in dealing with refugees seeking to escape the conflict there.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply and take the opportunity to welcome the decision by Queen's University Belfast to rename the Leadership Institute at Riddel Hall as "The William J. Clinton Leadership Institute". I am pleased that the Taoiseach met the former President and, in particular, that he raised the issue of the North with him. Mr. Clinton has played a vital role in the development of the peace process and its early success and continues to take a close interest in what is happening here. He was a good friend of Ireland while in office and has continued to take a close interest in developments. Recently, I briefed him on the increasing difficulties in the political process in the North and the cross-Border institutions. I outlined concerns and, as I have emphasised to the Taoiseach many times, the particular importance of the Irish and British Governments constantly managing the process, being continually and consistently engaged with all of the political players and, in particular, seeking all the time to encourage Unionist leaders. We are all concerned by the orchestrated walk-out by representatives of all of the Unionist parties supported by the Orange Order, the UDA and the UVF. That and, equally importantly, the cancellation of the North-South Ministerial Council meeting marks a worrying escalation. Former President Clinton's experience in the 1990s in dealing with a reluctant British Conservative Party under Mr. John Major could well be of use in seeking to ensure the Cameron Government honours its obligations. Even though we are much more advanced in the search for peace, the two situations in relation to the Tories then and now are not dissimilar.
Former President Clinton is also very conscious of the difficulties in his time created by contentious Orange parades. At the time, Unionist leaders claimed that their demand to march through Nationalist communities, if denied, would be an attack on Orange culture. The Taoiseach will be aware, however, that ten years ago there were 2,120 marches in the North, whereas last year this figure had reached 4,637. Over 3,000 of these events are loyalist parades, while most of the remaining ones are religious or community based. There are fewer than 200 Nationalist parades, none of which is contentious. Claims that objections by a handful of Nationalist areas to Orange parades passing through their communities are an attack on Orange culture are clearly not right. Sinn Féin upholds that view and will be on the ground. I welcome the Fianna Fáil leader's interest in the North during Leaders' Questions. Perhaps, his cumann in Ardoyne will be able to go out and help local people to police matters and keep younger people and other elements who want to undermine the peace process from doing just that. The Executive in the North is meeting today on the initiative of Mr. Martin McGuinness who is putting forward a statement which will I hope be agreed by all party leaders calling for calm, the upholding of the law and everyone to assist in making sure the next few days will pass without difficulty for anyone, including the PSNI, people in Ardoyne and the Orange marchers themselves. As I have been saying to the Taoiseach in a series of engagements, the two Governments must be champions of the Good Friday Agreement. We must see a positive axis for progress emerging clearly, assertively and resolutely because the vast majority of people in the North and across the island want the process to continue and see tolerance and respect.
On former President Clinton's watch, the US Government made a significant financial contribution to the International Fund for Ireland. The fund has contributed over €900 million to projects across the island. It has been under threat for some time, with senior US congressional figures arguing for it to be retained. I raised the issue when I was in the USA just one month or two ago and asked that the country continue to support the fund financially. The Taoiseach had the opportunity to speak to former President Clinton about this. Has he had discussions with President Obama or the White House on funding, in particular the International Fund for Ireland?
The discussion I had on Northern Ireland with former President Clinton went back to his own involvement in the North and its difficulties, his appointment of George Mitchell and his continued interest in the place. He said in Derry, "I was here 20 years ago. Go on and finish the job, if you can." The difficulties have been outlined by representatives of the different parties in Northern Ireland. As I said in response to Deputy Micheál Martin, I hope the weekend will pass without conflict and violence. Deputy Gerry Adams has outlined the number of parades that take place. Clearly, with only 200 Nationalist parades across the North, none of which is contentious, the number of marches and parades which have taken place generally is extraordinary.
The point made by the Deputy, the SDLP and the Minister of Justice in the Northern Ireland Executive, Mr. David Ford, is that this is a process put in place after long and hard negotiations that were difficult for those concerned. It is the foundation stone for the future and one that is worth working for to see it implemented. I hope the Unionist parties - the DUP and the UUP - can come back to what the future is for Northern Ireland and its people, particularly its young people. That requires a belief that the agreement reached is one that can work in the interest of all communities and peoples.
When I was in the United States in March for the St. Patrick's week connections, I spoke with representatives from Senate and Congress with an interest in Northern Ireland and to the President, the Speaker of the House and a number of different Senators. They all have a genuine interest in seeing the process continue and that it does not break up. I thanked President Clinton for his continued interest and it goes without saying that he and his wife continue to maintain their personal interest in Northern Ireland. I hope it can continue for a long time.
