Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 13 May 2003

Vol. 566 No. 3

Leaders' Questions.

There has been a flurry of media reports in recent days about the activities and alleged activities of a senior British agent operating within the senior level of the IRA in Northern Ireland who may have been guilty of involvement in very serious crimes including murder and other atrocities. I appreciate that this is a difficult and murky area, but if there is any substance to these claims and allegations, it suggests that British intelligence sources were engaged in highly questionable activities in Northern Ireland and that the level of collusion between security forces and loyalist paramilitaries is considerably greater than the Stevens inquiry has suggested.

The Taoiseach has indicated his intention to have the matter raised with the British Government next week by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In view of the fact that these allegations are of the most serious kind, that it is difficult to decipher what is going on, that the Taoiseach over the past six years has had at his disposal the level of intelligence available to the Army and the Garda together with briefings on Northern Ireland on a constant basis, some in respect of high level security and other matters, has it ever been brought to the attention of the Government that a situation like this might exist in view of the fact that members of the Sinn Féin army council would probably be known to the Government?

Given that both Governments are in daily contact about a range of issues, will the Taoiseach contact Prime Minister Blair by telephone to raise this matter at Heads of Government level in order that we might be able to gain some knowledge or factual evidence of what is going on here? Perhaps the Taoiseach might indicate whether the Government, during his tenure of office, has ever had any evidence or indication of evidence from intelligence sources that the person referred to as "Stakeknife" actually existed. I ask the Taoiseach to bring this matter directly to the attention of the Prime Minister by way of a telephone call this evening or tomorrow.

In reply to Deputy Kenny, I would say everybody is concerned about this matter. It is a situation on which we have very little factual information. We must be careful about these allegations because there are serious implications in them encompassing threats to life, the memory of loved ones and people's reputations. All allegations of collusion sharpen memories for families who have lost loved ones. In recent days, I have had many questions raised by families on this issue relating to incidents dating back a number of years.

We have not had evidence in recent years about the matters concerned but, as Deputy Kenny knows from having questioned me on cases that were the subject of examination by Mr. Justice Barron, there have been many cases concerning such matters. I have no specific evidence about the individual called Stakeknife other than the confusion that exists today. I am almost afraid to say it but there appear to be two individuals with similar titles. I have no particular evidence about this.

We have consistently raised with the British Government the question of collusion and the actions of agents. The issue of British military intelligence operations in our jurisdiction is a serious allegation which I have also raised in the context of matters in the past. We will obviously pursue any evidence that this happened. We did so directly in the context of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings and that was the major case we followed up. We raised the latest case yesterday through the British-Irish secretariat and we will follow that up. I am not too certain that the British political system would have any more information. It is normally helpful in these matters, but we raised it yesterday and will pursue it in coming days to see if we can obtain information. At this stage it appears to be an issue of the British Army and military intelligence.

The allegations are disturbing, add to a long list of accusations about the operation of the intelligence services in Northern Ireland and, in the view of the Government, raise fundamental questions about accountability and the rule of law. They also give rise to concerns about a number of murder cases, the list of which is already long and to which this allegation adds.

This and previous Governments have succeeded in getting to the position where we have the Saville inquiry and the Cory inquiry which deals with a number of murder cases and which will report in the autumn. Some of Judge Cory's investigations have concluded and he has stated that he will give the report to both Governments together as required under his terms of reference. If there is any new evidence, I will deal with that.

I reiterate that, in so far as this side of the House is concerned, we will always support Government activity in terms of implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, and the Taoiseach knows that. He did not say whether he was ever informed as Taoiseach of evidence or facts as to whether this person, Stakeknife, actually existed and acted for British security intelligence within the realm of the IRA.

When the Taoiseach raises this with the British Prime Minister, will he do so in the context of the lack of co-operation from British security intelligence referred to in the Stevens report and by Mr. Justice Barron who has cited on numerous occasions the lack of co-operation from British authorities in respect of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, the 29th anniversary of which is next Saturday? Given that these are serious matters as the Taoiseach said, will he raise these murky allegations at the highest level? If it is deemed appropriate, will the Government seek the extradition of the said person in respect of a number of serious charges on this side of the Border if the Garda and the Director of Public Prosecutions recommend it?

I have never heard anything about this individual or any of the issues. I have heard many allegations about the activities of MI5, MI6 and others but I know nothing about them. Any such allegations would have related to the past, mainly the 1970s and mainly but not exclusively the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. There is the Séamus Ludlow case and others about which there have always been strong suspicions in the community and which are subject to examination by Mr. Justice Barron who it is hoped will report shortly.

