Joe Higgins
Question:1 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach when he expects to receive a report from Mr. Justice Henry Barron. [18923/05]
View answerDublin-Monaghan Bombings.
Questions (1, 2, 3, 4)
Pat Rabbitte
Question:2 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach when he expects to receive the next report from Mr. Justice Barron; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20739/05]
View answer
Enda Kenny
Question:3 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he next expects to receive a report from Mr. Justice Barron; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20755/05]
View answer
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:4 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the further reports he expects to receive from Mr. Justice Barron; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20935/05]
View answerOral answers (12 contributions)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.
Mr. Justice Barron previously reported on the Dublin-Monaghan bombings of 1974 and on the Dublin bombings of 1972 and 1973 and other events prior to 1974. Those two reports were subsequently examined and reported on by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. The report on the murder of Seamus Ludlow is with the Government and we are checking what must be redacted for legal reasons. The issues are complex but I hope the report can be referred to the committee in the coming weeks.
I expect to receive the report of the Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Dundalk Bombings of 1975 and other events from Mr. Justice Barron at the end of this month. It will then be considered by the Government, as with the previous reports. This will complete Mr. Justice Barron's reports.
That reply is similar to the answer we got from the Taoiseach on this matter on 11 May. In this regard, I wish to ask him in particular about the Seamus Ludlow murder and Mr. Justice Barron's third report. The Taoiseach told us on 11 May that he expected the report would be forwarded to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights in the coming weeks. That has not been done and I presume he understands why this leads to its own suspicions, especially having regard to the speculation that surrounds this murder in terms of who may have been involved.
Will the Taoiseach say when this report will be referred to the committee? What consideration has the Government given to the recommendation that the British Government deserves to be the subject of a case in the European Court of Human Rights arising from what appears to be its manifest failure to co-operate on the investigation of this affair?
I answered a question on this quite recently, perhaps more recently than 11 May. I believe it was Deputy Costello who put the question on that occasion. In all cases such as that regarding Seamus Ludlow, I try to ensure the related report is released in as complete a form as possible without any redacting. The legal concern is that names are mentioned and the Deputy will appreciate that this has its own consequences. I hope this matter, which is currently under consideration, will be resolved without necessitating the release of too bald a statement. I prefer such reports to be as complete as possible upon release but there are problems in that regard.
Mr. Justice Barron now hopes to complete all his work before the holiday period at the end of July. His final report on the Dundalk bombings of 1975 and some other events will be presented to us within the next four weeks and his work will then be completed. This summer, we will, I hope, explore legal issues surrounding that bombing. I have not yet seen the Dundalk report or some of the others but, if there are names, we will have to follow the same checking process.
On the second question, I did as I promised by raising the issue with the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, at last week's meeting. Our discussions were short because we focused on European issues and did not have a detailed meeting on Northern Ireland. However, there will be a British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference next week, when I will follow this issue through.
Last week, I notified the Prime Minister of the debate in this House. I reiterated to him that I had an obligation to the House which had worked with me on this matter for the past five years and that in all cases I followed the views of the Oireachtas committee but that I would prefer for this matter to be resolved by the provision of information and assistance from the British side. I asked him to examine this matter before next Monday's meeting. We did not return last week to the blow by blows we have had on this matter. I will undoubtedly do that again next Monday. As I noted in my response to a previous question from Deputy Costello, I do not intend to drag the matter out. They will either do it or will not. If they will not do it, we must move on according to the wish of the Oireachtas committee.
Following on from the reply given to Deputy Rabbitte, did the Taoiseach raise the matter with the new British Government and the Prime Minister? Earlier this month, the Taoiseach said that he would make a further attempt with the British Government but, if it were not forthcoming, he would then seek legal advice. What is his instinct, which is sharply honed in terms of the British Government, on this matter? Does he believe legal advice will have to be taken and, if so, is he making preparations for that? Has the British Government displayed any openness by announcing that it would initiate an inquiry into the allegation of collusion in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings?
As Deputy Kenny would expect, I do not want to pre-empt the question I asked him. He knows my feelings on this. I raised the issue last week in precisely the manner stated here.
I do not want to get into a European scene if that can be avoided. I have become an expert observer of the British security scene and have learned how it operates. I wish I knew how it worked on the inside but that is a different matter. I made the point that it would be far easier if the British system as well as Government co-operated on this matter. If this had been done a few years ago, these aspects would have been concluded. We will have to follow the other route if this is not forthcoming. I hope that they will change their mind on this matter.