Deputy Adams also asked another question at the end.
It was about the international fund for Ireland, whether it is under threat and whether the Taoiseach was able to discuss this with President Clinton.
I did not have a discussion on this point but I will have a look at what has happened and I will advise the Deputy.
I welcome the fact that the Taoiseach met President Clinton but it is about four months since he met him. It illustrates the disintegration of this format of asking questions when it is four months later before we get to discuss the visit.
Let us change it.
The Taoiseach has been saying that since time immemorial but has not brought forward initiatives or ideas. He arrived in March and we are discussing it now.
The Taoiseach indicated in his reply that the global Clinton initiative, the work in Africa and the Ukraine were among the main items to be discussed. The international dimension to Northern Ireland, and the interest and commitment of the United States, has always been an important one. President Clinton and the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, have had a lifelong and abiding interest in the Irish peace process, the relationship between Ireland and Great Britain, and the development of the Good Friday Agreement. Central to that is political recognition of the primacy of the institutions created under the Good Friday Agreement. I do not say this in a partisan way but as a statement of fact. There is a sense of drift and political leaders in Northern Ireland seem to think they can pick and choose whether to support an institution. If the PSNI takes a decision that Sinn Féin does not like, it can protest outside the police station and ring the British Prime Minister and say that if this person, who is a member of Sinn Féin, is not released it may not support policing in the future. Sinn Féin also talks about dark forces in the police. It sends a signal that, although there has been a transformation in policing as per the Patten report and the introduction of policing boards, which everyone bought into it, members of the policing board can turn up outside the police stations protesting decisions, such as in the case of Padraic Wilson, who was arrested a year ago. I think that is wrong. Likewise, the First Minister withdrawing from a North-South Ministerial Council meeting, on the basis of a decision by an independent parades commission, is wrong and sends a mixed signal to the public. Privately the leaders may have disagreements and may not like it but if they are not accepting of the institutions created it sends a worrying signal. Ultimately, it cumulatively undermines political stability. I do not know whether the Taoiseach spoke to the First Minister in respect of the decision to cancel it and to pull out of the meeting. The Taoiseach was leading the Irish Government at that meeting when there was summary withdrawal of Unionist Ministers, which is unacceptable. It is an agreed institution under the Good Friday Agreement and is provided for in legislation. It is not on that there should be an almost cavalier approach to a decision that the Irish Government had nothing to do with. I do not know if the Taoiseach has had a discussion with the First Minister.
Does the Taoiseach agree that this saps the international dimension and that such behaviour can sap the continued engagement by people outside? They want to wish the process well but responsibility must be a two-way process. We can call on President Clinton to use his good offices to help and we have done so time and time again, to help the process but there must be a responsibility here and in the North in terms of that relationship, particularly in respect of those who have consistently supported the process, such as the European Union, the United States or the other international actors who have been of assistance to the process and to both Governments.
I am interested in the content of the discussion on Ukraine. Did President Clinton have any perspective on the Russian approach to Ukraine and the need for the West to look at alternative energy supplies? Increasingly, energy is being used as a political leveraging tool by Russia to turn on and turn off according to its geopolitical agenda. Did President Clinton reference the modus operandi of President Putin to get his own way by dismissing all known democratic conventions in terms of the partitioning of Ukraine?
The Taoiseach mentioned the partnership between Ireland, particularly Irish Aid, and the Clinton initiative and his work in regard to AIDS in Africa. Significant success occurred in reducing and treating, through use of retroviral and other effective medicines, the incident and impact of AIDS on communities across Africa. It is a good illustration of the genuine partnerships that can develop between Governments and the Clinton initiative in terms of sustainability in Africa. I am interested to hear President Clinton's perspective on how that is working now.
I agree that we cannot have a situation where those who are elected and have influence can decide not to accept a recommendation or decision by an independent body with statutory authority. I made the point to the Deputy First Minister when I called him, after Deputy Adams had been taken in by the PSNI, that if there was a dark side to the PSNI, the option was open to make a formal complaint to the ombudsman, which has authority and oversight over police and policing regulations. I do not know whether that suggestion was taken up.