I know that many of the allegations that have arisen in recent years centre on the force research unit. I am aware from allegations surrounding Brian Nelson and arising from the work of the British Irish Rights Watch and the Stevens investigation that this unit has been implicated in the murder of Pat Finucane. I am aware of that but, needless to say, I cannot support it. However, I do not want to say that I am not aware of what has been said about that unit. That unit again surfaces in all this. In any of my discussions with the British Prime Minister I have never been able to nor, if I were talking to him today, would I be able to obtain information about the force research unit.

Has the attention of the Taoiseach been drawn to a case reported in the Irish Independent where a District Court prosecution taken by the Department of Agriculture and Food against a County Offaly farmer, John Fleury, was thrown out by Mr. Justice Tom Fitzpatrick? The reason I raise it is because of the history of the case, the long-standing disputes covering a series of issues that have existed between the Department and Mr. Fleury and the exceptionally serious and shocking nature of the allegations made by him against departmental staff.

I do not propose to name those individuals in the House at this stage or to repeat in detail the grave claims made by Mr. Fleury. I have met him and, over a few years, have heard his detailed account. I assure the Taoiseach of my conviction that these claims warrant urgent investigation. I first became involved when he asked me to intervene with a financial institution when his family home and farm were at risk because of the oppressive behaviour of the Department towards him.

Essentially Mr. Fleury says that, since 1997 when he succeeded in overturning a decision halting the live cattle export trade, he has been a victim of an official campaign of harassment and interference that has culminated in groundless criminal prosecutions which involved withholding from the defence relevant evidence and, most seriously of all, the falsification of evidence, including documents, against him by officials in the Department of Agriculture and Food.

If his claims are even partially proven in future litigation, the State and relevant civil servants will be liable under civil law for large amounts of compensation to Mr. Fleury and certain individuals may also face serious criminal charges. At this stage, investigations are under way into these matters by the Garda, the Ombudsman and the Competition Authority and preliminary papers are with the Director of Public Prosecutions. I stress that it is not Mr. Fleury who is under investigation by these bodies, but a Department of State headed by one of the Taoiseach's colleagues in Government.

I have listened to what Deputy Rabbitte said and am not aware of the case other than the article I saw this morning. I saw in one of the newspapers a photograph of the said gentleman which was taken following a case yesterday which he won on a technicality that the time it took to bring the case forward was too long. I was not aware of the other allegations. I would be glad to raise them with the Department. It has not given me any report other than this was a case brought against the individual for not complying with brucellosis claims, but the man won his case based on the fact that the procedure took too long. I am not aware of any of the other matters. If I understand the Deputy correctly, he is stating that the man was harassed for some period by the Department officials or inspectors. I will ask the Minister and the Department officials to examine that matter and I will inform the Deputy. I have no facts in the case, but I will be glad to do that.

I do not expect the Taoiseach to have detailed information on this and I accept what he says. I assure the Taoiseach that the claims do not relate to any technicalities. They relate, for example, to tests for brucellosis being altered, evidence being fabricated and other similarly serious matters. If it were an isolated case it would warrant investigation but given that it is not the first concerning some officials – and I emphasise, some officials, because the gentleman himself would be full of praise for the conduct of other officials in the Department of Agriculture and Food – it warrants investigation. It is not the first case; there was Emerald Meats, Goodman and a number of cases that exposed the taxpayer to millions in compensation. While the case against him was dismissed yesterday on the grounds of a three and a half year delay in bringing the case to court, there are 160 summonses outstanding in circumstances that are reminiscent of the summons spree against Frank Shortt, although in this case, not initiated by the Garda but by the Department of Agriculture and Food. If those summonses are dismissed on similar grounds or if the Department simply decides to cut its losses and proceed no further with the matter, then we will be none the wiser as to the history of this affair and to the truth or otherwise of Mr. Fleury's allegations.

I remind the Taoiseach that it has not just arrived in the public domain today; I refer him to an article by the journalist, Justine McCarthy, on 22 February 2003. I am grateful for the Taoiseach's undertaking to inquire with the Department of Agriculture and Food about the background to this case. I would be obliged if he would let me know in due course.

I will certainly do that. My only knowledge is from the case of yesterday. I know the leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Rabbitte, would not raise the issue unless he believed the individual in the case, Mr. Fleury. The Deputy is saying these matters were altered and fabricated in these cases and that is a very serious matter which I will take up. If that is true then it is a pity that the case was thrown out on a technicality because otherwise these matters would be tested and it would then have been dealt with in what is perhaps the appropriate place rather than in this House. I will be glad to ask the Minister and through the Minister, his officials, to give us a report on this case. I will undertake to reply directly to Deputy Rabbitte on the issue.