I spoke briefly to the new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, went through the matter in detail with him. I raised it with the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, last week. His senior officials were with him on that occasion. They know our views and are aware of the content of the Oireachtas report. I know that some Members have also taken the opportunity to make the British authorities aware of our views on an all-party basis.
The Taoiseach states that he does not intend to drag the matter out. However, other Members have noted that when the issue was last addressed in this House, he said he would raise it at his next meeting with Mr. Blair and would offer a final opportunity to establish an inquiry into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. Will the Taoiseach be frank with the House and tell us whether he raised this issue with the British Prime Minister? Did he put the issue to him and, if so, what reply was received? It was reported at the weekend that the Taoiseach will again meet the British Prime Minister in the coming week. Will that be the new last chance?
Has the Government reached a decision on whether it will proceed with a case to the European court if the British do not establish an inquiry? Will the Taoiseach advise us on the Cabinet's position on this matter?
Has a response been received from the British Prime Minister to the concerns expressed by Members over the British inquiries Act? This is totally unacceptable legislation. I have discussed these concerns with the Taoiseach on previous occasions. Did he raise them with the British Prime Minister and is there any indication that they are prepared to amend this legislation?
I do not want to be guilty of repetition. Deputy Rabbitte asked all but the last question put by Deputy Ó Caoláin. To briefly restate my reply, I said here a few weeks ago that I would raise the matter with the Prime Minister at my next meeting with him. I did so last Wednesday but our discussions primarily concerned the European Council meeting. I told him that I expect the British position to be presented next week, when a full session of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Council will be held. I hope that they co-operate and change their stance. By doing so, they would make it much easier for the Government, the Oireachtas committee and the whole process. We have repeatedly stated our position and Members have as well. They understand the message from this House and it has entered their system.
The Cabinet is not pre-empting matters because I will have to report back if the answer is "No". We will then have to ask the Attorney General for legal advice on implementing further steps. As I noted to Deputy Costello during a previous Question Time, that is our position. I do not see it continuing beyond next week, unless they ask for time to consider. They are aware that they are on notice next week to provide an answer, that we have pressed the issue at length and, if they will not assist us, we want to move to next phase. I believe they are wrong in this issue. I waited until a new Government had been formed and left it for a few months during the pre-election period. We restated our position and will see what happens.
Regrettably, the legislation on commissions of investigation is now law. Deputy Ó Caoláin is aware that I opposed it at every stage and made this clear. I am glad that many people used my arguments in speeches in the Houses of Commons and Lords. However, the legislation was proceeded with. To be frank, I do not see any chance that it will be changed. That is not the state of mind. They have made up their mind that this is the way they will go. It creates difficulties for us, particularly in terms of the Finucane case, which we are attempting to address. We do not see how the commission of investigation legislation honours the position agreed in Weston Park.
I was careful in Weston Park in 2001 having learned from experience the need to be precise about what I agreed to. A detailed position of what we believed was written in. We were equally careful when we brought that forward to Mr. Justice Cory. Rather than quoting myself, I will cite the judge. Mr. Justice Cory, who is independent and was jointly appointed as opposed to being my appointee, made it absolutely clear he does not believe the legislation under investigation by the committee is compatible. Before his appointment nobody in this country, including me, knew this fine man who gave so much time to this. Mr. Justice Saville of all people also stated he holds that view. The British must deal with that position themselves.
I compliment the Taoiseach for dealing with the Dublin and Monaghan bombings effectively and efficiently since he took office. Initially he set up the preliminary investigation under John Wilson, the former Tánaiste, who was followed in turn by Mr. Justice Hamilton and Mr. Justice Barron. He referred all of the reports to the Oireachtas joint committee, accepted the findings of those reports and acted on each of them. I am heartened that the Taoiseach stated he took from the previous debate in the House on the matter, and that he would again speak to the British Prime Minister on whether the British Government was prepared to establish a committee of inquiry into the matter in its jurisdiction. I await the outcome of the meeting on Monday. On that previous occasion I asked if the response was negative would the Taoiseach begin the process of preparing a case, if it was required, for the European Court of Human Rights over the summer, and get the legal work done and put the notice of intent on the record.
Supplementary to that, I spoke with the British Ambassador at a public event in Boston approximately ten days ago, and raised the issue of the Barron report and the co-operation of the British Government. He stated the British Government had co-operated, and that a letter on the public inquiry would be forthcoming shortly from the British Government. Has a letter been received from the British Government on this matter?