I was in Brussels when the DUP First Minister decided not to attend the North-South Ministerial Council. The Tánaiste at the time, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, dealt with it but it is not good enough to have signals being sent out that if people do not like the situation they can have a process or withdrawal. It is not good for anyone or the process and it sends out the wrong signal to ordinary people.
In that sense, I hope the Unionist parties re-engage actively both in the Executive and at the North-South Ministerial Council. The point the Deputy makes on that is true.
Former US President, Bill Clinton, had a particular view on Ukraine, in that he felt there is an opportunity to assist the people of Ukraine to become a buffer between Russia and the countries to the west of Ukraine. He pointed out that after the demise of the President, they did not destroy, burn or loot premises, towns and cities or presidential palaces. For that reason, he believes they wanted to be a people striving towards democracy, with a strong inclination towards the European Union, and that incentivising them to hold their elections and make their own determination, would, in its own way, give them both responsibility and the authority to act as a go-between between east and west. He made this particular point, rather than saying we should go in there and decide how this place should react to our presence. He was quite strong on that and had a genuine interest in the entire geopolitics of the region, in the Crimea and further south.
The Deputy mentioned the Clinton Foundation in Africa, which has a global reputation for spearheading successful initiatives on HIV, AIDS, health access, development, climate change, social enterprise and child health and nutrition. The former President pointed out some outstanding examples of poor and poverty stricken villages where people were trained and shown how to grow, treat and irrigate crops and the value and benefit these people achieved from the sale of the product of those fields in the local markets. He gave specific examples of some very poor families who had made great progress and significant strides because of the extra income generated by being able to produce different varieties of crops.
As the Deputy is aware, Ireland has worked in partnership with the Clinton Foundation since 2003 in joint ventures between Irish Aid and the Clinton health access initiative. Ireland's collaboration with the Clinton health access initiative will see the provision of €18 million in Mozambique and Lesotho between 2011 and 2015. In total, over €130 million has been provided to the Clinton Foundation HIV programme since 2003. I am pleased to say that the Irish Aid partnership with the Clinton Foundation represents a substantial and successful partnership in the global fight against HIV and AIDS and has contributed to significant progress in addressing both in Mozambique and Lesotho. With support from this partnership, the government in Mozambique is successfully rolling out treatment to prevent mother to child transmission of HIV, with over 70,000 women now accessing drugs annually to prevent this. More than 300,000 people are on HIV treatment, up from less than 2,000 people at the end of 2002. The epidemic is finally beginning to show signs of winding down, as HIV prevalence has decreased from over 16.5% in 2006 to 11.5% now. In Lesotho, HIV counselling and testing services have been expanded to almost two-thirds of the population today, compared to fewer than one in ten in 2007. These important initiatives have made a huge impact on many people's lives and the Government is happy to be associated with them.
Former President Clinton and I also spoke about other matters, such as immigration and he commented on the situation in America in the context of the undocumented. These were the main points raised.
I am always amazed at how intensely the Irish political establishment courts former President Clinton, and it will probably continue to do so if Hillary Clinton runs for the American presidency.
I put it to the Taoiseach that in regard to Northern Ireland Bill Clinton has no insight to offer that will lead us out of the current difficulties. Unfortunately what we are seeing is what some of us referred to 16 years ago when the Good Friday Agreement was drawn up, which is being borne out again, namely an institutionalisation of sectarian division. This is exacerbated by the Executive that was created being the implementers of Tory austerity, causing further alienation and suffering in Catholic and Protestant working class communities. Only the resolution of these issues and of the economic crisis and only massive investment that will give young people hope for jobs and a future in the North and bring together and unite Protestant and Catholic working class people will bring about a solution.
Did the Taoiseach have the opportunity when he spoke with Mr. Clinton about the economy and more generally to discover whether he reflected at all upon the eight years of his presidency? During those eight years, the bulk of the liberalisation and deregulation of the financial markets, of the speculators and of the big international bankers, happened on his watch, resulting in the disastrous crash of 2007-08 which created untold suffering. Did the Taoiseach get the chance to reflect on that with the former President and did he draw any conclusions in regard to the economic policies he was responsible for which have wreaked such havoc?