This week marks the end of the first year of the Taoiseach's second term in Government and almost six years since he first became Taoiseach. I ask the Taoiseach to reflect for a few moments on that past six years? This week also marks the price of a modest home in Dublin being close to €250,000 whereas private rented accommodation comes at a crucifying cost for those who cannot afford the house costing €250,000. The health service which Fianna Fáil grievously wounded in the 1980s' cutbacks is now under severe threat again. Wexford General Hospital is threatened with closure, refurbished wings of Blanchardstown Hospital, incredibly, may not be able to open because of shortage of funds. A most appalling cutback has taken place in respite care for carers of intellectually handicapped young people, with desperate parents forced to take their case on to the streets of Dublin.

At the same time, obscene profiteering continues in land speculation. The chief executives of the major corporations are raking in more than €1 million in income each year. Huge profiteering exists in the banking sector. Would it not be a fair summary of the Taoiseach's six years in office to say that his policies have sated the greed of the speculator, the rack-renter, the financier and the profiteering cabal in certain services?

His policy as Taoiseach ensured a huge and continuing transfer of wealth from working people and poor people to the minority of big corporations, big finance and the big players in the building industry. I ask the Taoiseach to be very specific in his answer. Is it his intention to continue with this policy if he has another four years left? Is it credible to think that he might change course, reverse the policy-driven shift of transfers from those who produce most of the wealth who are ordinary working people, to the wealthy minority and thereby find the resources to restore the services that are under so much threat and to stop the profiteering and the suffering it is causing for ordinary working people and young people, in particular, needing a home?

I will deal first with the areas where I agree with the Deputy before dealing with that with which I disagree. Wherever there is any unreasonable profiteering within the system and wherever people are taking what they should not be able to take, I will continue to operate such policy measures as the Government has done in the past through the Bacon reports, the two Planning and Development Acts and Part V of the Act which deals with the integration of social housing and whatever other measures are required to make the system fairer and at the same time increase supply of houses so that people can obtain a home. Compared to the past, enormous resources are now being given to address the issue of homelessness and voluntary and social housing issues.

I disagree with the Deputy on the other issues he raised. What any Government must do is create the economic circumstances whereby the ordinary people referred to by the Deputy and whom he and I represent, are given the opportunity to have a job, a quality of life and the dignity of work. In a few years and not all within my period of office, we have seen 600,000 additional people in employment and the expansion of home ownership. We have seen a move away from the policies that discourage inward investment. There is a fair tax regime for both corporate and personal tax so that can generate the wealth and resources needed to put into services. In the past decade and in the past six years we have been able to make enormous increases in public expenditure and to help in the areas of health, education, social welfare and other areas. This is due to the mix of policies which are not directed on any basis that is unfair. I assure the Deputy that we will continue to attempt to address the outstanding issues.

I represent ordinary people and I do not believe the Taoiseach really does because his Government has implemented a policy of very specifically enriching a minority at the expense of ordinary people. Many people will find it quite amazing that after six years we now have the Taoiseach tilting at the windmills that many of us have been pointing to for the past six years, the profiteering by those cabals who are making life so difficult for ordinary people.

Given that the Minister may have another four years – perhaps the term of the Government will end long before then – he could make decisions which would have a significant impact on services and the lives of ordinary people from the lower to the greater end of the scale. He could even powder his own nose and redirect the resources that go into that into areas of social necessity.

The Deputy's minute has concluded.

This could include the millions being spent on jets. Could the €1 billion which is being given back to the corporate sector in tax breaks this year be redirected to the health services, respite care and other crucial areas of need? This would be a real help to those who are struggling in a society which the Taoiseach is responsible for having created in the past six years?

I remind the Deputy that we spend €38 billion in this country and, thankfully, we do not borrow too much. The money is generated from what Deputy Higgins refers to as the corporate sector who generate the wealth that allows us to provide the services. A country does not generate wealth on its own without the services. Even though the Deputy has spent many years involved in the fringes of public life, he still does not understand the basic economic fact that most people in the socialist world have long understood.

We will continue to sustain policies that generate the opportunity for people to work and to have sufficient money so that they can live a life with dignity and respect. We must generate the resources to provide substantial increases in services so that those who cannot work, including the aged, young people or people with difficulties, can have dignity and a quality of life. That is what we must continue to do and it is what we have been doing remarkably well in recent years.

Barr
Roinn