Even if the report on the further investigations into the Seamus Ludlow and Dundalk bombings cases is referred to the joint committee, it is unlikely that we will be able to proceed with it in the same form as we have done with the other two reports whereby we had a series of oral hearings, and brought in witnesses to allow them to tell the story. Perhaps it would be best if all reports were presented to the joint committee so that we can deal with them in the Autumn.
I accept what Deputy Costello stated on the last point. The Seamus Ludlow case is different to the 1975 Dundalk bombings and some of the other cases but during the summer I will endeavour to get everything to the committee. I accept the Seamus Ludlow report is not the same as earlier ones, the issue being that it must be redacted for legal reasons before we can move on it.
I have seen reports and heard about the letter and I assume it will come with the report next Monday. We will wait and see. I remain optimistic the British Government will change its mind, but if it is clear that is not the case I will follow through and move on it before the summer. I do not know how long it will take to get the Attorney General's advice or what the process is, but I will begin it.
Perhaps the Taoiseach has answered this but I cannot recall hearing it. Earlier this month the Taoiseach stated the SeamusLudlow report was with the Government and it was being checked for legal reasons. It has been with the Government since October 2004. Will the Taoiseach indicate why it is taking so long to come out of Cabinet? Is this a normal delay? When does the Taoiseach expect it? Will the Taoiseach accept it is important to have some groundwork done, notwithstanding his optimism on the British Government's response to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings? Is it not wise to speak to the Attorney General before the meeting to have some preliminary indications? Has any preliminary preparation been done with a view to taking a case or does he hope eternally the British Government will simply change its mind?
As I understand it, Mr. Justice Barron's report, unlike many other cases which had suspicion, doubts and fears, names the individuals involved in the assassination of Seamus Ludlow, and naming someone raises complex legal and security issues, which are being worked on. One of these is whether naming someone can be allowed. I am not competent to answer that question, but that is the dilemma.
I do not want to answer the question on the British Government before going through the process. We need its answer before we move forward. I do not want to pre-empt what it will do.
Hope springs eternal.
Tribunals of Inquiry.
Questions (5, 6)
Enda Kenny
Question:5 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the costs which accrued to his Department in respect of the Moriarty tribunal during May 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19039/05]
View answerTrevor Sargent
Question:6 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the cost to date to his Department of the Moriarty tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21055/05]
View answerOral answers (13 contributions)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 and 6 together.
The costs my Department incurred in respect of the Moriarty tribunal during May 2005 amounted to €511,930. The day to day costs for the tribunal provided for in my Department's Estimate for 2005 amounts to €4 million. However, provision of an additional €6.5 million has also been made to cover costs such as report publication and some element of award of legal costs in the event that the tribunal completes its work this year. The overall estimate for 2005 is therefore €10.552 million.
The total costs my Department incurred in respect of this tribunal since 1997 to 31 May 2005 is €20,131,318. This includes fees paid to counsel for the tribunal and administration costs incurred to date since its establishment. The total payment made to the legal team was €15,102,168 up to 31 May 2005.
Somebody is doing well out of it. This the ninth year of the Moriarty tribunal and we have not had an interim report. Is the Taoiseach satisfied it will complete its work by the date scheduled for its completion? Is he satisfied the lower legal fee structure will take effect on the day it is intended to do so? It is hoped the possibility of its continuing beyond January 2006 has not been considered, and if it does will the lower legal fee apply in respect of the Taoiseach's Department and all others?
The date was agreed in the negotiations that took place last year with the outgoing Minister for Finance and the Attorney General. The date for the Moriarty tribunal report is 11 January 2006. As I understand it, that is still the date to which we are working. As the Deputy said, if that is not achieved, the new fee structure arrangement will come into place on the 12th.
I take it the new fee structure is included in the reform of tribunals legislation. The Taoiseach referred to the 12th. Which date is the Taoiseach talking about?
It is 12 January next. The due date is 11 January, but if the report is not completed and work continues, it will revert to the new fee structure arrangement.
Given that the Committee of Public Accounts has estimated that the State faces a bill of approximately €800 million for witnesses to various tribunals, has the Taoiseach had any indication or estimate of costs in respect of the Moriarty tribunal? Aside from the costs he has given us, does he have information on witnesses' expenses? Has an estimation been done on that or an indication given?
I have answered the question on the fees.
I am talking about witnesses' expenses. Does the Taoiseach have an indication of what will be added to the fees?