The Taoiseach mentioned Irish Aid, which does very good work and when I was on the Committee of Public Accounts, I often had cause to look into that work. The Taoiseach mentioned the Clinton Foundation, which describes itself as working for global health and wellness and convening businesses and governments in regard to that. Did the Taoiseach have any opportunity to reflect with the former US President that in regard to the many issues of poverty and distress in Africa, to which the Taoiseach referred, a fraction of the obscene spending by global powers, including the United States, on armaments and weapons of mass destruction could be diverted to resolve the problems of poverty and all that goes with it in many of the countries of Africa and elsewhere and would amount to far more than what is raised in huge efforts by generous and ordinary people around the world? Did the Taoiseach get the opportunity to reflect with him on that or on why he has now realised these issues are there, but did not divert huge resources away from military spending and weapons of mass destruction when he was US President?
As the Taoiseach knows, many of the problems, such as water borne diseases, which cause havoc for people in poor countries could be resolved in a matter of a few years with the necessary investment, know-how and technique that could be invested if resources were diverted from the obscene industry of armaments. I am curious to hear whether the Taoiseach got the chance to reflect on any of those more radical ways of looking at the problems of our society and the responsibility of the current global political and economic establishment for those problems.
As stated earlier, we discussed the former President's views on Ukraine and how suddenly one part of it, namely Crimea, was annexed. He was interested in explaining the work of the Clinton Global Initiative in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. The former President has an enormous grasp of global politics and, as a result of his experience, of the geopolitics of the Middle East and other regions. We did not discuss his own presidency. It is clear, however, that during his first term of office there were quite a number of difficulties with the US economy as a result of certain decisions that were made. By the end of his second term, the economy was in good shape and running a strong surplus. After the crash, America obviously dealt with its banks in a different way from Europe. Banks in the US were stuffed with money - regardless of whether they wanted it - and the question of liquidity was dealt with very quickly as a result. As a result of the fact that it took a different route, it has taken Europe much longer to come close to getting its house in order.
The level of expenditure on armaments is absolutely enormous. However, it is not for me to speak about other countries and the decisions they make in terms of how they spend their military budgets. I was fascinated by President Clinton's interest in and knowledge of villages in Africa on which the attention of the Clinton Global Initiative has been focused for some time. He possesses an in-depth knowledge of the various kinds of small farm that exist in these areas and also of the quality of soil available and the need for it to be treated or irrigated. Clinton Global Initiative operatives return to the villages in question on numerous occasions in order to explain to farmers how to properly husband vegetables and other crops and to outline to them that they have the capability to reach local markets and obtain higher prices for their produce. The latter results in these people receiving small amounts of income that are very proportionately very beneficial to them.
The work of the initiative speaks for itself. For example, in one of its valuable schemes, more than 300,000 women are receiving treatment in order to block the transmission of HIV from mothers to children. I recall visiting the facilities of the Merck pharmaceutical company in New Jersey where the drug to combat a parasitic eye disease is produced. That drug has been distributed free of charge for many years now and its use has helped to practically wipe out that terribly debilitating disease, which causes blindness and which is carried by insects that are found along the course of certain rivers in Africa. The former President was very anxious to continue dialogue with Ireland in the context of the work done by the Clinton Global Initiative. He is interested in further developments with the Irish Dairy Board and in opportunities relating to basic products such as milk. We did not debate global armaments, but the former President was interested in the outcome of the partnership between Ireland and the Clinton Global Initiative and the impact it is having on the lives of so many people on the African continent.
I should declare an interest in respect of this matter. I am a member of the Clinton Global Initiative, although I play a very modest role. This is proof that one can be opposed to aspects of US foreign policy and other policies - which I am - while at the same time supporting the good work done by organisations such as the Clinton Global Initiative. In so far as is possible, I try to brief President Clinton, and others who remain in influential positions, about what is happening here. I also try to learn what is happening in other parts of the world.
I agree with an Teachta Martin that discussing in July issues relating to a meeting that occurred in March is not the best way to do business. I am of the view that it is fortuitous in this instance, however, because we are on the cusp of the Twelfth and we are in a position to visit these matters of grave importance. What is happening here is not a uniquely Irish experience. As the former President, his wife, Hillary, and I would say, the primacy of dialogue is central to any process of problem solving. The reality is that we must be accurate in how we describe the problem. An Teachta Martin knows that the difficulties in the process at present have been caused by negative leadership from within political Unionism. I understand why Unionists are behaving as they are at present. It is because they are trying to prevent, dilute and delay progress. Citizens also have the right to protest, however, provided it is done peacefully and in a way which is not offensive. Of course, therefore, I would uphold the right of citizens to go out and protest against decisions taken by the police. It is entirely proper and appropriate for them to do so.
Even if one is a member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board?
It is a long stretch of the imagination to go from there to withdrawing from a meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council.
I would nearly give up on the possibility that An Teachta Martin might cease to behave in a partisan way when discussing matters in the North. The fact is that there are difficulties which will continue to present and which will create crises. The way to handle that is never to allow matters to reach the point of crisis. In other words, we must nourish and nurture all of the processes involved and work at developing them. We constantly return to the issue of dialogue. The Governments must uphold the primacy of dialogue. The Taoiseach faces a challenge in this regard. I met the British Prime Minister last week and I am in a position to state that he knows as much about the North of Ireland as I know about outer Mongolia. Mr. Cameron just does not understand the position because he is a Tory and a Unionist. The fact is that he is in breach of serious obligations and responsibilities under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. His Government is a co-equal guarantor with the Irish Government in upholding the various agreements. If there is an element of slippage in the process of engagement in terms of the institutional infrastructure or the rights of citizens, then action must be taken.
As I informed Mr. Cameron last week, this matter relates to the rights of citizens. We have the right to Act na Gaeilge, to a bill of rights, to a charter of rights across the island, to a specific forum, to non-partisan public service policing, to access to education for our children and to the allocation of funding to underprivileged and disadvantaged areas on the basis of objective need. Those are our rights as set out in the Good Friday Agreement. The Government faces a challenge in upholding them. The former US President, Mr. Clinton, and his spouse, the former US Secretary of State, Mrs. Hillary Clinton, know the nature of that challenge inside out.
As this discussion has been taking place, I have received a text indicating that the parties in the Northern Executive have agreed a statement - on the initiative of the Deputy First Minister - calling upon everyone to remain calm, uphold the law and so on. That is a good development, even if it does just reflect common sense. We met the Taoiseach last night and I know he is seized of the difficulties involved. The focus in the coming days must be to keep calm on the streets but also to prepare for September - the Unionists will not do any work during July - and ensure that a pro-Agreement axis emerges, provides leadership and progresses matters. That is how we will encourage positive leadership within Unionism.
As stated earlier, the vast majority of people, even those in the Unionist community, do not support what is happening in Ardoyne.
Even those in the Orange Order in rural areas do not support what is happening in Belfast. Let us consider the cost. It has cost £10 million to police an illegal encampment on Twaddell Avenue. The issues include upholding the law, supporting the Police Service of Northern Ireland in its need to do its duty responsibly and, in particular, preparing for the autumn and a process in which people should hit the ground running. That is the challenge facing the Government.
While it is fresh and reverberates, I add my words of encouragement in the direction of Deputy Gerry Adams's remarks. The issue is important. In recent days I was reminded of the importance of the phrase that in this world we all have to "get along". The phrase was used by Senator Bill Nelson in his words of welcome on 4 July at the US ambassador's residence to the people who had been invited. He was an astronaut who had travelled around the globe. He was asked about the most significant experience in that journey around the Earth. He said the peoples of the Earth were one family, that he could not see the distinctions of borders, political parties, religions or anything else, that the Earth was the home of the human race and, to use the American phrase, that we had to learn to get along. He is right. I call on the Taoiseach, in his detailed endeavours and discussions, to keep to that agenda. Yesterday Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Secretary General of NATO, of which Ireland is not a member, pointed out that last year Russian military expenditure increased by 50% on the figure for the previous year. Meanwhile, the NATO alliance reduced its expenditure by 20%. The significant events that have occurred on the globe to which Senator Bill Nelson referred include the invasion of Crimea, the troubles in Ukraine and the Middle East, the platform that is Iran in the collapse of the fragile government of Iraq and Syria's destruction of its own people. The Iranian ambassador to Ireland will be before an Oireachtas committee tomorrow. I will remind him that in Paris-----
A question, please.
Excuse me, a Cheann Comhairle-----
No, I will not excuse the Deputy. I let him in to ask a short supplementary question. There are three Deputies who wish to ask questions and I have to let them in. There are other questions to be answered also.
I have used up approximately 85 seconds.
No, I am sorry, but the Deputy has no automatic right. Will he, please, put his supplementary question? We cannot have straying.
From what am I straying?
Will the Deputy, please, resume his seat?
Seriously, from what am I straying?
I let the Deputy in to ask a short supplementary question. Other Deputies have questions to ask and I want to call them again.
I am embracing the subject matter of all the previous contributions.
We have been all over the place. We have been up in space, out in the embassy and so on.
Did you get the point of the observation?
Yes, but we must move on.