As I understand it, the additional provision of €6.5 million will cover costs of report, publication and some element of award of legal costs. In the normal course of events that would be included in the expenses. Provision has been made for that.
I know we cannot discuss matters raised at the tribunal but does the Taoiseach believe it might be appropriate now for the Government to include in the legislative programme for the next term or next year a Revenue Act to guarantee the formal independence of the Revenue?
Under existing legislation the Revenue Commissioners are totally independent of the Department, never mind the system. If there is a requirement to strengthen that, I presume it could be included in a Finance Bill. If some proposal was forthcoming from the tribunal it could be done in a Finance Bill.
The Mahon tribunal has awarded costs to most witnesses at this juncture, at huge cost to the taxpayer. Recognising that there is also a massive bonanza for members of the legal profession, has this setting of costs in the Mahon case set a precedent in regard to the Moriarty tribunal? Can we anticipate a similar decision in that tribunal?
The last time the Taoiseach answered this sequence of questions he indicated the dates from which the new fees would apply in the various tribunals and advised that they were all negotiated individually. What is the explanation for the huge difference between, for example, the Abbeylara tribunal where the new fee comes in this month and those for the Mahon tribunal which, according to the last answer, do not kick in until March 2007? Why does it take so long for some to change to the new fee arrangements while others appear to be able to make the change very quickly? This is of concern to all taxpayers and I would appreciate an informative answer.
In fairness to the tribunals, when the discussions took place and the then Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, announced the changes he was making, account had to be taken of the outstanding modules of the tribunals' work that were already under way. Changes were made and we passed the legislation in this House. Some of the tribunals had a much longer timescale but others were due to continue to 2011 and beyond, but the changes we made in the terms of reference meant that the timescale was tightened. In making those changes we came to an understanding to try to tidy up the work in that the existing modules must be completed. That is the reason. They had to finish the work that was ongoing and if it continued after that, there would be a different position. A number of the tribunals will finish this year or early next year. The Morris tribunal will continue to September 2006 while the Mahon tribunal will go on until March 2007.
Infrastructure Programme.
Questions (7, 8, 9)
Enda Kenny
Question:7 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the outcome of the May 2005 meeting of the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public private partnerships; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19040/05]
View answerPat Rabbitte
Question:8 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the results of the meeting of the cross-departmental committee of infrastructure and public private partnership held during May 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20740/05]
View answerTrevor Sargent
Question:9 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the outcome of the meeting of the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public private partnerships in May 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21059/05]
View answerOral answers (19 contributions)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 to 9, inclusive, together.
The cross-departmental team on housing, infrastructure and PPPs last met on 25 May. The main agenda items were ports, the CLÁR programme and North-South co-operation on infrastructure. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources made a presentation to the team on ports policy and capacity. The Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs also gave a presentation which focused on infrastructure delivery under the CLÁR programme. There was a general discussion on North-South co-operation in infrastructure. It is envisaged that a presentation on North-South co-operation will be given in the autumn.
First, will the Taoiseach expand on the report by the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs in respect of the projects under the CLÁR programme? What were the main elements of the discussion that took place? Second, will the Taoiseach indicate whether there are further proposals under the existing PPP structure for developments in the education sector? The Taoiseach will be aware that following the completion of a number of schools, this gave rise to some concern expressed by the Comptroller and Auditor General about the cost to the Exchequer in the longer term. I assume the cross-departmental team on infrastructure would have considered the implications of that and perhaps the Taoiseach will indicate if there are further proposals in the education sector and if changes are proposed to that structure for the provision of education facilities under the PPP regime?
On that issue, the Minister for Finance has undertaken a review of the PPPs. He has given quite a lot of time to listening to the various participants and stakeholders in PPPs from different perspectives. Many of them felt there were too few projects that were too costly and some of the international companies said that the cost of doing their presentations and then losing out under the process was too burdensome, and that is the reason they were not engaging as much as possible. The Minister has finished the review and I understand he is to make some changes in that regard. I am not sure of the timescale involved — I was not party to the meetings — but I am aware he has examined that. Education is one of the areas on which there are different views. Some people say it was marvellous value and others argue the contrary.
On the CLÁR programme, there has been a clear commitment in An Agreed Programme for Government to continue with and review the programme. It is a good example of a programme that delivers a significant community impact relative to what is not high overall expenditure. There are 20 measures in operation under the programme, including roads, water, sewerage, sports, community, health, communications, electricity, conversions and enhancement of village countryside and schools. The programme covers part of 18 counties and a population catchment area of 362 people, an increase of 78 since the programme started. Over the period, €71 million has been invested in the programme. The Exchequer provision for 2005 is €13.7 million.