Okay, if you do not want to hear me, fine.
I wish to make it clear to Deputy Gerry Adams that I am speaking in as objective a manner as I possibly can. I was critical of the Northern Ireland First Minister's response to the independent adjudication of the Parades Commission by withdrawing from the North-South Ministerial Council and the talks, a point not acknowledged by the Deputy in any way. I did not get a clear answer. Did the Taoiseach speak to the First Minister about his decision to withdraw from an institution created under the Good Friday Agreement? Does the Taoiseach intend to have discussions with him at some stage to ensure a continued honouring of the agreements former President Clinton and others worked to create together in good faith?
I make the point that this applies both ways. I think the First Minister was wrong, but the Deputy First Minister was also wrong. Policing is a very sensitive issue in Northern Ireland and trying to suggest it is about the right to protest is stretching it too far. If a person is a member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board, he or she cannot simply decide he or she does not like the decision to arrest a certain person. I am not referring to Deputy Gerry Adams's arrest; there was the arrest of another Sinn Féin member over a year ago. It is not on for a member of the policing board to decide that he or she does not like the police arresting one of his or her party members and then decide to join in and lead the protests outside a police station. That undermines confidence among the community in the policing institution.
It is time for political leaders, irrespective of their viewpoint, to have a sense of accepting the independence of the institutions established under the Agreement which must enjoy public confidence. If they do not have the necessary public confidence, whether it be the policing board or the Parades Commission, they undermine these institutions and do so at their peril, but that is what has been going on.
Will the Taoiseach meet the British Prime Minister? Is there a need for a meeting? I imagine the Taoiseach must have discussed the matter with former President Clinton at their meeting. Is there a need for a stronger bilateral governmental response on these issues? Since the devolution of justice issues, the DUP and Sinn Féin have stated at Hillsborough Castle that they will sort out the issue of parading. They suggested taking it from the Parades Commission. Three years ago Sinn Féin agreed to take away the role of the Parades Commission. Then came the Haass talks. The idea was to put the matter in the hands of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. That amounts to taking it from an independent context and moving it into a political context. Given what has happened this week, what chance does it have? Are we seriously suggesting this could sort out the issue of parading? The parties have not resolved their differences on parading, despite stating to all concerned that they would sort it out. They made their points and knew about the issue better than anyone else, including the British Prime Minister, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. They stated they would sort it out, despite having spent the previous 12 months asking the two Governments to become involved. That is the other scenario. When things go wrong, the Governments are asked to come in quickly. Then, they are asked to go away again because the parties reckon they will sort it out. However, it has not been. That is the problem and we are where we are coming up to 12 July, which is concerning. I am pleased that the Northern Ireland Executive has come out with its statement, but we could have done without the withdrawal from the institutions this week. Is there a need for the two Governments to re-examine where they situate the adjudication on parades from a policy perspective?
I welcome the interpretation of Standing Orders and the possibility to move a little outside the strict remit of the questions asked. That is important in the week that is in it.
The reality is that working-class people of my acquaintance in the North on both sides of the community dread the increase in sectarian tensions at this time of year. Young people dread the menace spread, essentially by a minority of bigots and people who are sectarian who are, of course, on both sides. Trade unions, shop stewards and community activists are the ones who have the solution to cut across sectarian divisions and bring people together around their common interests. Of course, there is a balance of rights. There is a right to march. There is also the right of communities not to be assaulted by offensive marches. However, the solution and balance must be found from within the communities. That is the crucial issue. The arrangement must come from working class people, rather than sectarian politicians who only exacerbate the situation.
Reference was made to former President Clinton. The next time he meets him, will the Taoiseach put to him the points and contradictions I have put to the Taoiseach initially in respect of what he now professes to stand for and what the economic system he implemented means in reality?
To add a further contradiction, the businesses with which he is working, from which he is trying to get funding and to do this and that internationally are the very same giant multinationals that robbed the tax system blind around the world and used every possible device to minimise the taxes they pay on incredible profits that, according to the financial press, are unprecedented and just lying in bank accounts in various financial institutions, tax havens and so on around the world. These resources are desperately needed to resolve the problems of our society.
The Taoiseach should ask former President Clinton to ask those people about the contradiction in sometimes giving a few bob in the interests of humanity while robbing blind the taxation systems, including of the poorest countries, by routing through other countries, including Ireland, which assists the stealth removal of taxes from some of the poorest countries on Earth. Is that not shameful?
Deputy Adams talked about dialogue as central to problem solving, and this is true. Clearly after so many years, when the Good Friday Agreement came about, it put an end to terrorist activities and 3,000 people being bombed and shot and murdered. Obviously, people sat down around tables at the end of the day and decided in the best interests of everybody in the communities that these things should end. Negative leadership is of little value. It causes disillusionment and despair and a sense of hopelessness. There is always an answer to conflict issues. Politics and strong leadership can provide a motivation and an incentive for people to believe in that and to see that it actually happens.
Maybe the British Prime Minister knows more about outer Mongolia than most of us. I am not sure from my conversations with him. He is engaged about places in Northern Ireland. Obviously, I take Deputy Adams's comment in the way in which he gave it. I am quite sure that, if he engaged deeply with the British Prime Minister, he would be able to explain what it is he does know about Northern Ireland.
Yes, Acht na Gaeilge is an issue. I am glad the Executive and the Assembly have accepted the motion from the deputy First Minister. Speaking at the meeting last night, obviously he was concerned about what might happen. This is a good thing to have, that there is a unanimous response to a call for calm heads and sanity here at a time of great sensitivity towards the weekend. I am glad also that the Deputy made the point that the average person of the Unionist persuasion does not support this kind of activity and that those who were responsible before for violence and conflict in these kinds of situations do not have the support of the ordinary people. I think that is certainly an issue.
Deputy Martin raised the point as to whether we should engage again with the British Prime Minister. I am sending over the senior personnel from the Civil Service here to Downing Street this week. I mentioned that to the Prime Minister on Sunday. If it is necessary, I will either talk to him or I do not have a problem in arranging a meeting if it is worthwhile doing it.
I think the issue here, of course, is tied up in domestic politics as well to an extent. The Unionist parties do seem to have moved away from the centrality of the support for the Good Friday Agreement, which is so important to its being concluded successfully. I hope they get back onto that patch again and that we do not have a drift, as the Deputy pointed out in his question earlier. We will keep a very close eye on this, Deputy, in respect of the developments as they are in Belfast and in Northern Ireland and keep in contact with the parties and the Government in Downing Street to see how the situation evolves.
Deputy Mathews is gone. He did say we all have to get along - this is true. He spoke about the astronaut out among the galaxies looking down at the Earth.
The Deputy can afford to.
I am reminded of the late President Kennedy's comments that we all inhabit the same planet, we all breathe the same air and we are all mortal.
I doubt it sometimes.
Indeed. When Deputy Mathews referred to NATO and all of that, I recalled when I went to Berlin last week that, actually, Ireland's entry to the EEC at the time was refused by President de Gaulle on the basis that we were not members of NATO. It was a German economic Minister who came over here in 1962 and who went back and reported that this was a country that it would be good to have join the Common Market and the EEC. For that reason, I was able to remind them of that.
As I said, the opportunity is here, if necessary, to engage further with the British Government. I think the Prime Minister made the point that, from his point of view, he does not want to see a situation where it would go back to the Tony Blair days of the constant over-and-back to Downing Street. There was a lot of negotiation, a lot of discussion, a lot of involvement about having devolved responsibility. The Executive has the authority and the requirement to make that work.
Deputy Higgins mentioned the contradictions between what happened then and what happens now. A point made at a meeting held before the Olympics in London was that there was actually so much assistance available now through many multinationals for impoverished and poverty-stricken communities and villages and people in many countries in Africa. That assistance is very far flung but needs to be developed. The impact of that on the ground in the places mentioned by the Clinton initiative and by President Clinton himself, in the plight of the mothers in particular and the families reaping the benefit of knowledge and information and know-how in terms of growing plants and crops and being able to sell them locally in markets, was of such benefit to them. He is very enthused about the success of that element of the initiative and, of course, in respect of HIV and the transmission of AIDS from mothers to babies.
Cabinet Committee Meetings
Micheál Martin
Question:4. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach to outline the Cabinet sub-committee meetings that were held in February and March. [12886/14]
Micheál Martin
Question:5. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the number of Cabinet committee meetings that were held in the month of March 2014. [17515/14]
Joe Higgins
Question:6. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach the number of Cabinet sub-committees held in February and March 2014. [19931/14]
Micheál Martin
Question:7. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the number of Cabinet sub-committee meetings that are planned for the month of May. [20863/14]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 7, inclusive, together.