The discussions in respect of renewing the social contract will probably commence towards the end of the year. One of the major promotional points of the last agreement was the provision of an additional 10,000 social and affordable housing units. Will the Taoiseach or the cross-departmental team make a guesstimate as to how many of those houses will be lived in or completed by the end of the social contract, Sustaining Progress? With regard to the Taoiseach's cross-Border references, are any specific new cross-Border projects contemplated as a result of these discussions?
The group made a very positive report on housing, indicating that all of the land and sites have been fully put forward. The roll-out of those houses is moving on apace, comprising something like 3,500 units between this year and next year. In addition, many sites are now rolling out. To be frank, the quick way to complete this process is through land swaps. This happened with the Harcourt Street site and another eight or ten sites are also under consideration. It is a quick way of building the houses.
At the last meeting I had with the group reporting to me on this issue, chaired by Des Geraghty, the developers stated it takes five years from the time they buy a site to the time the first residents move in. That is the process in the private sector, which is too slow. If we have the sites and are prepared to swap them, we should do so. We would then have the houses in three or six months, which would provide the best value. There is a process for achieving this. A complicated process has been worked out to achieve value for money. However, it is a quick way, rather than waiting for years for developments. The Harcourt Street site was a good deal and a number of other sites are being tendered for. It was a very positive report.
There are a number of issues with regard to cross-Border roads, which are now getting much attention. Our Northern friends are taking a lot of interest because they see the infrastructural changes in the South. The particular project we discussed at the meeting is the Dundalk to Ballymascanlon project, which is nearing completion. I understand the Ballymascanlon to Newry part of the project is due to get underway this year, which will be hugely significant. We are also looking at issues surrounding the State's investment in City of Derry Airport which, interestingly, has been welcomed by everybody although some might have complained about such an investment in the past. We are considering other areas of co-operation.
At the May meeting, was there any hint of awareness about the challenges facing the country in regard to climate change, which the G8 will focus on in the days ahead, or in regard to the price of oil, which will soon reach $60 plus a barrel? For example, the cross-departmental committee is able to match that with its plans and spending targets being based on 80% of transport being road dependent. Is there any indication of a need to reassess this or to prepare for a post-fossil fuel economy in the long-term or medium-term? Will that have an impact not just on transportation but on planning, which is currently car focused? Is the committee simply following what was done previously and doing more of it, or is it able to think ahead and plan internationally to free us from this dependency on fossil fuel, on which we are more dependent than any other EU country?
With regard to the cross-Border contacts indicated by the Taoiseach and cross-Border roads, will the Taoiseach note that in my constituency, we still have two cross——
Has the Deputy a question?
I am asking whether this opportunity will address those remaining cross-Border roads that have not reopened despite the systematic road reopening programme adopted some years ago. Two crossings in my constituency have not been re-established.
To broaden the understanding of infrastructure from roads alone, will the most important flagship project in regard to infrastructural development arising out of the Good Friday Agreement, namely, the Ulster canal, be addressed in the course of these further contacts?
I assure Deputy Sargent the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government takes all issues into account and regularly reports on them. The Deputy should pursue the issues with the Minister, Deputy Roche. The Department is at all times considering new ways, and considering climatic conditions and land and spatial planning issues. On all of those issues, the committee is not just continuing but looking forward. For example, it seeks to move forward the western corridor, and is looking to rail initiatives and trying to expand——
What of the Department of Transport?
If our population grows to 5 million, in particular if 2 million of the population are in the greater Dublin area, the use of rail will be the only way to go in the next 15 to 20 years. All of those issues are being considered.
The committee is focused on major infrastructural issues. Other issues can be pursued with local authorities in the relevant areas. County Monaghan has been served well by the roads programme, which provided bypasses and roads all over the place. A decade ago there was a problem with roads and potholes in that area but these have been consigned to the history books.
I asked on closed cross-Border roads.
Or the odd culvert.
The case of particular roads should be taken up with the local council.
The issue has been raised many times. What of the Ulster canal?
The Ulster canal is one of the topics I always discussed with my good friend, David Trimble. He was a great advocate of it. It is good to see Deputy Ó Caoláin is continuing with that, despite David having moved on.
It is something else we shared.
I was very supportive of that long-started and positive project. I am not sure who we will link up with on the Northern side now that David is gone.