I chaired six Cabinet committee meetings in February, five in March and four in May. The Cabinet committee on health met once in February and twice in May. The Cabinet committee on mortgage arrears and credit availability met once in March and once in May. The Cabinet committees on public service reform and social policy each met once in February. The Cabinet committees on Irish and the Gaeltacht and European Affairs each met once in February and once in March. The Cabinet committee on economic infrastructure met once in March and the Cabinet committee on justice reform met once in May 2014. The Cabinet committee on climate change and the green economy met once in February. The Cabinet committee on economic recovery and jobs met once in March and its sub-committee on Pathways to Work met once in February and once in March. The Economic Management Council, which has the status of a Cabinet committee, met three times in February, twice in March and once in May.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. He mentioned that the new justice sub-committee had met once since the new Minister's appointment. That meeting was in May. Will the Taoiseach indicate whether a programme of reform has been drawn up for the Department of Justice and Equality and whether its Secretary General attended that meeting?
Does the Deputy mean the one dealing with the statutory authority for the Garda?
No, just the reform programme generally in respect of justice, which had been promised. Was the Secretary General at that meeting? We are still conscious that the Minister has not articulated confidence in the Secretary General of her own Department. I would be interested in knowing how that plays out at committee meetings.
The Taoiseach mentioned that the health sub-committee met once in February and held a second meeting in May, or were there two in May? According to the Minister, Deputy Reilly, a significant programme of profound change is under way in the health service. Surely there would have been more Cabinet sub-committee meetings if that were the case.
There is a greater crisis in health now than ever before. There is no sense of any profound change taking place. If anything, the situation is getting worse in terms of waiting lists and so on. The Taoiseach said the mortgage committee met once in February, and I am not sure if it met in May. That is one Cabinet committee that has singularly failed to deal comprehensively with a chronic, ongoing problem, with up to more than 90,000 people in arrears over three months and more than 24,000 people who have not paid their full mortgage in two years. There are major social issues emanating from that. It seems that the only result one can detect from the policy of increasing the number of Cabinet committee meetings is that less Government activity is now open to public scrutiny. As the Taoiseach is aware, all of these meetings are covered by Cabinet confidentiality, therefore, many of the policy workings in the groups that meet to feed into these Cabinet committees are not subject to public discussion. Will the structure be revisited after the Cabinet reshuffle? Given the nature of the frequency of the meetings, they do not seem to having any impact other than to take from the role of public scrutiny?
Deputy Higgins has a question tabled in this grouping.
The Taoiseach said that the Economic Management Council met three times in the period we asked about. It comprises the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. Considering that the new Tánaiste bitterly criticised the workings of that committee and the dictatorial powers that she thought it took to itself, does he foresee a major change in the membership of that Cabinet sub-committee or in how it would work, or will the fact that the Tánaiste is inside the tent now rather than outside it calm her down in regard to that particular issue?
Second, when will the Taoiseach announce his revised Cabinet and will there be a discussion-----
That is a separate question altogether.
-----or an opportunity for a debate in the Dáil on that?
Are you volunteering, Joe?
The committee on justice was set up to deal with the presentation of options for the setting up of a statutory independent authority for the Garda. It has met, I believe, on two occasions and the officials have met on a number of occasions in between to follow on its work programme. I expect it will meet again next week. The intention is that there should be a set of proposals to deal with the setting up of the statutory authority available this month which can be debated in the House. Another element of that was the competition being put in place and in process by the Minister for Justice and Equality in respect of the appointment of the Commissioner of the Garda.
In regard to Deputy Higgins's comments, the Economic Management Council met three times in February, twice in March and once in May.
Deputy Martin asked whether the structure of the Cabinet sub-committees will be revisited. These used to operate irregularly on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays - I tend to do them one Monday in the month. They are substantial meetings and, from my point of view, they are a very good facility to bring a conclusion to processes that are going on in Departments for a very long time, then they go to Cabinet for decision, acceptance or whatever, having been discussed and concluded at the Cabinet sub-committee meetings. I find they are a method of being able to timeline and force conclusions on issues that have been around for a long time. I do not propose any change in that structure; I find it works well. It is quite important to say that the outcome of them goes to Cabinet for final decision and obviously for discussion afterwards.
In regard to Deputy Higgins's comment, any time new people are appointed to Cabinet, there must be a debate and a vote on it in the Dáil and that will take place in the event of new faces in new places in the not too distant future and the Deputy will have an opportunity to make his comments.
When?
Written Answers follow Adjournment.